From the baseline data of 1,834 participants (‘starter’), relevant data on vaccine usage were further analyzed from 1,706 participants (93% ‘completers’). The sample consisted of 1,444 women, 244 men, and 18 individuals who identified themselves as either diverse or not specifying their gender identity. Regarding age, we analyzed a median age of 53 years among all participants. The mean age was calculated to be 51.04 years, with a standard deviation of 10.84 years. Their ages ranged from 19 to 82 years. Disaggregation of data by gender identity is shown in Table 1.
Of the 1,706 individuals, 1,545 were yoga practitioners (91% of ‘completers’), 157 “denied” being yoga practitioners (9% of ‘completers’), and 4 could not be specified. Interestingly, among those who denied being yoga practitioners, 78 answered that they
Table 1
Description of survey participants (N = 1,706).
| Women | Men | Diverse/not specified | Total (na) |
All participants (‘Completers’) | 1444 | 244 | 18 | 1706 |
Age in years (number of valid counts) Median Mean ± SD Range | 1386 53 51,04 ± 10,84 19–82 | 233 54 52,3 ± 11,79 22–80 | 7 55 53,71 ± 14,8 30–78 | 1626 |
Yoga practitioner Non-yoga practitioner No answer | 1333 107 4 | 198 46 - | 14 3 - | 1545 157 4 |
Yoga practitioners enrolled in the survey (n = 1545) |
Age in years (na) Median Mean ± SD Range | 1281 52 50,86 ± 10,75 19–82 | 190 54 52,75 ± 11,3 22–80 | 4 49,5 47,25 ± 13,3 30–60 | 1475 |
Duration of yoga (in years, na) Median Mean ± SD Range | 1317 10 12,81 ± 9,47 0–55 | 205 12 14,13 ± 10,13 1–49 | 6 8 9,25 ± 5,9 2,5–18 | 1528 |
Frequency of yoga (na, %) <once a week once a week >once a week once/day | 1326 (86,6) 85 (6) 229 (15) 702 (46) 310 (20) | 198 (13) 15 (1) 31 (2) 93 (6) 59 (4) | 6 (0,4) 1 (0,07) 1 (0,07) 3 (0,2) 1 (0,07) | 1530 (100) 101 (7) 261 (17) 798 (52) 370 (24) |
Frequency of meditation (na, %) <once a week once a week >once a week once/day | 1292 (87) 281 (19) 199 (13) 505 (34) 307 (22) | 193 (13) 36 (2,5) 24 (1,5) 74 (5) 59 (4) | 6 (0,4) 1 (0,07) 0 (0) 1 (0,07) 4 (0,3) | 1491 (100) 318 (21) 223 (15) 580 (39) 370 (25) |
Strictness of vegetarian lifestyle (na, %) Not vegetarian Not at all strict Not that strict Somewhat strict Strict vegetarians | 1333 (87) 230 (15) 76 (5) 235 (15) 406 (26) 386 (25) | 198 (13) 26 (1,7) 13 (0,9) 28 (1,8) 62 (4) 69 (4,5) | 6 (0,4) 2 (0,13) 0 (0) 0(0) 1 (0,07) 3 (0,2) | 1537 258 (17) 89 (6) 263 (17) 469 (30) 458 (30) |
Yoga is ab Hobby Lifestyle Spiritual path Physical activity (fitness) Conscious way of living | 257 (17) 723 (47) 801 (52) 310 (20) 1017 (66) | 33 (2) 124 (8) 143 (9) 48 (3) 147 (10) | 1 (0,07) 3 (0,02) 5 (0,3) 12 (0,3) (0,07) | 291 (19) 850 (55) 949 (62) 359 (23) 1168 (76) |
Vaccination status (na, %) Already vaccinated Considering vaccination Declining vaccination | 1268 (86,6) 850 (58) 70 (5) 348 (24) | 189 (13) 114 (8) 13 (1) 62 (4) | 5 (0,4) 3 (0,2) 0 (0) 2 (0,2) | 1462 (100) 967 (66) 83 (6) 412 (28) |
an = number of valid counts.
bMultiple answers were possible (n = 1537).
SD = standard deviation
practiced less than once a week, and four practiced more than once a week, while the others did not answer questions regarding the frequency of practice. Of the 157 non-yoga practitioners, 143 practiced meditation, and 113 (75 women, 35 men) meditated more than once a week. Thus, this study focused only on yoga practitioners (n = 1,545).
Yoga Practitioners’ Demographic and Characteristics
According to the survey results shown in Table 1, the majority of participants were women (n = 1,333, 86%), with an average age of 50.86 ± 10.75 years, ranging from 19 to 82 years. On an average, participants had been practicing yoga for 12.81 ± 9.47 years. Over half of the practitioners practiced yoga (52%) and meditated (39%) several times per week. Additionally, 60% were somewhat or very strict vegetarians. Most participants regarded yoga as a conscious way of living (76%), 62% saw it as a spiritual path, and over half perceived yoga as a lifestyle (55%). Only one in five viewed it as a hobby or just a physical activity (23%). Of the 967 people (66%) already vaccinated, 850 were women (58%) and 114 were men (8%). Regarding those considering vaccination, 70 women (5%) and 13 men (1%) planned to receive it, while 348 women (24%) and 62 men (4%) refused vaccination.
Vaccine Refusal and Age Correlation
Descriptive statistics demonstrated that participants who accepted vaccination had an average age of 51.44 ± 10.77 years compared with those who declined vaccination, who had an average age of 50.48 ± 11.1 years. A two-tailed t-test indicated no significant difference between the two groups regarding age as a dependent variable (t (1,402) = 1.49, p = 0.137, with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.31, 2.22]). Therefore, the null hypothesis was maintained, with an effect size of Cohen’s d = 0.09, indicating a marginal effect.
Vaccine Refusal and Gender Correlation
To explore the relationship between vaccine refusal and gender identity and its predictive ability to determine whether individuals who identify themselves as either women or men, logistic regression analysis was conducted. Neither the model for the variable ‘women‘ (Chi2 = 2.43, p = 0.119, n = 1537) nor the model for the variable “man” (Chi2 = 2.29, p = 0.13, n = 1537) was significant. Further analysis explored how a combination of age and sex impacts vaccine refusal, revealing a trend for a statistical significant (Chi2 (3) = 8.86, p = 0.031, n = 1404), with a medium effect size (Cramér’s V = 0.3). Although the overall model showed a significant p-value, the specific effects of age and gender identify on vaccine refusal were not significant and showed a trend only.
Vaccine Refusal and Frequency of Practice
The analysis shown in Table 2 indicated that daily yoga practice had a positive coefficient (b = 0.22, OR = 1.24) on vaccine refusal. However, this effect was not statistically significant for the overall model (Chi2 (6) = 12.97, p = 0.043; n = 1466).
Table 2
Logistic regression analysis of vaccine refusal and frequency of practice.
| b | Standard error | z | p | 95% confidence interval |
Frequency of yoga practice | | | | | |
At least once/day | 0.22 | 0.28 | 0.77 | 0.441 | 0.72–2.15 |
Several times a week | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.785 | 0.64–1.80 |
Once a week | 0.16 | 0.28 | 0.58 | 0.564 | 0.68–2.05 |
Frequency of meditation | | | | | |
At least once/day | 0.52 | 0.18 | 2.83 | 0.005** | 1.17–2.42 |
Several times a week | 0.29 | 0.17 | 1.73 | 0.083 | 0.96–1.87 |
Once a week | 0.24 | 0.20 | 1.16 | 0.245 | 0.85–1.90 |
*Statistically significant at the 1% level.
Similarly, a positive but not statistically significant effect was found for those who practiced yoga several times per week (b = 0.07, OR = 1.07). Therefore, there was no link between the frequency of yoga practice and vaccine refusal (Chi2 (3) = 5.19, p = 0.158). In contrast, while the frequency of meditation practice was generally insignificant, daily meditation practice had a significantly positive but very small effect on vaccine refusal (b = 0.52, p = 0.005, Cohen’s d = 0.02). Furthermore, years of yoga practice had no significant effect on vaccine refusal (Chi2 = 1.73, p = 0.189, n = 1459), with an OR of 1.01, indicating a minimal increase in the likelihood of refusal with each additional year of yoga practice.
Vaccine Refusal and Well-being
Logistic regression analysis investigating the influence of psychological well-being, as indicated by the WHO-5 total score, on vaccination rejection showed that the model was overall significant (Chi2 = 5.27, p = 0.022, n = 1465). The coefficient for the variable was b = 0.03, indicating that an increase in the WHO-5 total score was associated with an increase in the probability of refusing vaccination. A p-value of 0.022 indicates that this influence is statistically significant only at a 5% significance level. An increase in the WHO-5 total score by one unit increases the probability of refusal by 3% (OR = 1.03). With an R2 of 0.04, the regression model showed that the variables ‘at least once a day,‘ ‘several times a week,’ and ‘once a week’ explained only 4% of the variance in the WHO-5 total score.
In predicting the WHO-5 score, the model had a standard error estimate of 4.02. ANOVA revealed that the effect was significantly different from zero based on the available sample (F = 21.64, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.04; Table 3). For all three values of the variable ‘frequency of meditation,‘ Cohen’s effect size f2 was 0.04, indicating a marginal effect. Therefore, the frequency of meditation is a significant factor in yoga practitioners’ well-being.
Table 3
Multiple linear regression analysis of the influence of meditation on WHO-5 total score.
| Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients | | | | 95% confidence interval for B |
Model | b | Beta | Standard error | t | p | Lower limit | Upper limit |
Constant | 15.19 | | 0.21 | 71.48 | < 0.001* | 14.78 | 15.61 |
At least once/day | 2.32 | 0.24 | 0.30 | 7.75 | < 0.001* | 1.74 | 2.91 |
Several times a week | 1.41 | 0.17 | 0.27 | 5.20 | < 0.001* | 0.88 | 1.94 |
At least once a week | 0.71 | 0.06 | 0.35 | 2.05 | 0.04** | 0.03 | 1.39 |
* Statistically significant at the 1% level.
** Statistically significant at the 5% level.
Vaccine Refusal and Vegetarianism
The results of testing the general model, including the four categories ‘strictly vegetarian,’ ‘somewhat strict,‘ ‘not so strict,‘ and ‘not strict at all,‘ showed statistical significance (Chi2 (4) = 26.45, p < 0.001, n = 1466; Table 4). Furthermore, adherence to a strict vegetarian diet had a significant influence on vaccination behavior (b = 0.88, p < 0.001, OR = 2.41).
Table 4
Logistic regression analysis of vaccination refusal and vegetarian diet.
| b | Standard error | z | p | Odds ratio | 95% confidence interval |
Constant | -1.57 | 0.17 | 9.23 | < 0.001* | 0.21 | 0.15–0.29 |
Strict vegetarian | 0.88 | 0.20 | 4.45 | < 0.001* | 2.41 | 1.64–3.55 |
Somewhat strict | 0.75 | 0.20 | 3.77 | < 0.001* | 2.11 | 1.43–3.12 |
Not that strict | 0.40 | 0.22 | 1.8 | 0.072 | 1.50 | 0.96–2.32 |
Not at all strict | 0.87 | 0.28 | 3.07 | 0.002** | 2.39 | 1.37–4.17 |
*Statistically significant at the 1% level.
**Statistically significant at the 5% level.
Similar results were found in the evaluation of the categories ‘somewhat strict‘ and ‘not strict at all.‘ However, although the influence of ‘not at all strict‘ was statistically significant, this did not apply to the influence of a ‘not so strict‘ vegetarian diet (p = 0.072). These results suggest a correlation between the degree of vegetarianism practice and the likelihood of vaccine refusal. Strict vegetarianism indicated an increased likelihood of vaccination refusal.
Vaccine Refusal and Meaning of Yoga to the Individual
The importance of yoga to a person significantly influenced vaccine refusal (Chi2 = 37.2, p < 0.001, n = 1466). If someone rejected to see yoga only as a pure hobby, the probability of vaccine refusal increased by 94% (OR = 1.94) as shown in Table 5. If the person viewed yoga as a spiritual path, the likelihood of refusing the vaccination increased by 63% (OR = 1.63), with a statistical significance of p < 0.001. However, if yoga was viewed as a lifestyle, a conscious way of life, or a type of physical activity, the effect on vaccine refusal was not statistically significant.
Table 5
Logistic regression analysis of vaccine refusal and meaning of yoga to an individual.
| b | Standard error | z | p | Odds ratio | 95% confidence interval |
Yoga is a hobby – no | 0.66 | 0.18 | 3.71 | < 0.001* | 1.94 | 1.37–2.76 |
Yoga is a lifestyle – yes | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.846 | 1.02 | 0.80–1.31 |
Yoga is a spiritual path – yes | 0.49 | 0.13 | 3.74 | < 0.001* | 1.63 | 1.26–2.10 |
Yoga is a physical activity – yes | -0.13 | 0.15 | 0.87 | 0.386 | 0.88 | 0.65–1.18 |
Yoga is a conscious way of living – yes | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.26 | 0.794 | 1.04 | 0.79–1.37 |
*Statistically significant.
Vaccine Refusal and Yoga Philosophy and Yoga Ethics
The results of the influence of the frequency of studying the philosophical foundations of yoga on vaccine refusal considered three categories: daily study, at least once a week, and at least once a month.
The goal was to predict whether respondents would oppose vaccination. Surprisingly, the overall model did not show a significant association (Chi2 (3) = 6.27, p = 0.099, n = 1466). This suggests that the frequency of studying the philosophical background of yoga alone was not a strong predictor of vaccine refusal.
A comprehensive logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate the influence of yamas and niyamas on vaccine refusal. The four factors examined were santosha/svadhyaya/ishvara pranidhana, satya/brahmacharya/tapah, aparigraha, and ahimsa, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Logistic regression analysis of the influence of the yamas/niyamas on vaccination refusal.
| b | Standard error | z | p | Odds ratio | 95% confidence interval | |
Santosha/svadhyaya/ishvara pranidhana | 0.37 | 0.09 | 3.97 | < 0.001* | 1.45 | 1.21–1.75 | |
Satya/brahmacharya/tapah | 0.39 | 0.13 | 3.15 | 0.002** | 1.48 | 1.16–1.90 | |
Aparigraha | 0.24 | 0.07 | 3.35 | 0.001* | 1.27 | 1.10–1.45 |
Ahimsa | 0.18 | 0.09 | 2.01 | 0.045** | 1.20 | 1.00–1.42 |
*Statistically significant at the 1% level.
**Statistically significant at the 5% level.
Results of this analysis showed a significant influence (Chi2 (4) = 19.54, p < 0.001, n = 1465). Regarding aparigraha, the coefficient was positive (b = 0.24), indicating that an increase in this factor was associated with a high probability of vaccination refusal. This relationship was statistically significant (p < 0.001), with an odds ratio of 1.27, suggesting that a unit increase in aparigraha increased the likelihood of vaccine refusal by 1.27 times, as shown in Table 6.
Similar observations were made for satya/brahmacharya/tapah, where a positive coefficient (b = 0.39) was observed, indicating an increased tendency to refuse vaccination as the magnitude of this factor increased. The significance of this relationship (p < 0.002) was supported by an odds ratio of 1.48. Ahimsa showed a similar trend, with a positive coefficient (b = 0.18), indicating an increased tendency to refuse vaccination as the magnitude of this factor increased. The statistical significance at a level of 5% (p = 0.043) and the associated odds ratio of 1.2 underscore the relevance of this relationship.