1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A global bibliometric analysis of research productivity on vaccine hesitancy from 1974 to 2019

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Vaccine hesitancy is a phenomenon where individuals delay or refuse to take some or all vaccines. The objective of this study was to conduct a global bibliometric analysis of research productivity and identify country level indicators that could be associated with publications on vaccine hesitancy. We searched PubMed and Web of Science for publications from 1974 to 2019, and selected articles focused on behavioral and social aspects of vaccination. Data on country-level indicators were obtained from the World Bank. We used Spearman’s correlation and zero-inflated negative-binomial regression models to ascertain the association between country level indicators and the number of publications. We identified 4314 articles, with 1099 eligible for inclusion. The United States of America (461 publications, 41.9%), Canada (84 publications, 7.6%) and the United Kingdom (68 publications, 6.2%) had the highest number of publications. Although various country indicators had significant correlations with vaccine hesitancy publications, only gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national income (GNI) per capita were independent positive predictors of the number of publications. When the number of publications were standardized by GDP, the Gambia, Somalia and Malawi ranked highest in decreasing order. The United States, Canada and United Kingdom ranked highest (in that order) when standardized by current health expenditure. Overall, high-income countries were more productive in vaccine hesitancy research than low-and-middle-income countries. There is a need for more investment in research on vaccine hesitancy in low-and-middle-income countries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?

          Bibliometric methods or “analysis” are now firmly established as scientific specialties and are an integral part of research evaluation methodology especially within the scientific and applied fields. The methods are used increasingly when studying various aspects of science and also in the way institutions and universities are ranked worldwide. A sufficient number of studies have been completed, and with the resulting literature, it is now possible to analyse the bibliometric method by using its own methodology. The bibliometric literature in this study, which was extracted from Web of Science, is divided into two parts using a method comparable to the method of Jonkers et al. (Characteristics of bibliometrics articles in library and information sciences (LIS) and other journals, pp. 449–551, 2012: The publications either lie within the Information and Library Science (ILS) category or within the non-ILS category which includes more applied, “subject” based studies. The impact in the different groupings is judged by means of citation analysis using normalized data and an almost linear increase can be observed from 1994 onwards in the non-ILS category. The implication for the dissemination and use of the bibliometric methods in the different contexts is discussed. A keyword analysis identifies the most popular subjects covered by bibliometric analysis, and multidisciplinary articles are shown to have the highest impact. A noticeable shift is observed in those countries which contribute to the pool of bibliometric analysis, as well as a self-perpetuating effect in giving and taking references.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Social media and vaccine hesitancy

            Background Understanding the threat posed by anti-vaccination efforts on social media is critically important with the forth coming need for world wide COVID-19 vaccination programs. We globally evaluate the effect of social media and online foreign disinformation campaigns on vaccination rates and attitudes towards vaccine safety. Methods Weuse a large-n cross-country regression framework to evaluate the effect ofsocial media on vaccine hesitancy globally. To do so, we operationalize social media usage in two dimensions: the use of it by the public to organize action(using Digital Society Project indicators), and the level of negative lyoriented discourse about vaccines on social media (using a data set of all geocoded tweets in the world from 2018-2019). In addition, we measure the level of foreign-sourced coordinated disinformation operations on social media ineach country (using Digital Society Project indicators). The outcome of vaccine hesitancy is measured in two ways. First, we use polls of what proportion ofthe public per country feels vaccines are unsafe (using Wellcome Global Monitor indicators for 137 countries). Second, we use annual data of actual vaccination rates from the WHO for 166 countries. Results We found the use of social media to organise offline action to be highly predictive of the belief that vaccinations are unsafe, with such beliefs mounting as more organisation occurs on social media. In addition, the prevalence of foreign disinformation is highly statistically and substantively significant in predicting a drop in mean vaccination coverage over time. A 1-point shift upwards in the 5-point disinformation scale is associated with a 2-percentage point drop in mean vaccination coverage year over year. We also found support for the connection of foreign disinformation with negative social media activity about vaccination. The substantive effect of foreign disinformation is to increase the number of negative vaccine tweets by 15% for the median country. Conclusion There is a significant relationship between organisation on social media and public doubts of vaccine safety. In addition, there is a substantial relationship between foreign disinformation campaigns and declining vaccination coverage.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of published reviews.

              When faced with vaccine hesitancy, public health authorities are looking for effective strategies to address this issue. In this paper, the findings of 15 published literature reviews or meta-analysis that have examined the effectiveness of different interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and/or to enhance vaccine acceptance are presented and discussed. From the literature, there is no strong evidence to recommend any specific intervention to address vaccine hesitancy/refusal. The reviewed studies included interventions with diverse content and approaches that were implemented in different settings and targeted various populations. Few interventions were directly targeted to vaccine hesitant individuals. Given the paucity of information on effective strategies to address vaccine hesitancy, when interventions are implemented, planning a rigorous evaluation of their impact on vaccine hesitancy/vaccine acceptance will be essential.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Hum Vaccin Immunother
                Hum Vaccin Immunother
                Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
                Taylor & Francis
                2164-5515
                2164-554X
                3 May 2021
                2021
                3 May 2021
                : 17
                : 9
                : 3016-3022
                Affiliations
                [a ]Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council; , Cape Town, South Africa
                [b ]Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University; , Cape Town, South Africa
                [c ]Biostatistics Unit, South African Medical Research Council; , Durban, South Africa
                [d ]School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town; , Cape Town, South Africa
                [e ]Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University; , Cape Town, South Africa
                Author notes
                CONTACT Anelisa Jaca anelisaj@ 123456gmail.com Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council; , Cape Town, South Africa.
                Article
                1903294
                10.1080/21645515.2021.1903294
                8381789
                33939571
                0e5fadaa-ee0c-48a6-8d0b-9831cb9ec8ea
                © 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 4, References: 25, Pages: 7
                Product
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Paper

                Molecular medicine
                vaccine hesitancy,bibliometric analysis; country level indicators; research productivity

                Comments

                Comment on this article