1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

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

      COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

      review-article
      , PhD 1 , , PhD 2 , , , PhD 3 , , MD 4 , , PhD 1 , , MD 5 , , MD 6 , , MD 7 , , PhD 8 , 9 , 10 , , PhD 11 , , PhD 8 , 12 , , PhD 13 , 14 , , PhD 15 , , PhD 16 , , PhD 17 , , PhD 18 , , PhD 19 , , PhD 20 , , PhD 21
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
      JMIR Publications
      COVID-19, vaccine acceptance, vaccine hesitancy, umbrella review, systematic review, meta-analysis, vaccine, hesitancy, global perceptions, perception, random effect model, synthesis, healthcare workers, patients, patient, chronic disease, pregnant women, parents, child, children

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Background

          The unprecedented emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the development and global distribution of vaccines, making the understanding of global vaccine acceptance and hesitancy crucial to overcoming barriers to vaccination and achieving widespread immunization.

          Objective

          This umbrella review synthesizes findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide insights into global perceptions on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy across diverse populations and regions.

          Methods

          We conducted a literature search across major databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analysis that reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. The AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) criteria were used to assess the methodological quality of included systematic reviews. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 17 with a random effect model. The data synthesis is presented in a table format and via a narrative.

          Results

          Our inclusion criteria were met by 78 meta-analyses published between 2021 and 2023. Our analysis revealed a moderate vaccine acceptance rate of 63% (95% CI 0.60%-0.67%) in the general population, with significant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 97.59%). Higher acceptance rates were observed among health care workers and individuals with chronic diseases, at 64% (95% CI 0.57%-0.71%) and 69% (95% CI 0.61%-0.76%), respectively. However, lower acceptance was noted among pregnant women, at 48% (95% CI 0.42%-0.53%), and parents consenting for their children, at 61.29% (95% CI 0.56%-0.67%). The pooled vaccine hesitancy rate was 32% (95% CI 0.25%-0.39%) in the general population. The quality assessment revealed 19 high-quality, 38 moderate-quality, 15 low-quality, and 6 critically low-quality meta-analyses.

          Conclusions

          This review revealed the presence of vaccine hesitancy globally, emphasizing the necessity for population-specific, culturally sensitive interventions and clear, credible information dissemination to foster vaccine acceptance. The observed disparities accentuate the need for continuous research to understand evolving vaccine perceptions and to address the unique concerns and needs of diverse populations, thereby aiding in the formulation of effective and inclusive vaccination strategies.

          Trial Registration

          PROSPERO CRD42023468363; https://tinyurl.com/2p9kv9cr

          Related collections

          Most cited references115

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

          AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

          The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

            The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates

              Utility of vaccine campaigns to control coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) is not merely dependent on vaccine efficacy and safety. Vaccine acceptance among the general public and healthcare workers appears to have a decisive role in the successful control of the pandemic. The aim of this review was to provide an up-to-date assessment of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rates worldwide. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed English survey literature indexed in PubMed was done on 25 December 2020. Results from 31 peer-reviewed published studies met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis for the final COVID-19 vaccine acceptance estimates. Survey studies on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were found from 33 different countries. Among adults representing the general public, the highest COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were found in Ecuador (97.0%), Malaysia (94.3%), Indonesia (93.3%) and China (91.3%). However, the lowest COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were found in Kuwait (23.6%), Jordan (28.4%), Italy (53.7), Russia (54.9%), Poland (56.3%), US (56.9%), and France (58.9%). Only eight surveys among healthcare workers (doctors and nurses) were found, with vaccine acceptance rates ranging from 27.7% in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to 78.1% in Israel. In the majority of survey studies among the general public stratified per country (29/47, 62%), the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination showed a level of ≥70%. Low rates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were reported in the Middle East, Russia, Africa and several European countries. This could represent a major problem in the global efforts to control the current COVID-19 pandemic. More studies are recommended to address the scope of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Such studies are particularly needed in the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Middle and South America. Addressing the scope of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in various countries is recommended as an initial step for building trust in COVID-19 vaccination efforts.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Public Health Surveill
                JMIR Public Health Surveill
                JPH
                JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2369-2960
                2024
                30 April 2024
                : 10
                : e54769
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Molecular Toxicology and Genetics Riyadh Elm University Riyadh Saudi Arabia
                [2 ] Center for Global Health Research Saveetha Medical College and Hospital Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University Chennai India
                [3 ] School of Management The Apollo University Chittoor India
                [4 ] Faculty of Humanities and Health Sciences Curtin University Miri Sarawak Malaysia
                [5 ] Division of Evidence Synthesis Global Consortium of Public Health and Research Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education Wardha India
                [6 ] One Health Centre (COHERD) Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education Wardha India
                [7 ] South Asia Infant Feeding Research Network Division of Evidence Synthesis School of Epidemiology and Public Health and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research Wardha India
                [8 ] Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare Dhahran Saudi Arabia
                [9 ] College of Medicine Alfaisal University Riyadh Saudi Arabia
                [10 ] Department of Public Health and Nutrition The University of Haripur Haripur Pakistan
                [11 ] Department of Pharmacy Practice College of Pharmacy Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Riyadh Saudi Arabia
                [12 ] Research Center Dr Sulaiman Alhabib Medical Group Riyadh Saudi Arabia
                [13 ] College of Medicine and Health Science Khalifa University Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates
                [14 ] Sheikh Khalifa Medical City Abu Dhabi Health Services Company (SEHA) Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates
                [15 ] Department of Medical Laboratory College of Applied Medical Sciences Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University Al-Kharj Saudi Arabia
                [16 ] Deparment of Pharmacy Jubail General Hospital Jubail Saudi Arabia
                [17 ] Department of Medicine Batterjee Medical College Jeddah Saudi Arabia
                [18 ] Medical Laboratories Techniques Department AL-Mustaqbal University Babil Iraq
                [19 ] School of Applied and Life Sciences Uttaranchal University Dehradun India
                [20 ] School of Pharmacy Graphic Era Hill University Dehradun India
                [21 ] Department of Conservative Dentistry with Endodontics Medical University of Silesia Katowice Poland
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Prakasini Satapathy prakasini.satapathy@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0829-2082
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7614-8587
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6090-9641
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9414-4010
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9727-7804
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5875-8277
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3012-7438
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1435-899X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6774-9847
                https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6186-848X
                https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6558-7143
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7680-1141
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4045-0810
                https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8226-3240
                https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3126-3730
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5111-9456
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1247-1040
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5556-9638
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0022-8382
                Article
                v10i1e54769
                10.2196/54769
                11062401
                38687992
                b9b970de-4c58-4718-9dd9-c1a2a58dc3e5
                ©Tahani Al Rahbeni, Prakasini Satapathy, Ramaiah Itumalla, Roy Rillera Marzo, Khalid A L Mugheed, Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib, Shilpa Gaidhane, Quazi Syed Zahiruddin, Ali A Rabaan, Hayam A Alrasheed, Maha F Al-Subaie, Nawal A Al Kaabil, Mohammed Alissa, Amani Ahmed A L Ibrahim, Hussain Abdulkhaliq Alsaif, Israa Habeeb Naser, Sarvesh Rustagi, Neelima Kukreti, Arkadiusz Dziedzic. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 30.04.2024.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://publichealth.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 21 November 2023
                : 1 January 2024
                : 16 January 2024
                : 22 January 2024
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                covid-19,vaccine acceptance,vaccine hesitancy,umbrella review,systematic review,meta-analysis,vaccine,hesitancy,global perceptions,perception,random effect model,synthesis,healthcare workers,patients,patient,chronic disease,pregnant women,parents,child,children

                Comments

                Comment on this article