ReviewAnnals of global health2021
SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in India: Considerations of Hesitancy and Bioethics in Global Health.
Review in Annals of global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Development of a Conceptual Framework of Health Misinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of Reviews.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Pooled it
- Ethical principles across countries: does 'ethical' mean the same everywhere?Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Health belief model based predictors and perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination amongst frontline health workers.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Meghalaya, India: Multiple correspondence and agglomerative hierarchical cluster analyses.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A narrative review of four South Asian countries.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Worldwide mass vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, while having been the most critical action in combating further waves of COVID-19, was initially fraught with multiple infrastructural and socio-cultural challenges. Vaccine hesitancy, a phenomenon of doubt over the vaccines' claimed efficacy and/or safety amidst access to vaccination, emerged as a major challenge for global health, despite approval and regular post-marketing surveillance by major regulatory bodies. Methods: We reviewed the literature related to vaccine hesitancy in India published until November 14, 2021 using relevant keywords in various databases and examined it from a bioethical perspective. Results: Factors driving hesitancy either intensified skepticism towards vaccination in general or exacerbated reluctance towards specific vaccines. In India, hesitancy towards indigenously developed vaccines was aggravated by the lack of peer-reviewed phase III trial data before the start of vaccination, lack of public transparency of regulatory bodies, and presence of public perception of inappropriately expedited processes. This perspective piece discusses the state of mass immunization in India as a case of how vaccination and its hesitancy thereof gave rise to unique bioethical challenges in global health. In early 2021, vaccination in India was subject to difficulties in adhering to the principles of equity and justice, while a compromise of the principles of informed consent, beneficence, and non-maleficence also perhaps did occur. Conclusions: Post-pandemic debriefing on the subversion of bioethical principles will be needed, and an appropriate response may be required to rebuild and enhance the public faith in future mass vaccination movements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.