Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36056325›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2022

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic; a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.

Emily Terry, Sapphire Cartledge, Sarah Damery, Sheila Greenfield

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Willingness to pay for herpes zoster vaccination in urban China.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emily TerryUniversity of Birmingham, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, England. elt724@student.bham.ac.uk.
Sapphire CartledgeUniversity of Birmingham, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, England.
Sarah DameryInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, England.
Sheila GreenfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA high COVID-19 vaccine uptake is essential to achieve herd immunity to combat the current strain of COVID-19 and potential future variants. This review aimed to identify factors associated with public intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines until February 2021 to provide accessible data to policymakers to inform framing and targeting of messages designed to optimise vaccine uptake.

methodsMedline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Sociological Abstracts and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts were searched for cross-sectional studies reporting data regarding COVID-19 vaccine intentions, published between 01/01/2020 and 12/02/2021. Title/abstract and full-text screening were performed independently by two authors. The Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies (AXIS) was used to assess bias and quality. Both random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were used to describe vaccine intentions and associated factors. A subgroup analysis assessing the impact of sex, sampling method and time of survey on COVID-19 vaccine intention was performed.

resultsSearches identified 4739 studies, and 23 cross-sectional studies were deemed eligible for the review; 22 used online surveys and one used a mixed-methods study design. Eighteen surveys were conducted in the first half of 2020 and five were conducted in the latter half of 2020. Fifteen countries were represented, with the most common being the United States (n = 4) and the United Kingdom (n = 4) sampling 41,403 participants across all surveys. Most studies employed convenience sampling and 11 non-responder rates raised concerns over non-response bias. From the 18 studies included in the meta-analysis, the pooled proportion of survey participants willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was 73.3% (n = 18, 95% Confidence Interval 64.2 to 81.5%, I

conclusionsThere was a high willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine which was influenced by sociodemographic factors and risk perceptions. The findings suggest future research should explore reasoning behind vaccine intentions for different sociodemographic groups to allow targeted communication strategies to be formulated by public health agencies. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021239134.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansIntentionMalePandemicsUnited StatesVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesAttitudes to HealthCoronavirusCOVID-19Health behaviourPandemicPublic HealthVaccineVaccine hesitancyVaccine intentions

Identifiers

PMID36056325
PMCPMC9437387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.