Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36160668›Full record

ReviewZeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health2022

Determinants for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the general population: a systematic review of reviews.

Aysegul Humeyra Kafadar, Gamze Gizem Tekeli, Katy A Jones, Blossom Stephan, Tom Dening

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
14.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Prevalence, nature, and determinants of COVID-19-related conspiracy theories among healthcare workers: a scoping review.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aysegul Humeyra KafadarAcademic Unit of Mental Health and Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6154-6152
Gamze Gizem TekeliAcademic Unit of Mental Health and Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Katy A JonesAcademic Unit of Mental Health and Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Blossom StephanAcademic Unit of Mental Health and Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Tom DeningAcademic Unit of Mental Health and Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
University of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: Although multiple COVID-19 vaccines are approved for global use, vaccine hesitancy poses a substantial risk for global health. Therefore, the aim of this umbrella review is to identify those factors that influence COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the general population. This is necessary to improve the effectiveness of future vaccination programmes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) were searched on December 21, 2021. This review included reviews which investigated factors of intention, willingness, or hesitancy with regard to the COVID-19 vaccination in adult populations, with no restrictions on setting. Content-based structure was used to synthesise the extracted data. The findings were presented based on the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) Working Group Model for vaccine hesitancy. Results: A total of 3,392 studies were identified, of which 31 met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently documented factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy included contextual factors, such as sex, age, and social inequalities; individual and group factors, such as trust in the healthcare system, public health authorities, and governments, and history of vaccination; vaccine-specific factors, such as concern for vaccine safety, perceived vaccine barriers, perceived effectiveness of vaccines, and concern about the rapid development of the vaccine; and disease-specific factors, such as fear of being infected with COVID-19, perceived severity of COVID-19, and knowledge of COVID-19. Conclusion: There are multiple factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Our findings lay the foundation to further understand COVID-19 vaccination uptake and provide possible targets for intervention programmes. However, there are gaps in research concerning certain populations, including vaccination in people with mental disorders. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-022-01753-9.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Systematic reviewVaccination determinantsVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID36160668
PMCPMC9483252
OpenAlexW4296251680

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.