Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36191018›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

A social ecological approach to identify the barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination acceptance: A scoping review.

Penny Lun, Jonathan Gao, Bernard Tang, Chou Chuen Yu, Khalid Abdul Jabbar, James Alvin Low, Pradeep Paul George

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. International journal of circumpolar health · 2024
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Penny LunGeriatric Education and Research Institute Limited, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8125-7411
Jonathan GaoGeriatric Education and Research Institute Limited, Singapore, Singapore.
Bernard TangGeriatric Education and Research Institute Limited, Singapore, Singapore.
Chou Chuen YuGeriatric Education and Research Institute Limited, Singapore, Singapore.
Khalid Abdul JabbarGeriatric Education and Research Institute Limited, Singapore, Singapore.
James Alvin LowGeriatric Education and Research Institute Limited, Singapore, Singapore.
Pradeep Paul GeorgeGeriatric Education and Research Institute Limited, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-4743-1425
Geriatric Education and Research Institute · SGNanyang Technological University · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that has caused substantial impact on population health, healthcare, and social and economic systems around the world. Several vaccines have been developed to control the pandemic with varying effectiveness and safety profiles. One of the biggest obstacles to implementing successful vaccination programmes is vaccine hesitancy stemming from concerns about effectiveness and safety. This review aims to identify the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance and to organize the factors using the social ecological framework.

methodsWe adopted the five-stage methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley to guide this scoping review. Selection criteria was based on the PICo (Population, Phenomenon of interest and Context) framework. Factors associated with acceptance and hesitancy were grouped into the following: intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, and public policy factors using the social ecological framework.

resultsFifty-one studies fulfilled this review's inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in Europe and North America, followed by Asia and the Middle East. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy rates varied across countries. Some common demographic factors associated with hesitancy were younger age, being female, having lower than college education, and having a lower income level. Most of the barriers and facilitators to acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines were intrapersonal factors, such as personal characteristics and preferences, concerns with COVID-19 vaccines, history/perception of general vaccination, and knowledge of COVID-19 and health. The remaining interpersonal, institution, community, and public policy factors were grouped into factors identified as barriers and facilitators.

conclusionOur review identified barriers and facilitators of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy and organised them using the social ecological framework. While some barriers and facilitators such as vaccine safety are universal, differentiated barriers might exist for different target groups, which need to be understood if they are to be addressed to maximize vaccine acceptance.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansMalePatient Acceptance of Health CareSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID36191018
PMCPMC9529136
OpenAlexW4300689569

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.