Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36217424›Full record

ReviewVaccine: X2022

Trust is the common denominator for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: A literature review.

Bipin Adhikari, Phaik Yeong Cheah, Lorenz von Seidlein

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccine: X, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
18.5field-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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 123 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. "Just be honest with us": A qualitative analysis of Canadians' public trust during the COVID-19 pandemic.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Bipin AdhikariMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Phaik Yeong CheahMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Lorenz von SeidleinMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mahidol University · THUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccine hesitancy and refusal to be vaccinated are major reasons why mass vaccination strategies do not reach the intended coverage, even if adequate vaccine supply has been achieved. The main objective of this study is to explore the role and contribution of trust in public willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccinations. The study utilised a qualitative synthesis of literature around hesitancy, willingness to accept vaccination, and the role of trust. Data were extracted from the literature and first categorised using a deductive approach, and later analysed in QSR NVivo using a mix of deductive and inductive approaches. The impact of trust was mostly borne out in the willingness to accept a vaccine, but details on what trust is, how and why it affects willingness or lack of it, was not frequently reported. Three types of trust were identified: 1) Trust in the quality and safety of vaccines; 2) Institutional trust; and 3) Interpersonal trust in the professionals who communicate about and administer the vaccine. Trust in the vaccines' quality and safety, and institutional affiliation significantly contributed towards willingness to be vaccinated. The bulk of the literature focused on how interpersonal trust and personal attributes of potential vaccinees affected the willingness to accept the vaccine. This complex relationship included a fragility of beliefs and perceptions at an individual level, with a bidirectional relationship to societal perceptions. Perceptions of vaccines had a predominant role in decision-making, in contrast to more science-based decision-making. Although globally, the perceptions and beliefs contributing to trust had commonalities and relevance, trust was often found to be dependent on factors embedded in local social, cultural, institutional, and individual attributes and experiences. Understanding different types of trust offers potential approaches to motivate undecided people to receive vaccine; and vaccine refusers to revisit their decisions.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 vaccineInstitutional trustPerceptionsTrustVaccineVaccine hesitancyWillingness to take vaccine

Identifiers

PMID36217424
PMCPMC9536059
OpenAlexW4298009414

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.