ArticleHealth science reports2022
What has been learned about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Pakistan: Insights from a narrative review.
Article in Health science reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Article
- What has been learned about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Pakistan: Insights from a narrative review.Health science reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vaccine hesitancy is not a new phenomenon to Pakistan. This is evidenced through the slow progress of previous vaccination campaigns and programs against MMR, BCG, and especially polio. This issue continues to persist and is therefore becoming the cause of low COVID-19 vaccination rates in Pakistan. Aim: To provide insights about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Pakistanis, and its potential harm on public health. Moreover, we aim provide recommendations to counter the factors limiting the COVID-19 vaccination in Pakistan. Methodology: A Boolean search was conducted to find the literature in MEDLINE-PubMed, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases up till March 16, 2022. Specific keywords were used which comprised of "SARS-CoV-2," "COVID-19," "vaccine hesitancy," "vaccine acceptance," "intention to vaccinate," and "Pakistan," with use of "OR" and "AND." Only free full-text original studies in English language were used to compare and contrast. Results: As proven by various studies, COVID-19 vaccination rates are influenced by multiple factors, including inaccurate beliefs about COVID-19, hesitancy amongst healthcare workers, uncertainty regarding vaccine's efficacy and fear of side effects. Various conspiracy theories and lower testing rates among others also add up to impose a negative impact on the vaccination rates and public health of Pakistan. This may lead to newer strains of potentially harmful COVID-19, mental health deterioration, and prolonged lockdowns. Conclusion: Vaccine hesitancy is a global public health threat, and its impacts are pronounced in Pakistan. This is reflected in the COVID-19 pandemic; low vaccination rates in Pakistan may lead to future outbreaks of new, potentially harmful, strains of COVID-19 which can prolong lockdowns in the country and affect mental health of the population. To improve the current situations, it is imperative for the government, educational institutes, and healthcare systems to develop trust and continually use dialogue, communication, and education to address misconceptions to improve COVID-19 vaccination in Pakistan.
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.