Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36469911›Full record

SynthesisJMIR public health and surveillance2023

The Prevalence, Features, Influencing Factors, and Solutions for COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation: Systematic Review.

Sihong Zhao, Simeng Hu, Xiaoyu Zhou, Suhang Song, Qian Wang, Hongqiu Zheng, Ying Zhang, Zhiyuan Hou

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Unpacking the Risk of Misinformation: A Communication-Based Critique.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Sihong Zhao *School of Public Health, Global Health Institute, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9832-0843
Simeng Hu *School of Public Health, Global Health Institute, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2446-3929
Xiaoyu ZhouSchool of Public Health, Global Health Institute, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0681-7068
Suhang SongDepartment of Health Policy and Management, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1934-632X
Qian WangSchool of Public Health, Global Health Institute, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5855-5875
Hongqiu ZhengSchool of Public Health, Global Health Institute, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6927-6855
Ying ZhangSchool of Public Health, Global Health Institute, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8088-1925
Zhiyuan HouSchool of Public Health, Global Health Institute, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3413-0076

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, infodemic spread even more rapidly than the pandemic itself. The COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been prevalent worldwide and hindered pandemic exiting strategies. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines is a vital contributor to vaccine hesitancy. However, no evidence systematically summarized COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.

objectiveThis review aims to synthesize the global evidence on misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines, including its prevalence, features, influencing factors, impacts, and solutions for combating misinformation.

methodsWe performed a systematic review by searching 5 peer-reviewed databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO). We included original articles that investigated misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines and were published in English from January 1, 2020, to August 18, 2022. We excluded publications that did not cover or focus on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. The Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies, version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist were used to assess the study quality. The review was guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288929).

resultsOf the 8864 studies identified, 91 observational studies and 11 interventional studies met the inclusion criteria. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines covered conspiracy, concerns on vaccine safety and efficacy, no need for vaccines, morality, liberty, and humor. Conspiracy and safety concerns were the most prevalent misinformation. There was a great variation in misinformation prevalence, noted among 2.5%-55.4% in the general population and 6.0%-96.7% in the antivaccine/vaccine hesitant groups from survey-based studies, and in 0.1%-41.3% on general online data and 0.5%-56% on antivaccine/vaccine hesitant data from internet-based studies. Younger age, lower education and economic status, right-wing and conservative ideology, and having psychological problems enhanced beliefs in misinformation. The content, format, and source of misinformation influenced its spread. A 5-step framework was proposed to address vaccine-related misinformation, including identifying misinformation, regulating producers and distributors, cutting production and distribution, supporting target audiences, and disseminating trustworthy information. The debunking messages/videos were found to be effective in several experimental studies.

conclusionsOur review provides comprehensive and up-to-date evidence on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and helps responses to vaccine infodemic in future pandemics.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021288929; https://tinyurl.com/2prejtfa.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPandemicsPrevalenceCOVID-19 Vaccinesanti-vaccineCOVID-19COVID-19 vaccinemisinformationreviewsocial mediasurvey

Identifiers

PMID36469911
PMCPMC9838721

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.