Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37847250›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of health promotion : AJHP2024

A Scoping Review on Gender/Sex Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Uptake in the United States.

Katelyn M Sileo, Inara M Hirani, Rebecca L Luttinen, Matt Hayward, Paul J Fleming

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of health promotion : AJHP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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. Review
  18. 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.

Katelyn M SileoThe Department of Public Health, College of Health, Community, and Policy, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3714-2945
Inara M HiraniThe Department of Public Health, College of Health, Community, and Policy, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Rebecca L LuttinenThe Department of Demography, College of Health, Community, and Policy, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Matt HaywardThe John Peace Library, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Paul J FlemingThe Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, The School of Public Health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

A Gender Transformative Implementation Strategy with Providers to Improve HIV Outcomes in UgandaK01MH121663 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO · PI SILEO, KATELYN MARY · 2020 to 2023
$596k
NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH121663
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the empirical literature on gender/sex differences in vaccine acceptance among U.S.-based adults and adolescents in approximately the first 2 years of the pandemic. DATA SOURCE: Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, EBSCO, CINAHL, Web of Science. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed studies conducted in the U.S. with those aged 12 and older, published in English before January 12, 2022, examining the relationship between gender/sex on COVID-19 vaccine intentions and/or uptake. DATA EXTRACTION: Three authors screened studies and extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Univariate and multivariate results are summarized.

resultsA total of 53 studies met inclusion criteria (48 intentions, 7 uptake), using mostly cross-sectional designs (92.5%) and non-random sampling (83.0%). The majority of studies supported men's greater intentions to vaccinate compared to women, and men's greater vaccine uptake in univariate analyses, but most multivariate analyses supported no gender differences in uptake. Few studies examined gender beyond binary categories (women/men), highlighting a gap in the studies inclusive of transgender or gender-diverse populations in analyses.

conclusionWomen may have been more hesitant to get the vaccine than men early in the pandemic, but these differences may not translate to actual behavior. Future research should include non-binary/transgender populations, explore the gender-specific reasons for hesitancy and differences by sub-populations, utilize more rigorous designs, and test gender-sensitive public health campaigns to mitigate vaccine concerns.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdolescentAdultChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIntentionMaleSex CharacteristicsVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19genderUnited Statesvaccination

Identifiers

PMID37847250
PMCPMC10802093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.