Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38166685›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2024

Mpox vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ammar Mektebi, Mohamed Elsaid, Tularam Yadav, Fatima Abdallh, Mohamad Assker, Abdelmonem Siddiq, Reem Sayad, Motaz Saifi, Ramadan Abdelmoez Farahat

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

9 authors.

Ammar MektebiFaculty of Medicine, Kutahya Health Sciences University, Kutahya, Turkey.
Mohamed ElsaidMedical Research Platform, Cairo, Egypt. mohamed65295@student.must.edu.eg.
Tularam YadavMedical Research Platform, Cairo, Egypt.
Fatima AbdallhMedical Research Platform, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamad AsskerMedical Research Platform, Cairo, Egypt.
Abdelmonem SiddiqMedical Research Platform, Cairo, Egypt.
Reem SayadMedical Research Platform, Cairo, Egypt.
Motaz SaifiMedical Research Platform, Cairo, Egypt.
Ramadan Abdelmoez FarahatFaculty of Medicine, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMpox is a zoonotic viral disease that emerged in May 2022 and has since shown a high prevalence in non-mpox-endemic areas, resulting in an outbreak that caused more than 84,000 cases in 110 countries around the globe. Several vaccines are available to prevent the disease, and multiple studies have been conducted to assess the attitudes of different populations toward receiving the mpox vaccine. This study systematically reviews all the studies conducted on mpox vaccine acceptance/hesitancy among healthcare workers.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted through four electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, up to March 2023. Studies that described mpox vaccine acceptance/hesitancy among healthcare workers were included, and the data were extracted using a uniform extraction sheet. Following the extraction, the meta-analysis included ten studies with 7322 healthcare workers. Three researchers independently assessed the risk of bias in the included study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).

resultsTen studies were included in the review. This review indicates that the prevalence of mpox vaccine acceptance was 58.5%, and the prevalence of mpox vaccine hesitancy was 41.5%. There was a higher prevalence of acceptance in countries located in Asian and African areas compared to those in North America and Europe, estimated at 68% and 44.3%, respectively. Among the studies conducted solely among physicians, there was a high prevalence of mpox vaccine acceptance, at 77.1%, compared to 49% in studies that included all healthcare workers.

conclusionThere is a significant variation in the prevalence of mpox vaccine acceptance among different populations. Further research is needed to identify the factors that contribute to this variation and to develop interventions to increase vaccine acceptance. In addition, it is important to promote research on mpox vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among healthcare workers in countries where data is limited. This research will help policymakers develop effective policies to increase acceptance and reduce the disease burden.

Indexed as

Mpox, MonkeypoxPhysiciansSmallpox VaccineHealth PersonnelHumansZoonosesSmallpox VaccineHealthcare workersMeta-AnalysisMpoxVaccineVaccine acceptanceVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID38166685
PMCPMC10759337

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.