Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39077035›Full record

ReviewScience in One Health2023

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy worldwide and its associated factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Matin Baghani, Farzan Fathalizade, Amir Hossein Loghman, Noosha Samieefar, Farbod Ghobadinezhad, Ronak Rashedi, Hediyeh Baghsheikhi, Fatemeh Sodeifian, Milad Rahimzadegan, Meisam Akhlaghdoust

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Science in One Health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Celebrating three years ofScience in One Health · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Matin BaghaniFunctional Neurosurgery Research Center, Shohada Tajrish Comprehensive Neurosurgical Center of Excellence, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Farzan FathalizadeFunctional Neurosurgery Research Center, Shohada Tajrish Comprehensive Neurosurgical Center of Excellence, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Amir Hossein LoghmanUSERN Office, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Noosha SamieefarUSERN Office, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Farbod GhobadinezhadStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Ronak RashediUSERN Office, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hediyeh BaghsheikhiUSERN Office, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Fatemeh SodeifianUSERN Office, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Milad RahimzadeganFunctional Neurosurgery Research Center, Shohada Tajrish Comprehensive Neurosurgical Center of Excellence, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Meisam AkhlaghdoustFunctional Neurosurgery Research Center, Shohada Tajrish Comprehensive Neurosurgical Center of Excellence, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has taken a toll on humans, and the development of effective vaccines has been a promising tool to end the pandemic. However, for a vaccination program to be successful, a considerable proportion of the community must be vaccinated. Hence, public acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has become the key to controlling the pandemic. Recent studies have shown vaccine hesitancy increasing over time. This systematic review aims to evaluate the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rate and related factors in different communities. Method: A comprehensive search was performed in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2019 to January 31, 2022. All relevant descriptive and observational studies (cross-sectional and longitudinal) on vaccine hesitancy and acceptance were included in this systematic review. In the meta-analysis, odds ratio (OR) was used to assess the effects of population characteristics on vaccine hesitancy, and event rate (acceptance rate) was the effect measure for overall acceptance. Publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot, Egger's test, and trim-and-fill methods. Result: A total of 135 out of 6,417 studies were included after screening. A meta-analysis of 114 studies, including 849,911 participants, showed an overall acceptance rate of 63.1%. In addition, men, married individuals, educated people, those with a history of flu vaccination, those with higher income levels, those with comorbidities, and people living in urban areas were less hesitant. Conclusion: Increasing public awareness of the importance of COVID-19 vaccines in overcoming the pandemic is crucial. Being men, living in an urban region, being married or educated, having a history of influenza vaccination, having a higher level of income status, and having a history of comorbidities are associated with higher COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

Indexed as

CoronavirusCOVID-19Meta-analysisSARS-CoV-2Vaccine acceptanceVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID39077035
PMCPMC11262288

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.