ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Understanding the COVID-19 vaccine uptake, acceptance, and hesitancy in Ethiopia and Tanzania: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Health beliefs model and vaccine acceptance: insights from the COVID-19 pandemic among non-medical personnel in Mwanza, Tanzania.BMC public health · 2026Article
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: The development and implementation of COVID-19 vaccines have been a breakthrough in controlling the pandemic. However, the vaccination coverage in most low-income countries remains very low due to critical vaccine shortage and profound hesitancy. In this scoping review, we aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccine uptake, acceptance, and hesitancy in Ethiopia and Tanzania. Methods: The search was made in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Only original research articles focusing on vaccine acceptance and hesitancy were included. The studies selected for a full read were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Findings: A total of 76 articles were included in the study, with 74 of them coming from Ethiopia. The study found an increasing trend in vaccine uptake over time. However, there was also an increase in hesitancy and a decline in willingness to receive the vaccine. The willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in Ethiopia ranged from 18.5 to 88%. The main reasons for "vaccine hesitancy" included fear of side effects, concerns about long-term safety, doubts about vaccine effectiveness, lack of information, vaccine fast-tracking, and religious beliefs. The study also found that younger individuals, females, and pregnant women were less willing to receive the vaccine. The adverse events reported among vaccinated individuals were mostly mild. Most of the studies operationalised vaccine acceptance-hesitancy as dichotomous variables. However, the historical, political, and socio-cultural context in which vaccine acceptance and hesitancy occur was not given any attention. While there is a good amount of data from Ethiopia describing patterns of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among different populations over time, there is limited information from Tanzania due to the late arrival of the vaccine and limited published articles. Conclusion: We have observed a paradox involving two seemingly conflicting trends: an increase in vaccination rates/coverage and "anti-vax." Most studies have simplified vaccine acceptance-hesitancy as an "either-or" incident, without considering its dynamic nature and occurrence within a broader political, social, and cultural context. Therefore, it is crucial to explore approaches that can enhance our understanding of the vaccine acceptance-hesitancy phenomenon, in order to improve vaccine trust and uptake.
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.