Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40075423›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

Modifiable risk factors of vaccine hesitancy: insights from a mixed methods multiple population study combining machine learning and thematic analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Omid V Ebrahimi, Ella Marie Sandbakken, Sigrun Marie Moss, Sverre Urnes Johnson, Asle Hoffart, Sarah Bauermeister, Ole André Solbakken, Lars T Westlye, Esten H Leonardsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Childhood infectious diseases: experiences and challenges.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Omid V EbrahimiDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Anna Watts Building, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. omid.ebrahimi@psy.ox.ac.uk.
Ella Marie SandbakkenDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Sigrun Marie MossDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Sverre Urnes JohnsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Asle HoffartModum Bad Psychiatric Hospital and Research Center, Vikersund, Norway.
Sarah BauermeisterDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ole André SolbakkenDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Lars T WestlyeDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Esten H LeonardsenDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd 288083
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccine hesitancy, the delay in acceptance or reluctance to vaccinate, ranks among the top threats to global health. Identifying modifiable factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy is crucial for developing targeted interventions to increase vaccination uptake.

methodsThis mixed-methods multiple population study utilized gradient boosting machines and thematic analysis to identify modifiable predictors of vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy were investigated in 2926 Norwegian adults (M

resultsThe machine learning model performed well in discerning vaccine hesitant (n = 248, 8.48% and n = 109, 14.85%, Norway and UK, respectively) from vaccine uptaking individuals (n = 2678, 91.52% and n = 625, 85.15%), achieving an AUC of 0.94 (AUPRC: 0.72; balanced accuracy: 86%; sensitivity = 0.81; specificity = 0.98) in the Norwegian sample, and an AUC of 0.98 (AUPRC: 0.89; balanced accuracy: 89%; sensitivity = 0.83; specificity = 0.97) in the out-of-sample replication in the UK. The mixed methods investigation identified five categories of modifiable risk tied to vaccine hesitancy, including illusion of invulnerability, doubts about vaccine efficacy, mistrust in official entities, minimization of the societal impact of COVID-19, and health-related fears tied to vaccination. The portrayal of rare incidents across alternative media platforms as fear amplifiers, and the mainstream media's stigmatizing presentation of unvaccinated individuals, were provided as additional motives underlying vaccine reluctance and polarization. The thematic analysis further revealed information overload, fear of needles, previous negative vaccination experiences, fear of not getting healthcare follow-up after vaccination if needed, and vaccine aversion due to underlying (psychiatric) illness (e.g., eating disorders) as motives underlying vaccine hesitance.

conclusionsThe identified influential predictors were consistent across two European samples, highlighting their generalizability across European populations. These predictors offer insights about modifiable factors that could be adapted by public health campaigns in mitigating misconceptions and fears related to vaccination toward increasing vaccine uptake. Moreover, the results highlight the media's responsibility, as mediators of the public perception of vaccines, to minimize polarization and provide accurate portrayals of rare vaccine-related incidents, reducing the risk aggravating fear and reactance to vaccination.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesMachine LearningVaccinationVaccination HesitancyAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayPandemicsRisk FactorsSARS-CoV-2United KingdomCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)General adult populationMachine learningMixed methods studyPandemicThematic analysisVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID40075423
PMCPMC11905715

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.