ArticleJournal of global infectious diseases
Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Hesitancy and Acceptance among the Indian Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of global infectious diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The disastrous impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic worldwide necessitated the prompt development of vaccines to combat the situation; however, vaccination drives have been challenged by vaccine hesitancy among several communities across geographies. Understanding vaccine hesitancy and acceptance can help design appropriate vaccination strategies. With this background, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the prevalence and assess the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among the Indian population. Methods: This systematic review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The data were extracted from May 1, 2024, to May 30, 2024, using PubMed, Scopus, and DOAJ search engines. The keywords used in the search string are "COVID-19," "vaccine hesitancy," "vaccine acceptance," and "India." Finally, 26 articles were selected, and the included articles underwent a quality assessment with the help of the JBI-Checklist for cross-sectional studies. The pooled vaccine hesitancy and acceptance prevalence was estimated at a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random effect model assuming potential heterogeneity. Analysis used Stata Now 18 SE (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). Results: Of the 26 studies, 14 studies were conducted among healthcare workers, seven studies among the general population, two studies among pregnant women and one each among school children, parents, and socioeconomically disadvantaged people. The reported highest vaccine acceptance was 92.74% and 86.3%, and hesitancy was 60.8% and 50% among healthcare workers and the general population, respectively. Between the general population and healthcare workers, the estimated pooled prevalence of vaccine acceptance is 66.1% (95% CI: 53%-78%) and 65.9% (95% CI: 57%-74%), respectively. The estimated pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy is 33% (95% CI: 20%-46%) among the general population and 24% (95% CI: 11%-40%) among healthcare workers. With the random effect model, high heterogeneity was observed in both acceptance ( Conclusion: A significant variation in the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine has been reported across different regions of India. Hence, future research is needed to enable comparability and generalizability, as the variations may also reflect differences in study designs, demographics, and time frames.
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.