SynthesisBMC public health2025
How populist-aligned views affect receipt of non-COVID-19-related public health interventions: a systematic review of quantitative studies.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The association between populist-aligned views and engagement with public health interventions: a systematic review of longitudinal studies.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Correction: How populist-aligned views affect receipt of non-COVID-19-related public health interventions: a systematic review of quantitative studies.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Differences in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake according to region of birth: findings from a cross-sectional survey in Sweden.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Parents' perspectives on childhood antibiotic treatment in Ireland-a qualitative study.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, there is increasing evidence of resistance to government-led public health interventions in areas such as vaccination, climate change mitigation, sexual and reproductive healthcare, and the implementation of non-pharmaceutical infection control measures. One potential explanation for this could be the documented global rise in populist attitudes, characterised by distrust of scientific, government and other perceived 'elites.' While the effect of such attitudes on engagement with COVID-19-related interventions has been extensively considered and researched, their association with the receipt of other public health interventions is currently underexplored.
methodsTo understand how populist-aligned views might influence the receipt of public health interventions addressing areas other than COVID-19, we systematically reviewed quantitative research published across thirteen bibliographic databases and relevant websites between 2008 and 2024. All studies were set in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
resultsAcross 30 included studies, the vast majority of which were cross-sectional, we found evidence that populist-aligned attitudes have a negative impact on the receipt of public health interventions including vaccinations, sexual and reproductive health care and preventive health care. We also found preliminary evidence of the negative role of populist-aligned attitudes on the receipt of disease screening related to HIV/AIDS and adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions during times of public health emergency, such as the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.
conclusionsAlthough providing limited evidence of causality, the findings from this review suggest the need for future policy in many OECD countries to focus on trust-building between the public and political, scientific, and medical establishments. They also indicate the need for mitigation strategies to overcome the potentially negative impact of populist-style hostility towards out-groups on attitudes related to pressing public health issues such as abortion and family planning, for example by drawing on empathy-centred approaches. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42024513124.
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.