SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2025
Determinants and Motivations of Vaccination Hesitancy and Uptake in Nurses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Associations between susceptibility to online health misinformation, health risk behaviors and vaccine hesitancy among nursing students in Greece.Frontiers in psychology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimVaccinations are essential to ensure protection for healthcare professionals, patients and communities. However, vaccination hesitancy has been reported among healthcare professionals. Nurses are the main, first and direct point of contact for patients and citizens in most healthcare services, but only a minority of studies investigated vaccination hesitancy and uptake specifically in this population. Thus, this study aimed to explore the determinants and motivations of vaccination hesitancy and uptake among nurses.
designSystematic review with a narrative synthesis approach.
methodsWe included primary research exploring determinants or motivations of vaccination hesitancy or uptake among nurses. No time or geographical limit was applied. Generalised random-effects linear models with a logit link were used to calculate the pooled estimated proportions for vaccine uptake among nurses. DATA SOURCES: We explored nine databases (2023).
resultsThe initial search identified 3452 records; 42 records were eventually included in this review. Older age, longer professional experience, lack of confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness and cost associated with the vaccine were among the most common determinants of vaccine hesitancy. Safety concerns, complacency (e.g., beliefs of not needing the vaccine), and accessibility (e.g., logistics) were among the most common motivations for being vaccine hesitant. Having strong confidence in the vaccine, a high sense of collective responsibility, previous vaccination uptake/positive intentions towards future vaccination, weaker vaccine complacency, and older age were among the most common determinants of vaccine uptake. Willingness to protect themselves and/or others, contribute to the herd immunity, and comply with recommendations were among the most common motivations for vaccine uptake. The pooled prevalence of influenza vaccine uptake among nurses was 44% (95% CI: 35-73).
conclusionThe findings of this systematic review with meta-analysis could guide the identification of strategies to reduce barriers and further improve facilitators to eventually increase vaccine uptake in nurses. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: This study contributes to further understanding nurses' beliefs, barriers, and facilitators towards vaccination. By doing so, these results could guide the identification of strategies to reduce barriers and further improve facilitators to eventually increase vaccine uptake in nurses. REPORTING
methodWe have adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines, in particular to the PRISMA checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
trial registrationPROSPERO number: CRD42020212252.
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.