ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Perceived shifts in routine vaccine confidence during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kinshasa Province, DRC: A mixed-methods approach.
Article in PLOS global 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 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.
- Correction: Perceived shifts in routine vaccine confidence during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kinshasa Province, DRC: A mixed-methods approach.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted routine immunizations worldwide, decreasing confidence in vaccination programs. We used mixed methods to examine changes in vaccine confidence from before to during the pandemic in HBV-negative adults in Kinshasa who were exposed to HBV in the household, and eligible for HBV vaccination. We measured changes in routine HBV vaccine confidence with a previously validated Shift in Vaccine Confidence (SVC) self-report measure that was verbally administered in Lingala (local language). We compared vaccination confidence before versus during the pandemic using Chi-square tests. We also interviewed participants and coded open-ended responses to the SVC scale to explore context-specific perceptions. From April 2022 to February 2023, we administered the SVC tool to a purposive sample of 41 participants: 7 vaccinees, 23 willing to receive HBV vaccine, and 11 refusers. Participants had a median age of 32 years, were predominantly affiliated with Revivalist churches, and most reported unemployment and no education beyond secondary school. We observed statistically significant declines across all five vaccine confidence domains when comparing responses before and during the pandemic (p < 0.01): vaccines prevent diseases (85.4%-68.3%), are safe (80.5%-46.3%), important for a child's health (92.7%-87.8%) and one's own health (87.8%-68.3%), and new vaccines carry no more risk than routine vaccines (78.1%-63.5%). Qualitative analysis identified four themes impacting uptake decisions: vaccine confidence, knowledge, risks, and external influences. Rising uncertainty about efficacy, safety, and distrust in the COVID-19 vaccine undermined vaccine confidence among our participants. Factors such as distrust in manufacturers and government, fear of side effects, perceived low illness risk, and inconvenient healthcare access contributed to low vaccine uptake. These insights underscore the pandemic's impact on routine immunization and emphasize the need for consideration in future vaccination campaigns.
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.