SynthesisBMC public health2025
Comparative synthesis of sociocultural and political influences (SPIs) on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: an interdisciplinary systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been shaped by diverse sociocultural and political influences (SPIs), rendering it a multifaceted and context-specific issue. Various studies spanning different academic domains have endeavoured to dissect these diverse SPIs, revealing that the impact of a particular influencer can vary significantly depending on the context and disciplinary interpretation. However, prevailing review literature has predominantly focused on enumerating influential factors without providing in-depth contextual backgrounds or disciplinary interpretations. Additionally, a majority of these studies have been confined within specific disciplines, hindering the development of a holistic understanding of vaccine hesitancy. To broaden the scope of knowledge, this study aims to systematically review how SPIs on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy have been approached and interpreted across disciplines.
methodsThis systematic review adopted a qualitative comparative synthesis approach to explore how SPIs on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy had been approached (including their selection and application) in each study across disciplines. Five databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus) were searched to identify peer-reviewed studies that primarily focused on exploring SPIs on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthy adults. Out of 665 records initially retrieved, 28 studies met the eligibility criteria.
resultsStudies that adopted theoretical frameworks explored SPIs from four approaches: 1) Social Cognitive, 2) Disposition-Environment Interaction, 3) Critical Medical anthropology/Medical Ecology, and 4) Social Structures. For studies without theoretical framework were synthesized into three main themes: 1) influences from political ideology, 2) interaction between political views and trust in science; and 3) contextual social cognitive determinants.
conclusionsThis qualitative comparative synthesis facilitated the comparison of diverse studies from multiple disciplines. The integration of theoretical and empirical evidence illustrated how different disciplines interpreted SPIs on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, enhancing interdisciplinary understanding and underscoring theoretical and practical research opportunities and gaps. These findings highlighted the complexity of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and emphasised the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach in advancing future vaccine research and communication. Additionally, the findings outlined promising avenues for future interdisciplinary research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023440041.
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.