ReviewBMJ global health2026
Characterising concerns and misinformation shaping global HIV vaccine confidence and demand: a structured literature search and content analysis.
Review in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDemand for a future HIV vaccine, similar to other vaccines, is vulnerable to misinformation. A number of studies have examined HIV vaccine acceptability and demand, but few have systematically explored the specific concerns and misinformation that shape these attitudes. This structured review and content analysis of published and grey literature identifies concerns about the HIV vaccine that might fuel misinformation about the vaccine when it is available.
methodsA literature search was conducted across multiple publication databases and Google Scholar with a search strategy that used a combination of keywords. A web search was also conducted to identify other unpublished sources. Articles, including published and grey literature such as reports, were included if they were published in English and contained HIV vaccine concerns or misinformation. There was no defined timeline for article inclusion. HIV vaccine concerns extracted from the literature were documented in an Excel database and coded using NVivo V.12. Content analysis revealed several distinct topics.
resultsFrom a total of 78 articles and 9 reports, 333 concerns were extracted and included in the analysis. Seven topics emerged: (1) HIV vaccine safety, including concerns about side effects; (2) HIV vaccine causing HIV infection; (3) vaccine-related stigma and social concerns; (4) behavioural implications of the HIV vaccine, including concerns that the vaccine promotes risky behaviours; (5) conspiracy theories about the vaccine fuelled by distrust in governments and scientists; (6) concerns about partial efficacy of the vaccine and (7) HIV vaccine access, including eligibility for and availability of the vaccine.
conclusionsThis review highlights key concerns about an HIV vaccine, many of which are both influenced by misinformation and could seed future misinformation campaigns. The findings can inform targeted interventions to counter misinformation and communicate the vaccine's preventive benefits to populations at highest risk of HIV.
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.