ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026
Social Perception, Trust, and Reluctance Towards Vaccines: A Bibliometric Analysis (2019-2025).
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mindfulness-based interventions in psychopedagogy for students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): a scoping review.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Psychosocial risks in Latin America: trends and research gaps.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- HPV vaccine hesitancy among Chinese adults and its influencing factors in the context of improved vaccine accessibility.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyze social perception, trust, and vaccine hesitancy through a combined approach of bibliometric analysis and qualitative synthesis, based on the most cited articles in the recent scientific literature. A systematic search was conducted in indexed databases, identifying patterns of production, collaboration, citation, thematic networks, and conceptual trends associated with the study of public trust in vaccines. The results reveal a marked geographic concentration of scientific production, dominated by the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as a strong articulation of thematic clusters linked to digital disinformation, health communication, risk perception, and psychosocial determinants of vaccine acceptance. The qualitative synthesis of the most influential studies reveals that vaccine hesitancy is a multidimensional phenomenon, determined by sociocultural, cognitive, emotional, and structural factors that interact dynamically according to each context. Disinformation, institutional trust, community narratives, and the credibility of sources emerge as central components in individual decision-making. Together, the integrated results enable a deeper understanding of vaccine hesitancy beyond traditional cognitive models, highlighting the need for contextualized communication strategies, intercultural approaches, and health policies based on trust and social participation. This study provides an integral view of the scientific landscape and establishes priority lines for future research and the design of effective public health interventions.
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.