SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Acceptability of the Ebola vaccine in the sub-Saharan African population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEbola virus disease is a very serious disease, with a case-fatality rate of around 50%, and a high epidemic potential. Vaccination is a vital intervention to stop the spread of disease and prevent future epidemics. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the level of acceptability of the Ebola vaccine among the population of sub-Saharan Africa.
methodsWe conducted an exhaustive systematic search to identify relevant studies. we included observational or cross-sectional studies. we conducted an extensive search of electronic libraries (Pubmed/medline, Google scholar and Index Medicus Africa) covering the period January 2014 to December 2024. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Q test Cochran and I² index were used to assess heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were performed according to year, country, gender, and sample size. Publication bias was assessed graphically by a funnel plot and statistically by Egger test.
resultsA total of 11 studies involving 14,826 participants were included. The meta-analysis found that the level of acceptability of the Ebola vaccine was 74.0% (95% CI: 65.0–82.0). Heterogeneity between studies was highly significant (I²=99.16%, P < 0.001). The level of acceptability being slightly higher in male-dominated studies (75.6%; 95% CI:71.4% − 79.6%) and in studies conducted after 2020 (78.4%; 95% CI: 63.1% − 90.4%). Across countries, the highest level of acceptability was recorded in Nigeria, (79.9%; 95% CI: 76.5% − 83.1%). The main reasons for vaccine hesitancy included fear of adverse effects, distrust of health authorities, and misinformation.
conclusionsEbola vaccine acceptability in sub-Saharan Africa remains moderate. Although this level indicates encouraging progress since 2020, it may still be insufficient to ensure optimal population coverage during outbreaks. Targeted community engagement, trust-building, and proactive management of misinformation are essential to enhance vaccine acceptance and achieve coverage goals.
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.