SynthesisArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2026
Mpox vaccination uptake and acceptance in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is recognized as the global epicenter of human Mpox. While vaccination is crucial for outbreak prevention, especially as the disease transitions from zoonotic spillover to sustained human-to-human transmission, comprehensive assessments of vaccination coverage trends across the country are notably absent from the literature. This systematic review and meta-analysis address this gap by providing the first pooled estimate of Mpox vaccine uptake and acceptance in the DRC over a 54-year period (1970-2024). Our study captures critical transitions, including the post-smallpox eradication era and recent global outbreaks, to identify temporal trends, geographic disparities in this high-risk setting.
methodsWe conducted this review following PRISMA guidelines, systematically searching PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Sciences, CINAHL, and Embase. Grey literature was also searched to ensure comprehensiveness. Using random-effects models, we calculated pooled estimates for vaccine uptake and acceptance rates, with prespecified subgroup analyses examining variations by: (1) period, (2) geographic region, and (3) type of participants. We quantified heterogeneity using I² statistics and conducted meta-regression to identify predictors of vaccination coverage heterogeneity. A p-value ˂ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsOur analysis revealed a pooled Mpox vaccine uptake of 20.01% (95% CI: 7.45-43.75) with high heterogeneity (I² = 99.4%, p < 0.001), indicating substantial variability across studies. Vaccine acceptance was higher at 54.17% (95% CI: 20.82-84.16) with high heterogeneity (I² = 97.6%, p < 0.001). Temporal analysis showed a significant decline from 32.30% (95% CI: 14.62-57.75) coverage during 1970-2000 to 1.36% (95% CI: 0.29-6.11) in 2020-2024. Geographic disparities existed, with the Northwest regions achieving 47.11% (95% CI: 13.46-83.61) coverage compared to 5.47% (95% CI: 0.56-37.32) in Eastern conflict-affected zones. Meta-regression identified no significant predictors of coverage heterogeneity.
conclusionDespite moderate acceptance rates, actual Mpox vaccination uptake in the DRC remains low, with worsening coverage in recent years and substantial regional inequities. These findings underscore the urgent need for context-specific interventions to bridge the intention-action gap in this high-risk setting.
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.