SynthesisPublic health reviews2026
Interventions Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in the WHO European Region and in North America (United States and Canada): A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Public health reviews, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Vaccine hesitancy threatens optimal immunization coverage. This review systematically identified and evaluated interventions addressing vaccine hesitancy in the WHO European Region and in North America (United States and Canada). Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception to 17 January 2024. Eligible studies evaluated interventions targeting vaccine hesitancy. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment followed the methodological guidance of the Cochrane Handbook, and reporting adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024565588). Interventions were categorized as educational, communicational, policy-based, organizational, or digital. Results: A total of 59 studies met the inclusion criteria. Effective approaches included multicomponent strategies, community engagement, reminder and recall systems, educational campaigns, and legislative measures. Digital interventions yielded promising but heterogeneous results. The effectiveness of interventions was often enhanced when tailored to specific population needs and local contexts. Conclusion: Multifaceted interventions adapted to the sociocultural context appear most effective in reducing vaccine hesitancy in Europe and North America. Further high-quality studies are needed to refine implementation strategies and evaluate long-term impacts. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024565588, identifier CRD42024565588.
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.