SynthesisBMC public health2026
The association between populist-aligned views and engagement with public health interventions: a systematic review of longitudinal studies.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPopulation-level engagement with public health interventions is needed to achieve impact. Recently, however, there has been evidence of increasing resistance to government-led public health interventions in areas such as vaccination, climate change mitigation, sexual and reproductive healthcare, and non-pharmaceutical-based infection control measures. The rise in populist attitudes that has taken place in many countries over the last two decades may be one potential explanation for this phenomenon, given the importance placed on individual freedom and national sovereignty, and a distrust of scientific, government and other elites within much populist discourse.
methodsTo understand how populist-aligned views might subsequently influence the receipt of public health interventions, we systematically reviewed quantitative, longitudinal evidence across thirteen bibliographic databases and relevant websites, published between 2008 and 2024. All studies were set in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and results were synthesised narratively.
resultsAcross 16 included studies, much of the evidence focused on COVID-19. We found evidence that prior populist-aligned attitudes have a negative impact on subsequent receipt of public health interventions, such as the COVID-19 vaccine and non-pharmaceutical-based prevention measures against COVID-19 (i.e., engaging in masking and social distancing) through both existing and increasing distrust in elite institutions and actors over time. We also found preliminary evidence about the potentially negative role of populist-aligned attitudes on the receipt of other vaccinations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
conclusionsFrom a policy perspective, the findings from this review suggest the need for proactive efforts by political, scientific and medical establishments to build and maintain trust, thereby strengthening the reputation of both the public health leaders and institutions that engage with those more likely to be resistant to public health interventions to increase overall acceptance and uptake.
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD4202451312.
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.