You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Vaccines
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

24 September 2021

Worldwide Vaccination Willingness for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

,
,
,
and
Department of Health Sciences, Infectious Disease and Public Health, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Both authors contributed equally.
Vaccines2021, 9(10), 1071;https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9101071
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Countries across the globe are currently experiencing a third or fourth wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections; therefore, the need for effective vaccination campaigns is higher than ever. However, effectiveness of these campaigns in disease reduction is highly dependent on vaccination uptake and coverage in susceptible populations. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the vaccination intention and identified determinants of willingness and hesitancy. This study updates the existing body of literature on vaccination willingness, and was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed was searched for publications, selecting only studies published between 20 October 2020 and 1 March 2021, in English, with participants aged >16 years of age. The search identified 411 articles, of which 63 surveys were included that accounted for more than 30 countries worldwide. The global COVID-19 vaccination willingness was estimated at 66.01% [95% CI: 60.76–70.89% I2 = 99.4% [99.3%; 99.4%]; τ2 = 0.83]. The vaccination willingness varied within as well as between countries. Age, gender, education, attitudes and perceptions about vaccines were most frequently observed to be significantly associated with vaccine acceptance or refusal.

1. Introduction

Vaccine hesitancy is defined as the “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services” [1]. Rises in cases of vaccine-preventable diseases have been related to declines in vaccine coverage. A recent narrative review showed that the majority of measles outbreaks in the United States and Canada were associated with unvaccinated individuals [2,3]. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared vaccine hesitancy as amongst the top ten threats to global health [4]. A previous systematic review studying the global perspectives on hesitancy from 2014 found that determinants of, and factors relating to, hesitancy are highly context-specific; varying across place, time, as well as the type of vaccine [5].
Meanwhile, the contemporary COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the importance of a global effort to obtain disease control, in which vaccination plays a key role. Vaccination uptake, however, is highly dependent on vaccine acceptance, and is ultimately instrumental in achieving herd immunity: a critical threshold for disease control. COVID-19 vaccination campaigns have been initiated since December 2020 [6]; however, concerns about vaccination hesitancy had been raised even prior to the start of these campaigns. In multiple surveys, individuals expressed their worries about the safety of the vaccine, due to its rapid development [7]. Other studies reported that individuals deemed the vaccine unnecessary, because they believed they were already immune [8].
Even before the approval and roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines, multiple studies have investigated vaccination willingness and/or hesitancy within several populations. In their editorial based on a multi-country European study, Neumann-Böhme et al. [9] reported that vaccination willingness ranged from 62% to 80%. Not only did willingness vary between countries, it also differed between males and females, and different age groups [9]. Other studies in Hong Kong, Israel and the United States reported that vaccination intention was associated with education, political views and previous (influenza) vaccine uptake [10,11,12].
Lin, Tu and Beitsch [13] studied trends in vaccination willingness in over 120 articles up to October 2020. They reported a declining vaccination acceptance, from >70% in March 2020 to <50% in October 2020. Additionally, Wang et al. found an acceptance rate of 73% in a systematic review and meta-analysis, but also showed that the rates differed within their study period of February to September 2020 [14]. This change in acceptance rate over time emphasizes the need to update the existing body of evidence, gaining insight in the current status of vaccine acceptance, globally.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to (1) estimate the global vaccination willingness by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis, and (2) gain insight in the determinants of vaccination willingness and/or hesitancy. Assessment of vaccination willingness may serve as an indicator of vaccination uptake. Consequently, insights into vaccination-hesitant populations and their characteristics could aid in identifying gaps. This is potentially a first step in tailoring vaccination campaigns in the efforts to increase vaccination awareness, and ultimately, vaccination coverage.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the worldwide vaccination willingness against SARS-CoV-2. We also studied the selected literature to assess the determinants that were associated with vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

2.1. Search Strategy

PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ accessed on 20 September 2021] was searched on 16 March 2021 for articles published between 20 October 2020 and 1 March 2021. Table 1 describes the search string used. To ensure comparability, the search string was adapted based on the search strategy of Lin, Tu and Beitsch [13]. The search made use of indexing (MeSH) terms and free text searches and was based on three topics and their synonyms: SARS-CoV-2, vaccination, and survey. To facilitate the selection process, the results of the search (title, abstract and reference of the articles) were uploaded to Microsoft Excel (v. 2104).
Table 1. PubMed search string, adapted from Lin, Tu and Beitsch [13] (continued on the next page).

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Primary articles were selected if published in English, peer-reviewed and when the full text was available. Only studies with adult participants (>16 years of age) and at least one question on either COVID-19 vaccine willingness or hesitancy were included. Studies with subgroup-specific samples (e.g., nurses, patients, or parents) were excluded from selection. Similarly, reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, as well as other articles involving personal opinions or author’s views were omitted. There were no restrictions based on region or country of the study population. Titles and abstracts were scanned for eligibility. Finally, to determine eligibility, the full text was read.

2.3. Data Extraction

Data extraction was performed sequentially by two authors, L.M.S. and K.R.N.; any discrepancies were discussed with G.S.A.S. until consensus was reached. The process involved retrieving article information including the reference, title, first author, and publication date; demographic data including the country, region, gender, and age; survey characteristics including the survey type, method of contact, survey collection dates, main survey question, and answer options; and the results including vaccination willingness and vaccination hesitancy rates, sample size, and reported bias. When a study consisted of more than one survey with different study populations, all results were extracted. For studies with more than one survey conducted on the same study population, only the most recent survey results were included.
Vaccination willingness was defined as the proportion of participants willing or intending to receive a vaccine (if or when available). Responses indicating a positive tendency towards vaccinate acceptance, or a negative tendency on a question regarding vaccine refusal or hesitancy, were considered as vaccination-willing (see full overview of categorization of response options in Table 2).
Table 2. Survey question responses categorized as vaccination-willing.
To gain insight into the determinants of vaccination willingness, determinant analyses were performed for all selected articles. Initially, original questionnaires were checked to retrieve information on potential determinants. If survey questionnaires were unavailable, the full text article was read to retrieve information on measurements and determinants. Measurements were categorized as: significantly associated with the outcome (vaccine acceptance or refusal), not significantly associated with the outcome, unclear if a relationship with the outcome was investigated, or a relationship with the outcome was not investigated. Determinants were included when the association was investigated with a multivariable regression model. Only if the article did not present results of a multivariable regression, were estimates of univariable analyses considered.

2.4. Quality Assessment

To critically appraise the methodological quality of every study included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool Checklist for Prevalence Studies was used [15]. This checklist was deemed to fit the aim of the systematic review best. The checklist consisted of nine questions on the methods (e.g., sample selection, sample size, valid and reliable measurements) and applied analyses of a study. The appraisal tool aids in the determination of what articles should be either included or excluded, or whether more information should be sought [16].

2.5. Data Analysis

To estimate global vaccination willingness, a random-effect meta-analysis of single proportions was performed. Similar meta-analyses were performed to estimate vaccination willingness per, continent, if multiple surveys were conducted.
A random intercept logistic regression model (or generalized linear mixed model, GLMM) was used for the meta-analysis, after logit transformation of the data. The within-study variation was estimated with the Clopper–Pearson 95% confidence interval (CI) and the between-study variation was estimated with the maximum likelihood estimator for tau2. The Higgin’s and Thompsons’s I2 was used to assess heterogeneity. Statistical analyses were performed, and the forest and funnel plots were created using R Statistical Software version 4.0.5. [17]. Microsoft Excel was used for determinant assessment.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

The data search identified 411 articles. One article was found to be an author’s correction on another article, and was therefore merged with the original [18]. After assessing eligibility based on the title and abstract or the full text, 40 articles were included in the final selection. Amongst these, 4 articles were found to contain results of multiple surveys. Lazarus et al. conducted a survey in 19 countries worldwide [18]. Sallam et al. questioned participants in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Arabic-speaking countries [19]. Murphy et al. conducted a survey in Ireland and the United Kingdom [20]. Lastly, the study of Wang et al. performed two surveys with different samples at two different time points [21]. This meant that the results of a total of 63 surveys were included in the meta-analysis (Figure 1).
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of study search and selection process. * Some articles described the results of multiple surveys.

3.2. Study Characteristics

The vast majority of studies had a cross-sectional design, where data and measurements were retrieved via a telephone or online survey. Some studies recruited participants via existing databases, and others conducted snowball sampling (through social media, or email) as the main recruitment method. Surveys were performed between March 2020 and December 2020, with the most surveys performed in June (n = 10) [18,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. One study was conducted after the initiation of vaccination campaigns. However, campaigns had not rolled out; therefore, vaccines were not yet available in the countries of the surveyed participants [19]. The sample size varied from 113 participants [31] to 5114 participants per survey [32]. In two studies, participants were asked a question on vaccine hesitancy/refusal, instead of acceptance [20,33].
Populations in the United States (USA) were most frequently studied, with eight studies recruiting their participants in the United States [18,25,29,30,31,34,35,36]. This was followed by Italy [18,24,37,38,39]; Italian samples were studied in five articles. An overview of the included studies and study characteristics is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Study characteristics of included articles in the systematic review, meta-analysis and determinant analysis.

3.3. Worldwide Vaccination Willingness

The estimated worldwide COVID-19 vaccination willingness was 66.01% (95% CI: 60.76–70.89% I2 = 99.4% (99.3%; 99.4%); τ2 = 0.83) (Figure 2). The highest vaccination willingness of 98.06% (95% CI: 97.36–98.62%) was observed in the study of Wang, Lu et al. [53]. The Cameroon study of Dinga et al. reported the lowest vaccination willingness: 15.37% (95% CI: 13.98–16.84%) [27].
Figure 2. Forest plot of the worldwide vaccination willingness rate.
The continent-specific vaccination willingness in Asia, Europe, and North America were close to the global willingness (Supplementary Material, Figure S1.1–1.6). Out of the 63 surveys, 22 were conducted in populations on the Asian continent (including the Middle East region). The vaccination willingness for these 22 surveys was estimated at 63.71% (95% CI: 51.25–74.57%). A total of 22 surveys were also included for Europe, where the vaccination willingness was estimated at 67.42% (95% CI: 61.32–72.98%). Based on nine surveys, the vaccination willingness in North America was estimated at 66.89% (95% CI: 61.26–72.09%).
The highest willingness was observed in South America, 73.27% (95% CI: 61.03–82.75%), based on four surveys, and Oceania, 76.27% (95% CI: 60.13–87.25%), based on two surveys (in Australia). Based on four surveys, the lowest willingnesswas estimated for (sub-Saharan) Africa: 54.02% (95% CI: 27.16–78.72%). I2 values ranged from 97.2% (95% CI: 96.1–98.0%) for North America, to 99.8% (95% CI: 99.7–99.8%) in Africa.

3.4. Determinant Assessment

The second aim of the review was to gain insight into determinants of vaccination willingness and/or hesitancy. An overview of the most frequently studied determinants is presented in Table 4. Out of the 40 included articles, 12 did not perform univariable or multivariable regression analyses with vaccination willingness as outcome. Therefore, these were not included in Table 4. Although only two articles questioned vaccine hesitancy/refusal rather than acceptance, multiple papers changed the reference category to study determinants of hesitancy/refusal or lower vaccine acceptance. We observed that age, gender, education and attitudes around vaccines were most frequently significantly associated with either vaccine acceptance or refusal amongst the surveys that studied these determinants.
Table 4. Selected articles (sorted by first author) and studied determinants of vaccine acceptance or hesitancy and/or refusal.
All 28 papers studied gender and age. In 16 out of 28, a significant association was found between gender and vaccine acceptance or hesitancy. Age was found to be significantly associated with vaccine acceptance or hesitancy in 13 papers, and was borderline significant in 1 study [42]. Associations were found for ethnicity (in some articles also specified as race), but the majority (10 out of 12) of these articles were on populations in the United States or the United Kingdom.
Education was studied in 25 articles, of which 14 found a (borderline) significant association. All 10 papers that reported on the benefits, harms and/or barriers of vaccines and/or other beliefs and attitudes about vaccines reported significant associations with vaccination willingness or hesitancy. Out of the 9 papers that studied partisan or political preferences, 8 studies found a significant association with acceptance or hesitancy. Although 14 articles investigated living location (either urbanity or geography) in a regression analysis, only 5 found a (borderline) significant association.

3.5. Risk of Bias

The methodological quality and risk of bias was checked for all 40 included articles using the JBI checklist for prevalence studies. A large proportion of studies used suboptimal recruitment methods (e.g., convenience and snowball sampling via social media), which may have led to a non-representative sample of the national population, although no studies were excluded.
To assess publication bias, a funnel plot was made (Supplementary Material, Figure S2). Out of the 63 included surveys, 42 were found to be outliers compared to the mean estimated global vaccination willingness.

4. Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 63 surveys estimated a global vaccination willingness of 66.01% [95% CI: 60.76–70.89%]. Additionally, several determinants were significantly associated with vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. Age, gender, education as well as attitudes and beliefs about vaccination were observed to be most frequently related to the respondent’s intention to receive or refuse a vaccine when available.
However, differences in acceptance rates between and within continents and countries were observed. This estimated global vaccination willingness of 66.01% is lower than the estimates presented by Wang et al. [14]. Based on their systematic review including studies up to November 4, 2020, they reported a pooled vaccine acceptance rate of 73.31% [95% CI: 70.52–76.01%]. Multiple studies have suggested that vaccine acceptance changes over time. Sallam et al. reported vaccine acceptance to vary from 56.9% in April 2020 to 75.4% in June in the United States [58]. The multi-country survey of Neumann-Böhme et al. [9] reported a 20% decline in acceptance across multiple European countries during their study period.
Similar to the study of Wang et al. [14], the observed variation in our review across studies due to heterogeneity was high. Wang et al. found an I2 value of 98.8% (no 95% CI presented), compared to 99.4% in our study. To account for heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used. Differences in time, place, and between populations were expected, but could not be explained due to clinical differences, for example, nor could they be investigated using subgroup analyses [59]. The heterogeneity observed in our study could not be eliminated in the continental analyses, with I2 values for all stratified analyses exceeding 95%.
In the determinant assessment, we observed significant associations with gender and vaccination hesitance or acceptance in multiple studies. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a review reported that females were less likely to accept vaccination compared to males for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Td(ap)) and influenza [60]. This has been confirmed for COVID-19 [21,23,25,26,29,30,32,34,36,41,42,61,62,63]. Unfounded rumors about vaccines having detrimental effects on fertility could explain why vaccination uptake and intention is lower in women. During the pandemic, similar concerns have been raised by (young) women as a reason for hesitancy [64].
Attitudes and perceptions, including perceptions on the benefits, harms and barriers of vaccines, were significantly associated with acceptance and hesitance. In line with the expectation, those with positive attitudes and perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine or vaccines in general were more likely to accept and less likely to refuse, based on the findings of our review [14,19,25,26,35,43,49,52,55], as well as in other studies [61,65,66]. More specifically, and related to the rumors on infertility, concerns about the efficacy and possible side-effects seem to play a major role in the intention to vaccinate [61,65,66].
Healthcare system distrust as well as vaccine hesitancy are suggested to be closely related to health literacy [67]. Heidari et al. [68] emphasized the need for an intersectional gender approach to vaccine development and deployment. They recognize health literacy as one of the issues creating gender-related barriers to vaccination. Additionally, access to healthcare may influence vaccination willingness. The study of Bianconi et al. has discussed the potential role of gender inequalities in the access to healthcare facilities in COVID-19 testing and diagnostics [69]. Investigating similar barriers and inequities in healthcare (facility) access could be of interest during vaccine deployment [68].
To the best of our knowledge, this is the most recent systematic review and meta-analysis on vaccination willingness and hesitancy including related determinants. Previous studies have included papers published up to November 2020.
Our systematic review and meta-analysis is, however, subject to some limitations. To obtain the largest possible number of studies, we included studies with many different types of sampling methods. The majority of included studies used convenience sampling when recruiting participants. It is unclear how sampling methods may have influenced vaccination willingness, and whether these results may have been different if sampling would have been more purposeful. Concerns could be raised about minority and underrepresented groups that may not be reached through convenience and snowball sampling methods [70].
In addition, although we did not apply geographical restrictions during the inclusion of articles, the final selection did show an overrepresentation of (Eastern) Asian and European studies. A study in nine low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) showed acceptance ranging between 23% (Benin) and 89% (Brazil) when the available vaccine was 90% effective and ranging between 48% (Benin) and 94% (Brazil) with a vaccine effectivity of 95% [71]. In their 2012 editorial, Thomson and Watson stated that vaccine adoption = access + acceptance [72].
Finally, in our determinant assessment, we could not provide full insights into the direction of associations. This is in line with earlier research which showed that determinants of vaccine hesitancy are highly context-specific [5]. This, together with high heterogeneity found in our study, as well as in the review by Wang et al. [14], imply substantial differences between (sub)populations. Therefore, strategies focusing on removing vaccination barriers should follow an approach that is in line with determinants that are relevant within their specific setting and population.
Future studies should therefore focus on the determinants observed in this study (age, gender, education as well as attitudes and beliefs about vaccination), yet with particular attention to context-specific conditions. This may reveal insights into (sub)population-specific vaccination hesitancy and thus help vaccination programmes to increase vaccination coverage.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/vaccines9101071/s1, Figure S1.1–S1.6: Forest plots of the continent specific vaccination willingness, Figure S2: Funnel plot of the proportion of the worldwide vaccination willingness.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.v.d.H. and M.C.P.; methodology, G.S.A.S.; formal analysis, L.M.S., K.R.N. and G.S.A.S.; data curation, L.M.S. and K.R.N.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M.S. and K.R.N.; writing—review and editing, K.R.N., G.S.A.S., M.C.P. and M.v.d.H.; visualization, L.M.S. and K.R.N.; supervision, G.S.A.S., M.v.d.H. and M.C.P.; funding acquisition, not applicable. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. This systematic review and meta-analysis used and analyzed information obtained from pre-existing studies.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be requested from the authors via: m.camposponce@vu.nl.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. MacDonald, N.E. SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy Vaccine Hesitancy: Definition, Scope and Determinants. Vaccine 2015, 33, 4161–4164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sanyaolu, A.; Okorie, C.; Marinkovic, A.; Ayodele, O.; Abbasi, A.F.; Prakash, S.; Gosse, J.; Younis, S.; Mangat, J.; Chan, H. Measles Outbreak in Unvaccinated and Partially Vaccinated Children and Adults in the United States and Canada (2018–2019): A Narrative Review of Cases. Inquiry 2019, 56, 0046958019894098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health Vaccine Hesitancy: A Generation at Risk. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2019, 3, 281. [CrossRef]
  4. World Health Organization [WHO]. Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 (accessed on 17 July 2021).
  5. Larson, H.J.; Jarrett, C.; Eckersberger, E.; Smith, D.M.D.; Paterson, P. Understanding Vaccine Hesitancy around Vaccines and Vaccination from a Global Perspective: A Systematic Review of Published Literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine 2014, 32, 2150–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Timeline: WHO’s COVID-19 Response. Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline (accessed on 17 July 2021).
  7. Troiano, G.; Nardi, A. Vaccine Hesitancy in the Era of COVID-19. Public Health 2021, 194, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Afolabi, A.A.; Ilesanmi, O.S. Dealing with Vaccine Hesitancy in Africa: The Prospective COVID-19 Vaccine Context. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2021, 38, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Neumann-Böhme, S.; Varghese, N.E.; Sabat, I.; Barros, P.P.; Brouwer, W.; van Exel, J.; Schreyögg, J.; Stargardt, T. Once We Have It, Will We Use It? A European Survey on Willingness to Be Vaccinated against COVID-19. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2020, 21, 977–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, K.; Wong, E.L.Y.; Ho, K.F.; Cheung, A.W.L.; Chan, E.Y.Y.; Yeoh, E.K.; Wong, S.Y.S. Intention of Nurses to Accept Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination and Change of Intention to Accept Seasonal Influenza Vaccination during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Vaccine 2020, 38, 7049–7056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dror, A.A.; Eisenbach, N.; Taiber, S.; Morozov, N.G.; Mizrachi, M.; Zigron, A.; Srouji, S.; Sela, E. Vaccine Hesitancy: The next Challenge in the Fight against COVID-19. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2020, 35, 775–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Head, K.J.; Kasting, M.L.; Sturm, L.A.; Hartsock, J.A.; Zimet, G.D. A National Survey Assessing SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Intentions: Implications for Future Public Health Communication Efforts. Sci. Commun. 2020, 42, 698–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lin, C.; Tu, P.; Beitsch, L.M. Confidence and Receptivity for COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Systematic Review. Vaccines 2020, 9, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, Q.; Yang, L.; Jin, H.; Lin, L. Vaccination against COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Acceptability and Its Predictors. Prev. Med. 2021, 150, 106694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools|Joanna Briggs Institute. Available online: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools (accessed on 19 July 2021).
  16. Joanna Briggs Institute, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide. Critical Appraisal Tools|Joanna Briggs Institute. Available online: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools (accessed on 19 July 2021).
  17. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lazarus, J.V.; Ratzan, S.C.; Palayew, A.; Gostin, L.O.; Larson, H.J.; Rabin, K.; Kimball, S.; El-Mohandes, A. A Global Survey of Potential Acceptance of a COVID-19 Vaccine. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 225–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Sallam, M.; Dababseh, D.; Eid, H.; Al-Mahzoum, K.; Al-Haidar, A.; Taim, D.; Yaseen, A.; Ababneh, N.A.; Bakri, F.G.; Mahafzah, A. High Rates of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Its Association with Conspiracy Beliefs: A Study in Jordan and Kuwait among Other Arab Countries. Vaccines 2021, 9, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Murphy, J.; Vallières, F.; Bentall, R.P.; Shevlin, M.; McBride, O.; Hartman, T.K.; McKay, R.; Bennett, K.; Mason, L.; Gibson-Miller, J.; et al. Psychological Characteristics Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, K.; Wong, E.L.-Y.; Ho, K.-F.; Cheung, A.W.-L.; Yau, P.S.-Y.; Dong, D.; Wong, S.Y.-S.; Yeoh, E.-K. Change of Willingness to Accept COVID-19 Vaccine and Reasons of Vaccine Hesitancy of Working People at Different Waves of Local Epidemic in Hong Kong, China: Repeated Cross-Sectional Surveys. Vaccines 2021, 9, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Akarsu, B.; Canbay Özdemir, D.; Ayhan Baser, D.; Aksoy, H.; Fidancı, İ.; Cankurtaran, M. While Studies on COVID-19 Vaccine Is Ongoing, the Public’s Thoughts and Attitudes to the Future COVID-19 Vaccine. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2021, 75, e13891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alley, S.J.; Stanton, R.; Browne, M.; To, Q.G.; Khalesi, S.; Williams, S.L.; Thwaite, T.L.; Fenning, A.S.; Vandelanotte, C. As the Pandemic Progresses, How Does Willingness to Vaccinate against COVID-19 Evolve? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Biasio, L.R.; Bonaccorsi, G.; Lorini, C.; Pecorelli, S. Assessing COVID-19 Vaccine Literacy: A Preliminary Online Survey. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 1304–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Callaghan, T.; Moghtaderi, A.; Lueck, J.A.; Hotez, P.; Strych, U.; Dor, A.; Fowler, E.F.; Motta, M. Correlates and Disparities of Intention to Vaccinate against COVID-19. Soc. Sci. Med. 2021, 272, 113638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, M.; Li, Y.; Chen, J.; Wen, Z.; Feng, F.; Zou, H.; Fu, C.; Chen, L.; Shu, Y.; Sun, C. An Online Survey of the Attitude and Willingness of Chinese Adults to Receive COVID-19 Vaccination. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 2279–2288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dinga, J.N.; Sinda, L.K.; Titanji, V.P.K. Assessment of Vaccine Hesitancy to a COVID-19 Vaccine in Cameroonian Adults and Its Global Implication. Vaccines 2021, 9, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Feleszko, W.; Lewulis, P.; Czarnecki, A.; Waszkiewicz, P. Flattening the Curve of COVID-19 Vaccine Rejection—An International Overview. Vaccines 2021, 9, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Khubchandani, J.; Sharma, S.; Price, J.H.; Wiblishauser, M.J.; Sharma, M.; Webb, F.J. COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy in the United States: A Rapid National Assessment. J. Community Health 2021, 46, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ruiz, J.B.; Bell, R.A. Predictors of Intention to Vaccinate against COVID-19: Results of a Nationwide Survey. Vaccine 2021, 39, 1080–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hogan, C.; Atta, M.; Anderson, P.; Stead, T.; Solomon, M.; Banerjee, P.; Sleigh, B.; Shivdat, J.; Webb McAdams, A.; Ganti, L. Knowledge and Attitudes of Us Adults Regarding COVID-19. Int. J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 13, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Freeman, D.; Loe, B.S.; Chadwick, A.; Vaccari, C.; Waite, F.; Rosebrock, L.; Jenner, L.; Petit, A.; Lewandowsky, S.; Vanderslott, S.; et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the UK: The Oxford Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes, and Narratives Survey (Oceans) II. Psychol. Med. 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ward, J.K.; Alleaume, C.; Peretti-Watel, P.; Peretti-Watel, P.; Seror, V.; Cortaredona, S.; Launay, O.; Raude, J.; Verger, P.; Beck, F.; et al. The French Public’s Attitudes to a Future COVID-19 Vaccine: The Politicization of a Public Health Issue. Soc. Sci. Med. 2020, 265, 113414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fisher, K.A.; Bloomstone, S.J.; Walder, J.; Crawford, S.; Fouayzi, H.; Mazor, K.M. Attitudes Toward a Potential SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: A Survey of U.S. Adults. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020, 173, 964–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Guidry, J.P.D.; Laestadius, L.I.; Vraga, E.K.; Miller, C.A.; Perrin, P.B.; Burton, C.W.; Ryan, M.; Fuemmeler, B.F.; Carlyle, K.E. Willingness to Get the COVID-19 Vaccine with and without Emergency Use Authorization. Am. J. Infect. Control 2021, 49, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Latkin, C.A.; Dayton, L.; Yi, G.; Colon, B.; Kong, X. Mask Usage, Social Distancing, Racial, and Gender Correlates of COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions among Adults in the US. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. La Vecchia, C.; Negri, E.; Alicandro, G.; Scarpino, V. Attitudes towards Influenza Vaccine and a Potential COVID-19 Vaccine in Italy and Differences across Occupational Groups, September 2020: Attitudes towards Influenza Vaccine and a Potential COVID-19 Vaccine in Italy. Med. Del. Lav. Work Environ. Health 2020, 111, 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vai, B.; Cazzetta, S.; Ghiglino, D.; Parenti, L.; Saibene, G.; Toti, M.; Verga, C.; Wykowska, A.; Benedetti, F. Risk Perception and Media in Shaping Protective Behaviors: Insights From the Early Phase of COVID-19 Italian Outbreak. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 563426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Prati, G. Intention to Receive a Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in Italy and Its Association with Trust, Worry and Beliefs about the Origin of the Virus. Health Educ. Res. 2020, 35, 505–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Al-Mohaithef, M.; Padhi, B.K. Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in Saudi Arabia: A Web-Based National Survey. JMDH 2020, 13, 1657–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Al-Qerem, W.A.; Jarab, A.S. COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance and Its Associated Factors among a Middle Eastern Population. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 632914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Attwell, K.; Lake, J.; Sneddon, J.; Gerrans, P.; Blyth, C.; Lee, J. Converting the Maybes: Crucial for a Successful COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Detoc, M.; Bruel, S.; Frappe, P.; Tardy, B.; Botelho-Nevers, E.; Gagneux-Brunon, A. Intention to Participate in a COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trial and to Get Vaccinated against COVID-19 in France during the Pandemic. Vaccine 2020, 38, 7002–7006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ditekemena, J.D.; Nkamba, D.M.; Mutwadi, A.; Mavoko, H.M.; Siewe Fodjo, J.N.; Luhata, C.; Obimpeh, M.; Van Hees, S.; Nachega, J.B.; Colebunders, R. COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in the Democratic Republic of Congo: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Vaccines 2021, 9, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Eguia, H.; Vinciarelli, F.; Bosque-Prous, M.; Kristensen, T.; Saigí-Rubió, F. Spain’s Hesitation at the Gates of a COVID-19 Vaccine. Vaccines 2021, 9, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gan, L.; Chen, Y.; Hu, P.; Wu, D.; Zhu, Y.; Tan, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, D. Willingness to Receive SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Associated Factors among Chinese Adults: A Cross Sectional Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Harapan, H.; Wagner, A.L.; Yufika, A.; Winardi, W.; Anwar, S.; Gan, A.K.; Setiawan, A.M.; Rajamoorthy, Y.; Sofyan, H.; Vo, T.Q.; et al. Willingness-to-Pay for a COVID-19 Vaccine and Its Associated Determinants in Indonesia. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2020, 16, 3074–3080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kourlaba, G.; Kourkouni, E.; Maistreli, S.; Tsopela, C.-G.; Molocha, N.-M.; Triantafyllou, C.; Koniordou, M.; Kopsidas, I.; Chorianopoulou, E.; Maroudi-Manta, S.; et al. Willingness of Greek General Population to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine. Glob. Health Res. Policy 2021, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lin, Y.; Hu, Z.; Zhao, Q.; Alias, H.; Danaee, M.; Wong, L.P. Understanding COVID-19 Vaccine Demand and Hesitancy: A Nationwide Online Survey in China. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020, 14, e0008961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mouchtouri, V.A.; Agathagelidou, E.; Kofonikolas, K.; Rousou, X.; Dadouli, K.; Pinaka, O.; Agathocleous, E.; Anagnostopoulou, L.; Chatziligou, C.; Christoforidou, E.P.; et al. Nationwide Survey in Greece about Knowledge, Risk Perceptions, and Preventive Behaviors for COVID-19 during the General Lockdown in April 2020. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Muqattash, R.; Niankara, I.; Traoret, R.I. Survey Data for COVID-19 Vaccine Preference Analysis in the United Arab Emirates. Data Brief 2020, 33, 106446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Sherman, S.M.; Smith, L.E.; Sim, J.; Amlôt, R.; Cutts, M.; Dasch, H.; Rubin, G.J.; Sevdalis, N. COVID-19 Vaccination Intention in the UK: Results from the COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptability Study (CoVAccS), a Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Survey. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2021, 17, 1612–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, J.; Lu, X.; Lai, X.; Lyu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Fenghuang, Y.; Jing, R.; Li, L.; Yu, W.; Fang, H. The Changing Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination in Different Epidemic Phases in China: A Longitudinal Study. Vaccines 2021, 9, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Williams, L.; Flowers, P.; McLeod, J.; Young, D.; Rollins, L. The CATALYST Project Team The CATALYST Project Team Social Patterning and Stability of Intention to Accept a COVID-19 Vaccine in Scotland: Will Those Most at Risk Accept a Vaccine? Vaccines 2021, 9, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wong, M.C.S.; Wong, E.L.Y.; Huang, J.; Cheung, A.W.L.; Law, K.; Chong, M.K.C.; Ng, R.W.Y.; Lai, C.K.C.; Boon, S.S.; Lau, J.T.F.; et al. Acceptance of the COVID-19 Vaccine Based on the Health Belief Model: A Population-Based Survey in Hong Kong. Vaccine 2021, 39, 1148–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yoda, T.; Katsuyama, H. Willingness to Receive COVID-19 Vaccination in Japan. Vaccines 2021, 9, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Zeballos Rivas, D.R.; Lopez Jaldin, M.L.; Nina Canaviri, B.; Portugal Escalante, L.F.; Alanes Fernández, A.M.C.; Aguilar Ticona, J.P. Social Media Exposure, Risk Perception, Preventive Behaviors and Attitudes during the COVID-19 Epidemic in La Paz, Bolivia: A Cross Sectional Study. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Sallam, M. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates. Vaccines 2021, 9, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group. Ryan R Heterogeneity and Subgroup Analyses in Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group Reviews: Planning the Analysis at Protocol Stage. Available online: https://cccrg.cochrane.org/ (accessed on 20 September 2021).
  60. Flanagan, K.L.; Fink, A.L.; Plebanski, M.; Klein, S.L. Sex and Gender Differences in the Outcomes of Vaccination over the Life Course. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2017, 33, 577–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Raja, A.S.; Niforatos, J.D.; Anaya, N.; Graterol, J.; Rodriguez, R.M. Vaccine Hesitancy and Reasons for Refusing the COVID-19 Vaccination among the U.S. Public: A Cross-Sectional Survey. medRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Robertson, E.; Reeve, K.S.; Niedzwiedz, C.L.; Moore, J.; Blake, M.; Green, M.; Katikireddi, S.V.; Benzeval, M.J. Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Brain Behav. Immun. 2021, 94, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Khaled, S.M.; Petcu, C.; Bader, L.; Amro, I.; Al-Hamadi, A.M.H.A.; Al Assi, M.; Ali, A.A.M.; Le Trung, K.; Diop, A.; Bellaj, T.; et al. Prevalence and Potential Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Resistance in Qatar: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey of Qatari Nationals and Migrants between December 2020 and January 2021. Vaccines (Basel) 2021, 9, 471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Male, V. Are COVID-19 Vaccines Safe in Pregnancy? Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2021, 21, 200–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kreps, S.; Dasgupta, N.; Brownstein, J.S.; Hswen, Y.; Kriner, D.L. Public Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccination: The Role of Vaccine Attributes, Incentives, and Misinformation. NPJ Vaccines 2021, 6, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Paul, E.; Steptoe, A.; Fancourt, D. Attitudes towards Vaccines and Intention to Vaccinate against COVID-19: Implications for Public Health Communications. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2021, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Turhan, Z.; Dilcen, H.Y.; Dolu, İ. The Mediating Role of Health Literacy on the Relationship between Health Care System Distrust and Vaccine Hesitancy during COVID-19 Pandemic. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Heidari, S.; Durrheim, D.N.; Faden, R.; Kochhar, S.; MacDonald, N.; Olayinka, F.; Goodman, T.S. Time for Action: Towards an Intersectional Gender Approach to COVID-19 Vaccine Development and Deployment That Leaves No One Behind. BMJ Glob. Health 2021, 6, e006854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Bianconi, V.; Mannarino, M.R.; Bronzo, P.; Marini, E.; Pirro, M. Time-Related Changes in Sex Distribution of COVID-19 Incidence Proportion in Italy. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Elfil, M.; Negida, A. Sampling Methods in Clinical Research; an Educational Review. Emergency (Tehran) 2017, 5, e52. [Google Scholar]
  71. Bono, S.A.; Faria de Moura Villela, E.; Siau, C.S.; Chen, W.S.; Pengpid, S.; Hasan, M.T.; Sessou, P.; Ditekemena, J.D.; Amodan, B.O.; Hosseinipour, M.C.; et al. Factors Affecting COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: An International Survey among Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Vaccines 2021, 9, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Thomson, A.; Watson, M. Listen, Understand, Engage. Sci. Transl. Med. 2012, 4, 138ed6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Hepatitis B Vaccination Coverage Rates and Associated Factors: A Community-Based, Cross-Sectional Study Conducted in Beijing, 2019–2020
Previous
Plasmodium falciparum Malaria Vaccines and Vaccine Adjuvants
Next