Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38687992›Full record

SynthesisJMIR public health and surveillance2024

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.

Tahani Al Rahbeni, Prakasini Satapathy, Ramaiah Itumalla, Roy Rillera Marzo, Khalid A L Mugheed, Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib, Shilpa Gaidhane, Quazi Syed Zahiruddin, Ali A Rabaan, Hayam A Alrasheed and 9 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
23.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 15 institutions in 6 countries.

Tahani Al Rahbeni *Molecular Toxicology and Genetics, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-0829-2082
Prakasini SatapathyCenter for Global Health Research, Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7614-8587
Ramaiah Itumalla *School of Management, The Apollo University, Chittoor, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6090-9641
Roy Rillera MarzoFaculty of Humanities and Health Sciences, Curtin University, Miri Sarawak, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0001-9414-4010
Khalid A L MugheedMolecular Toxicology and Genetics, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-9727-7804
Mahalaqua Nazli KhatibDivision of Evidence Synthesis, Global Consortium of Public Health and Research, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education, Wardha, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5875-8277
Shilpa GaidhaneOne Health Centre (COHERD), Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education, Wardha, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3012-7438
Quazi Syed ZahiruddinSouth Asia Infant Feeding Research Network, Division of Evidence Synthesis, School of Epidemiology and Public Health and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1435-899X
Ali A RabaanMolecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-6774-9847
Hayam A AlrasheedDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0009-0002-6186-848X
Maha F Al-SubaieMolecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0009-0001-6558-7143
Nawal A Al KaabilCollege of Medicine and Health Science, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0000-0002-7680-1141
Mohammed AlissaDepartment of Medical Laboratory, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-4045-0810
Amani Ahmed A L IbrahimDeparment of Pharmacy, Jubail General Hospital, Jubail, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0009-0007-8226-3240
Hussain Abdulkhaliq AlsaifDepartment of Medicine, Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0009-0001-3126-3730
Israa Habeeb NaserMedical Laboratories Techniques Department, AL-Mustaqbal University, Babil, Iraq.ORCID 0000-0001-5111-9456
Sarvesh RustagiSchool of Applied and Life Sciences, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1247-1040
Neelima KukretiSchool of Pharmacy, Graphic Era Hill University, Dehradun, India.ORCID 0000-0002-5556-9638
Arkadiusz Dziedzic *Department of Conservative Dentistry with Endodontics, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0022-8382
Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College · INRiyadh Elm University · SAAlfaisal University · SACurtin University Sarawak · MYDatta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research · INGraphic Era University · INJubail Industrial College · SAKhalifa University of Science and Technology · AEKing Abdulaziz Medical City · SAMedical University of Silesia · PLPrince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University · SAPrincess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University · SASaudi Aramco Medical Services Organization · SASaveetha University · INUttaranchal University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe unprecedented emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the development and global distribution of vaccines, making the understanding of global vaccine acceptance and hesitancy crucial to overcoming barriers to vaccination and achieving widespread immunization.

objectiveThis umbrella review synthesizes findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide insights into global perceptions on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy across diverse populations and regions.

methodsWe conducted a literature search across major databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analysis that reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. The AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) criteria were used to assess the methodological quality of included systematic reviews. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 17 with a random effect model. The data synthesis is presented in a table format and via a narrative.

resultsOur inclusion criteria were met by 78 meta-analyses published between 2021 and 2023. Our analysis revealed a moderate vaccine acceptance rate of 63% (95% CI 0.60%-0.67%) in the general population, with significant heterogeneity (I

conclusionsThis review revealed the presence of vaccine hesitancy globally, emphasizing the necessity for population-specific, culturally sensitive interventions and clear, credible information dissemination to foster vaccine acceptance. The observed disparities accentuate the need for continuous research to understand evolving vaccine perceptions and to address the unique concerns and needs of diverse populations, thereby aiding in the formulation of effective and inclusive vaccination strategies.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023468363; https://tinyurl.com/2p9kv9cr.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesSystematic Reviews as TopicVaccination HesitancyHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPatient Acceptance of Health CareCOVID-19 Vaccineschildchildrenchronic diseaseCOVID-19global perceptionshealthcare workershesitancymeta-analysisparentspatientpatientsperceptionpregnant womenrandom effect modelsynthesissystematic reviewumbrella reviewvaccinevaccine acceptancevaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID38687992
PMCPMC11062401
OpenAlexW4396509404

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.