46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Confidence and Receptivity for COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Systematic Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          While COVID-19 continues raging worldwide, effective vaccines are highly anticipated. However, vaccine hesitancy is widespread. Survey results on uptake intentions vary and continue to change. This review compared trends and synthesized findings in vaccination receptivity over time across US and international polls, assessing survey design influences and evaluating context to inform policies and practices. Data sources included academic literature (PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO following PRISMA guidelines), news and official reports published by 20 October 2020. Two researchers independently screened potential peer-reviewed articles and syndicated polls for eligibility; 126 studies and surveys were selected. Declining vaccine acceptance (from >70% in March to <50% in October) with demographic, socioeconomic, and partisan divides was observed. Perceived risk, concerns over vaccine safety and effectiveness, doctors’ recommendations, and inoculation history were common factors. Impacts of regional infection rates, gender, and personal COVID-19 experience were inconclusive. Unique COVID-19 factors included political party orientation, doubts toward expedited development/approval process, and perceived political interference. Many receptive participants preferred to wait until others have taken the vaccine; mandates could increase resistance. Survey wording and answer options showed influence on responses. To achieve herd immunity, communication campaigns are immediately needed, focusing on transparency and restoring trust in health authorities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references100

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine

            Several coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are currently in human trials. In June 2020, we surveyed 13,426 people in 19 countries to determine potential acceptance rates and factors influencing acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of these, 71.5% of participants reported that they would be very or somewhat likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine, and 61.4% reported that they would accept their employer’s recommendation to do so. Differences in acceptance rates ranged from almost 90% (in China) to less than 55% (in Russia). Respondents reporting higher levels of trust in information from government sources were more likely to accept a vaccine and take their employer’s advice to do so.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Vaccine hesitancy: the next challenge in the fight against COVID-19

              Vaccine hesitancy remains a barrier to full population inoculation against highly infectious diseases. Coincident with the rapid developments of COVID-19 vaccines globally, concerns about the safety of such a vaccine could contribute to vaccine hesitancy. We analyzed 1941 anonymous questionnaires completed by healthcare workers and members of the general Israeli population, regarding acceptance of a potential COVID-19 vaccine. Our results indicate that healthcare staff involved in the care of COVID-19 positive patients, and individuals considering themselves at risk of disease, were more likely to self-report acquiescence to COVID-19 vaccination if and when available. In contrast, parents, nurses, and medical workers not caring for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients expressed higher levels of vaccine hesitancy. Interventional educational campaigns targeted towards populations at risk of vaccine hesitancy are therefore urgently needed to combat misinformation and avoid low inoculation rates.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Vaccines (Basel)
                Vaccines (Basel)
                vaccines
                Vaccines
                MDPI
                2076-393X
                30 December 2020
                January 2021
                : 9
                : 1
                : 16
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Policy and Organizational Management Program, Duke University, 2204 Erwin Rd, Durham, NC 27705, USA; c.lin@ 123456duke.edu
                [2 ]Department of Behavioral Sciences and Social Medicine, Florida State University College of Medicine, 1115 W. Call St, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA; les.beitsch@ 123456med.fsu.edu
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: Pikuei.tu@ 123456duke.edu
                Article
                vaccines-09-00016
                10.3390/vaccines9010016
                7823859
                33396832
                dfa1e4b6-23de-4e7b-b234-7ec5e37da842
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 08 December 2020
                : 29 December 2020
                Categories
                Review

                vaccines,vaccine hesitancy,immunization,public health,health behavior,public opinion,communication,infectious diseases,pandemic,coronavirus

                Comments

                Comment on this article