[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Protection Elicited by Attenuated Live Yersinia pestis Vaccine Strains against Lethal Infection with Virulent Y. pestis
Next Article in Special Issue
Access to Vaccination Information and Confidence/Hesitancy towards Childhood Vaccination: A Cross-Sectional Survey in China
Previous Article in Journal
A Novel Effective and Safe Vaccine for Prevention of Marek’s Disease Caused by Infection with a Very Virulent Plus (vv+) Marek’s Disease Virus
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ethics of Vaccination in Childhood—A Framework Based on the Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Vaccines
Volume 9
Issue 2
10.3390/vaccines9020160
vaccines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates

by
Malik Sallam
1,2
1
Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Forensic Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
2
Department of Clinical Laboratories and Forensic Medicine, Jordan University Hospital, Amman 11942, Jordan
Vaccines 2021, 9(2), 160; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020160
Submission received: 13 January 2021 / Revised: 9 February 2021 / Accepted: 14 February 2021 / Published: 16 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine Hesitancy and Child Immunizations: Rationales, Issues and Knowledge Gaps)
Browse Figures
Graphical abstract
"> Figure 1
<p>Flow chart of the study selection process.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates worldwide. For countries with more than one survey study, the vaccine acceptance rate of the latest survey was used in this graph. The estimates were also based on studies from the general population, except in the following cases where no studies from the general public were found (Australia: parents/guardians; DRC: healthcare workers; Hong Kong: healthcare workers; Malta: healthcare workers).</p> ">
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Utility of vaccine campaigns to control coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) is not merely dependent on vaccine efficacy and safety. Vaccine acceptance among the general public and healthcare workers appears to have a decisive role in the successful control of the pandemic. The aim of this review was to provide an up-to-date assessment of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rates worldwide. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed English survey literature indexed in PubMed was done on 25 December 2020. Results from 31 peer-reviewed published studies met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis for the final COVID-19 vaccine acceptance estimates. Survey studies on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were found from 33 different countries. Among adults representing the general public, the highest COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were found in Ecuador (97.0%), Malaysia (94.3%), Indonesia (93.3%) and China (91.3%). However, the lowest COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were found in Kuwait (23.6%), Jordan (28.4%), Italy (53.7), Russia (54.9%), Poland (56.3%), US (56.9%), and France (58.9%). Only eight surveys among healthcare workers (doctors and nurses) were found, with vaccine acceptance rates ranging from 27.7% in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to 78.1% in Israel. In the majority of survey studies among the general public stratified per country (29/47, 62%), the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination showed a level of ≥70%. Low rates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were reported in the Middle East, Russia, Africa and several European countries. This could represent a major problem in the global efforts to control the current COVID-19 pandemic. More studies are recommended to address the scope of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Such studies are particularly needed in the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Middle and South America. Addressing the scope of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in various countries is recommended as an initial step for building trust in COVID-19 vaccination efforts.

Graphical Abstract">

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Based on the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE), vaccine hesitancy is the term used to describe: “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services” [1]. Factors that affect the attitude towards acceptance of vaccination include complacency, convenience and confidence [1,2]. Complacency denotes the low perception of the disease risk; hence, vaccination was deemed unnecessary. Confidence refers to the trust in vaccination safety, effectiveness, besides the competence of the healthcare systems. Convenience entails the availability, affordability and delivery of vaccines in a comfortable context [2].
The complex nature of motives behind vaccine hesitancy can be analysed using the epidemiologic triad of environmental, agent and host factors [3,4]. Environmental factors include public health policies, social factors and the messages spread by the media [5,6,7]. The agent (vaccine and disease) factors involve the perception of vaccine safety and effectiveness, besides the perceived susceptibility to the disease [7,8,9]. Host factors are dependent on knowledge, previous experience, educational and income levels [4,10].
Previous studies have shown that vaccine hesitancy is a common phenomenon globally, with variability in the cited reasons behind refusal of vaccine acceptance [11,12,13]. The most common reasons included: perceived risks vs. benefits, certain religious beliefs and lack of knowledge and awareness [14,15,16]. The aforementioned reasons can be applied to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, as shown by the recent publications that showed a strong correlation between intent to get coronavirus vaccines and its perceived safety [17], association of the negative attitude towards COVID-19 vaccines and unwillingness to get the vaccines [18], and the association of religiosity with lower intention to get COVID-19 vaccines [19].
Studying the global impact of vaccine hesitancy—including willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccines—could be complicated by the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon [1]. This entails the existence of cognitive, psychologic, socio-demographic and cultural factors that contribute to vaccine hesitancy [20,21,22,23]. Analysis of such factors is needed to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, following the assessment of the scope and magnitude of this public health threat [24]. This can help in guiding interventional measures aimed at building and maintaining responses to tackle this threat [25].
Earlier studies that assessed attitudes towards vaccines revealed the existence of regional variability in perceiving the safety and effectiveness of vaccination [12,26,27]. Higher-income regions were the least certain regarding vaccine safety with 72%–73% of people in Northern America and Northern Europe who agreed that vaccines are safe. This rate was even lower in Western Europe (59%), and in Eastern Europe (50%), despite the presence of a substantial variability in Eastern European countries (from 32% in Ukraine, 48% in Russia, to 77% in Slovakia). However, the majority of people in lower-income areas agreed that vaccines are safe, with the highest proportions seen in South Asia (95%) and in Eastern Africa (92%) [26]. A similar pattern was observed regarding vaccine effectiveness, with Eastern Europe as the region where people are the least likely to agree that vaccines are effective, as opposed to South Asia and Eastern Africa [26]. The assessment of such regional differences can be invaluable in addressing and fighting public health threats posed by vaccine hesitancy [28].
The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic does not seem to show any signs of decline, with more than 1.7 million deaths and more than 80 million reported cases worldwide, as of 27 December 2020 [29,30]. The ebb and flow of COVID-19 cases can be driven by human factors, including attitude towards physical distancing and protective measures, while viral factors are driven by mutations that commonly occur in severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genome [31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. The viral factors can particularly be of high relevance considering the recent reports of resurgence in COVID-19 infections in UK due to a new variant of the virus [38].
The global efforts to lessen the effects of the pandemic, and to reduce its health and socio-economic impact, rely to a large extent on the preventive efforts [39,40]. Thus, huge efforts by the scientific community and pharmaceutical industry backed by governments’ support, were directed towards developing efficacious and safe vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 [41]. These efforts were manifested by the approval of several vaccines for emergency use, in addition to more than 60 vaccine candidates in clinical trials. Moreover, more than 170 COVID-19 vaccine candidates are in the pre-clinical phase [42].
Despite the huge efforts made to achieve successful COVID-19 vaccines, a major hindrance can be related to vaccine hesitancy towards the approved and prospective COVID-19 vaccination [43]. To identify the scope of this problem, this systematic review aimed to assess the acceptance rates for COVID-19 vaccine(s) in different countries worldwide, which can provide an initial step to study the factors implicated in regional and cultural differences behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

2. Materials and Methods

This review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines [44].
Published papers in PubMed/Medline that aimed at evaluating COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy/vaccine acceptance using a survey/questionnaire were eligible for inclusion in this review.
Only studies in English language that met the inclusion criteria were considered in this review. The inclusion criteria were: (1) peer-reviewed published articles indexed in PubMed; (2) survey studies among the general population, health-care workers, students, or parents/guardians); (3) the major aim of the study was to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine acceptance/hesitancy; and (4) publication language was English.
The exclusion criteria were: (1) unpublished manuscripts (preprints); (2) the article did not aim to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine acceptance/hesitancy; and (3) publication language was not English.
A search was done as of 25 December 2020, using the following strategy: (COVID * vaccine * hesitancy [Title/Abstract]) OR (COVID * vaccine acceptance[Title/Abstract])) OR (COVID * vaccine * hesitanc *[Title/Abstract])) OR (COVID * intention to vaccine * [Title/Abstract]) OR (COVID* vaccine * accept *[Title/Abstract]) AND (2020:2020[pdat]).
Screening of titles and abstracts was conducted, followed by data extraction for the following items: date of survey, country/countries in which the survey was conducted, target population for survey (e.g., general public, healthcare workers, and students), total number of respondents, and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate (which included the number of respondents who answered: agree/somewhat/completely agree/leaning towards yes/definitely yes).

3. Results

A total of 178 records were identified, and following the screening process, a total of 30 articles were included in this review (Figure 1). In addition, data collected in a recently published article that surveyed the general public residing in Jordan and Kuwait were added to the final analysis [45].

3.1. Characteristics of the Papers Included in This Review

A total of 30 published papers were analysed in this review, with an additional recently published article that focused on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Jordan and Kuwait to yield a total of 31 studies. These studies comprised surveys on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance from a total of 33 different countries. Surveys were done most commonly in the UK (n = 6), followed by France and the US (n = 5, for each country), and China and Italy (n = 4, for each country). Dates of survey distribution ranged from February 2020 until December 2020. A few studies were conducted in more than one country, including the study by Lazarus et al., involving 19 countries and the study by Neumann-Böhme et al., involving seven European countries [46,47].
Stratified per country, a total of 60 surveys were found with the largest sample size (n = 5114) in the study conducted in the UK by Freeman et al., while the smallest sample size (n = 123) was found in the study conducted in Malta by Gretch et al., among general practitioners and trainees [48,49]. Out of these 60 surveys, 47 were among the general public, eight surveys were among healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, or others), three surveys were among parents/guardians and two surveys involved University students (Table 1). Surveys were most commonly conducted in June or July (23/60, 38%), followed by March or April (20/60, 33%).

3.2. Rates of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance

The results of the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates in different studies included in this review and stratified by country are shown in Table 1. Classified per study, the highest vaccine acceptance rates (>90%) among the general public were found in four studies from Ecuador (97.0%), Malaysia (94.3%), Indonesia (93.3%) and China (91.3%). On the contrary, the lowest vaccine acceptance rates (<60%) among the general public were found in seven studies to be from Kuwait (23.6%), Jordan (28.4%), Italy (53.7), Russia (54.9%), Poland (56.3%), US (56.9%), and France (58.9%). In Figure 2, COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates are shown per country, with the latest estimate used for countries with multiple studies.
For the eight studies conducted on healthcare workers, three surveys reported vaccine acceptance rates below 60%, with the highest rate being among doctors in Israel (78.1%) and the lowest vaccine acceptance rate (27.7%) reported among healthcare workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
For the three studies conducted among parents/guardians, the vaccine acceptance rates were more than 70%. For the two studies among University students, the vaccine acceptance rate was 57.3% in Malta (excluding university staff), and 86.1% in Italy.
Male sex was associated with significantly higher rates of COVID-19 vaccine in 15 countries/studies, while the age was a significant factor in 11 studies/countries.

3.3. Changes in COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance over Time in Countries with Multiple Survey Studies

In countries with multiple surveys over time, the following changes in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were observed. In the UK, the vaccine acceptance rate was 79.0% in April, 83.0% in May, 71.5% in June, 64.0% in July and 71.7% in September/October. In France, the vaccine acceptance rate ranged from 62.0% to 77.1% in March/April and was 58.9% in June. In Italy, the vaccine acceptance rate was 77.3% in April, 70.8% in June and it reached 53.7% in September.
For the vaccine acceptance rates in the US, it was 56.9% in April, and ranged from 67.0% to 75.0% in May, and reached 75.4% in June. In China, three studies reported high rates of vaccine acceptance with the first study that reported a vaccine acceptance rate of 91.3% in March, the second study reported a rate of 83.5% in May and the third study reported a rate of 88.6% in June.

4. Discussion

Vaccine hesitancy is an old phenomenon that represents a serious threat to the global health, as shown by the resurgence of some infectious diseases (e.g., outbreaks of measles and pertussis) [76,77,78,79,80]. The huge leaps in developing efficacious and safe COVID-19 vaccines within a short period were unprecedented [81,82,83]. Nevertheless, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can be the limiting step in the global efforts to control the current pandemic with its negative health and socio-economic effects [43,84,85].
Assessing the level of population immunity necessary to limit the pathogen spread is dependent on the basic reproductive number for that infectious disease [86]. The latest estimates on COVID-19, pointed out a range of 60–75% immune individuals that would be necessary to halt the forward transmission of the virus and community spread of the virus [87,88,89]. Vaccine cost, effectiveness and duration of protection appear as important factors to achieve such a goal [83,90,91]. However, vaccine hesitancy can be a decisive factor that would hinder the successful control of the current COVID-19 pandemic [43,92]. Thus, estimates of vaccine acceptance rates can be helpful to plan actions and intervention measures necessary to increase the awareness and assure people about the safety and benefits of vaccines, which in turn would help to control virus spread and alleviate the negative effects of this unprecedented pandemic [93,94]. Evaluation of attitudes and acceptance rates towards COVID-19 vaccines can help to initiate communication campaigns that are much needed to strengthen trust in health authorities [24].
In this review, a large variability in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates was found. However, certain patterns can be deduced based on descriptive analysis of the reported vaccine acceptance rates. First, in East and South East Asia, the overall acceptance rates among the general public were relatively high. This includes more than 90% acceptance rates in Indonesia, Malaysia and one study from China [51,52,59]. Another two surveys on the general public in China reported vaccine acceptance rates of more than 80%, with an additional survey in South Korea that reported a rate of 79.8% [46,63]. A later survey from Shenzhen, China, by Zhang et al., which surveyed parents/guardians who were factory workers, on their acceptability of children COVID-19 vaccination reported a lower rate of 72.5% compared to previous studies [71]. Similarly, an online survey on Australian parents showed an acceptance rate of 75.8%, dropping from a rate of 85.8% in April among adults in Australia who were surveyed in April 2020 [68,95]. The lowest COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate among the general public in the region was reported by Lazarus et al., in Singapore (67.9%) [46]. The relatively high rates of vaccine acceptance in the region were attributed to strong trust in governments [46]. Additionally, the only survey in India reported a vaccine acceptance rate of 74.5% [46]. The relatively high rates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance might be related to stronger confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness, as reported previously in Asia [27].
However, two studies that dated back to the early part of the pandemic (February and March) among nurses in Hong Kong reported low rates of COVID-19 acceptance (40.0% and 63.0%) [50,55]. Likewise, Kabamba Nzaji et al. reported a very low rate of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers in the DRC (27.7%) [56]. This issue is alarming considering the front-line position of healthcare workers in fighting the spread and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which put them at a higher risk of infection, and hence their higher need for protective measures [96,97,98].
Additionally, the vaccine acceptance rates were relatively high in Latin America, where results from Brazil and Ecuador reported more than 70% acceptance rates [46,58]. This was also seen in the survey from Mexico with a vaccine acceptance rate of 76.3% [46].
In Europe, the results were largely variable, with countries around the Mediterranean reporting vaccine acceptance rates as low as 53.7% in Italy, and 58.9% in France; no surveys among the general public in Malta were found [46,72]. The results in Italy and France can be viewed from the perspective of lacking confidence in the safety of these vaccines, since such a negative attitude was reported previously in these countries [27]. In addition, low rates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were reported among students and healthcare workers in Malta—44.2% and 52.0%, respectively [73,74]. Variable results were also reported in other European countries with rates as high as 80.0% in Denmark, and as low as 56.3% in Poland [46,47]. The vaccine acceptance rates were even lower in Russia (54.9%), which needs further evaluation considering the heavy toll of COVID-19 on the country [29,46]. Variability in vaccine acceptance rates was also seen in the UK, US and Canada over the course of the pandemic [61,62,64,65,70]. Additionally, a drop in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was noticed in a few European countries, which is in line with the recent report by Lin et al. [24]. Such patterns of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were consistent with a previous report that showed relatively high rates of vaccine hesitancy in Western and Eastern Europe, in addition to Russia [26]. The aforementioned low rates can be linked to lower confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness in these regions [26].
The Middle East was among the regions with the lowest COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates globally. The acceptance rate was the lowest in Kuwait (23.6%), followed by Jordan (28.4%), Saudi Arabia (64.7%) and Turkey (66.0%) [45,62,75]. Such low rates can be related to the widespread embrace of conspiratorial beliefs in the region, with its subsequent negative attitude towards vaccination [23,99,100,101]. However, the highest vaccine acceptance rate was reported in Israel (75.0%); however, this rate was much lower among nurses surveyed in the same study (61.1%) [53].
Only two surveys among the general public in African countries reported an acceptance rate of 81.6% in South Africa and 65.2% in Nigeria [46]. Early knowledge, attitudes and practices survey study towards COVID-19, from North-Central Nigeria, reported an acceptance rate of barely 29.0%, which highlights the need for more studies for an accurate depiction of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Africa due to possible large regional and sub-regional variations [102]. Thus, more studies are recommended in Africa to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the continent. Despite the previous findings of an overall low prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in Eastern Africa, the attitude towards the newer vaccines, including those of COVID-19, remains a study topic that has not been explored to a large degree [12]. Besides Africa, more studies are needed from Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Central and South America to reach reliable conclusions about the scope of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy around the globe.
Finally, the assessment of the role of sex and age in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy revealed that males were more inclined to accept COVID-19 vaccines. This can be related to their higher perception of COVID-19 dangers and lower belief in conspiratorial claims surrounding the disease [45,99,101]. These variables should be considered for an accurate interpretation of COVID-19 acceptance rates, since sampling bias, particularly in sex distribution, can affect the reported rates.
The limitations of this review include the sole dependence on PubMed in the search study; however, this approach was done to provide a concise and succinct evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. This approach could have resulted in the inevitable missing of a few relevant studies tackling the subject of this review (e.g., the study by Head et al. assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination intentions among adults in the US) [103]. In addition, the research studies included in this review represented cross-sectional studies, which can be seen as snapshots of vaccine hesitancy status in each country/region, with different sampling strategies, which may partly explain the differences in vaccine acceptance rates reported in various studies from a single country. Thus, the results should be interpreted with extreme caution since they cannot predict the future changes in vaccine acceptance rates. The results of this study can be used as an initial motivation and guide for future studies and vaccine awareness campaigns. Finally, an important limitation was related to the different approaches used to express the willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccines in various studies (i.e., some studies used a binary response of yes/no, while others used a scale of strongly agree/agree/neutral/disagree/strongly disagree to deduce the inclination towards vaccine acceptance, etc.); thus, this variable should be taken into account for accurate comparisons of vaccine acceptance rates between different studies.

5. Conclusions

Large variability in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates was reported in different countries and regions of the world. A sizable number of studies reported COVID-19 acceptance rates below 60%, which would pose a serious problem for efforts to control the current COVID-19 pandemic. Low COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates were more pronounced in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Russia. High acceptance rates in East and South East Asia would help to achieve proper control of the pandemic. More studies are recommended to assess the attitude of general public and healthcare workers in Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East besides Central and South America. Such studies would help to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its potential consequences in these regions, and around the globe.
The major challenges that could face successful implementation of COVID-19 vaccination programs to fight the unprecedented pandemic include mass manufacturing of vaccines, its fair distribution across the world and the uncertainty regarding its long-term efficacy. However, vaccine hesitancy can be the major hindrance of the control efforts to lessen the negative consequences of COVID-19 pandemic, at least in certain countries/regions.
The widespread prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy mandates collaborative efforts of governments, health policy makers, and media sources, including social media companies. It is recommended to build COVID-19 vaccination trust among the general public, via the spread of timely and clear messages through trusted channels advocating the safety and efficacy of currently available COVID-19 vaccines.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval is not applicable for this systematic review since data from previous published studies in which informed consent was obtained by primary investigators was analyzed.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting this systematic review are available in the reference section. In addition, the analyzed data that were used during the current systematic review are available from the author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my sincere gratitude for the reviewers, for their insightful and valuable comments on the manuscript that helped to improve its quality to a great degree.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares 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]
  2. SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Report of the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Available online: https://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2014/october/1_Report_WORKING_GROUP_vaccine_hesitancy_final.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2020).
  3. Gowda, C.; Dempsey, A.F. The rise (and fall?) of parental vaccine hesitancy. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2013, 9, 1755–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Kumar, D.; Chandra, R.; Mathur, M.; Samdariya, S.; Kapoor, N. Vaccine hesitancy: Understanding better to address better. Isr. J. Health Policy Res. 2016, 5, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Daley, M.F.; Narwaney, K.J.; Shoup, J.A.; Wagner, N.M.; Glanz, J.M. Addressing Parents’ Vaccine Concerns: A Randomized Trial of a Social Media Intervention. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2018, 55, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Arede, M.; Bravo-Araya, M.; Bouchard, E.; Singh Gill, G.; Plajer, V.; Shehraj, A.; Adam Shuaib, Y. Combating Vaccine Hesitancy: Teaching the Next Generation to Navigate Through the Post Truth Era. Front. Public Health 2018, 6, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Dube, E.; Vivion, M.; MacDonald, N.E. Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: Influence, impact and implications. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2015, 14, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Salmon, D.A.; Dudley, M.Z.; Glanz, J.M.; Omer, S.B. Vaccine Hesitancy: Causes, Consequences, and a Call to Action. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2015, 49, S391–S398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Larson, H.J.; Cooper, L.Z.; Eskola, J.; Katz, S.L.; Ratzan, S. Addressing the vaccine confidence gap. Lancet 2011, 378, 526–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Olson, O.; Berry, C.; Kumar, N. Addressing Parental Vaccine Hesitancy towards Childhood Vaccines in the United States: A Systematic Literature Review of Communication Interventions and Strategies. Vaccines 2020, 8, 590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Lane, S.; MacDonald, N.E.; Marti, M.; Dumolard, L. Vaccine hesitancy around the globe: Analysis of three years of WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form data-2015–2017. Vaccine 2018, 36, 3861–3867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wagner, A.L.; Masters, N.B.; Domek, G.J.; Mathew, J.L.; Sun, X.; Asturias, E.J.; Ren, J.; Huang, Z.; Contreras-Roldan, I.L.; Gebremeskel, B.; et al. Comparisons of Vaccine Hesitancy across Five Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Vaccines 2019, 7, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. Vaccine hesitancy: A generation at risk. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2019, 3, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Karafillakis, E.; Larson, H.J.; Consortium, A. The benefit of the doubt or doubts over benefits? A systematic literature review of perceived risks of vaccines in European populations. Vaccine 2017, 35, 4840–4850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pelcic, G.; Karacic, S.; Mikirtichan, G.L.; Kubar, O.I.; Leavitt, F.J.; Cheng-Tek Tai, M.; Morishita, N.; Vuletic, S.; Tomasevic, L. Religious exception for vaccination or religious excuses for avoiding vaccination. Croat. Med. J. 2016, 57, 516–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Yaqub, O.; Castle-Clarke, S.; Sevdalis, N.; Chataway, J. Attitudes to vaccination: A critical review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014, 112, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Karlsson, L.C.; Soveri, A.; Lewandowsky, S.; Karlsson, L.; Karlsson, H.; Nolvi, S.; Karukivi, M.; Lindfelt, M.; Antfolk, J. Fearing the disease or the vaccine: The case of COVID-19. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 172, 110590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. 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]
  19. Olagoke, A.A.; Olagoke, O.O.; Hughes, A.M. Intention to Vaccinate Against the Novel 2019 Coronavirus Disease: The Role of Health Locus of Control and Religiosity. J. Relig. Health 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Murphy, J.; Vallieres, 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] [PubMed]
  21. Pomares, T.D.; Buttenheim, A.M.; Amin, A.B.; Joyce, C.M.; Porter, R.M.; Bednarczyk, R.A.; Omer, S.B. Association of cognitive biases with human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy: A cross-sectional study. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2020, 16, 1018–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Browne, M.; Thomson, P.; Rockloff, M.J.; Pennycook, G. Going against the Herd: Psychological and Cultural Factors Underlying the ‘Vaccination Confidence Gap’. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Hornsey, M.J.; Harris, E.A.; Fielding, K.S. The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychol. 2018, 37, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lin, C.; Tu, P.; Beitsch, L.M. Confidence and Receptivity for COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Systematic Review. Vaccines 2021, 9, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. de Figueiredo, A.; Simas, C.; Karafillakis, E.; Paterson, P.; Larson, H.J. Mapping global trends in vaccine confidence and investigating barriers to vaccine uptake: A large-scale retrospective temporal modelling study. Lancet 2020, 396, 898–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wellcome Global Monitor. How Does the World Feel about Science and Health? Available online: https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wellcome-global-monitor-2018.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2021).
  27. Larson, H.J.; de Figueiredo, A.; Xiahong, Z.; Schulz, W.S.; Verger, P.; Johnston, I.G.; Cook, A.R.; Jones, N.S. The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights Through a 67-Country Survey. EBioMedicine 2016, 12, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Vaccinations for All. The Next Decade of Vaccines: Addressing the Challenges That Remain towards Achieving Vaccinations for All. Available online: https://www.results.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/NextDecadeOfVaccines_Single_NoBleed.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2021).
  29. Worldometer. COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on 10 January 2021).
  30. World Health Organization. COVID-19 Weekly Epidemiological Update, 22 December 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update---22-december-2020 (accessed on 26 December 2020).
  31. Prem, K.; Liu, Y.; Russell, T.W.; Kucharski, A.J.; Eggo, R.M.; Davies, N.; Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 Working Group; Jit, M.; Klepac, P. The effect of control strategies to reduce social mixing on outcomes of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: A modelling study. Lancet Public Health 2020, 5, e261–e270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Viner, R.M.; Russell, S.J.; Croker, H.; Packer, J.; Ward, J.; Stansfield, C.; Mytton, O.; Bonell, C.; Booy, R. School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: A rapid systematic review. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2020, 4, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Feng, S.; Shen, C.; Xia, N.; Song, W.; Fan, M.; Cowling, B.J. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020, 8, 434–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Korber, B.; Fischer, W.M.; Gnanakaran, S.; Yoon, H.; Theiler, J.; Abfalterer, W.; Hengartner, N.; Giorgi, E.E.; Bhattacharya, T.; Foley, B. Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: Evidence that D614G increases infectivity of the COVID-19 virus. Cell 2020, 182, 812–827.e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Grubaugh, N.D.; Hanage, W.P.; Rasmussen, A.L. Making sense of mutation: What D614G means for the COVID-19 pandemic remains unclear. Cell 2020, 182, 794–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sallam, M.; Ababneh, N.A.; Dababseh, D.; Bakri, F.G.; Mahafzah, A. Temporal increase in D614G mutation of SARS-CoV-2 in the Middle East and North Africa. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wise, J. Covid-19: New Coronavirus Variant Is Identified in UK; British Medical Journal Publishing Group: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Threat Assessment Brief: Rapid Increase of a SARS-CoV-2 Variant with Multiple Spike Protein Mutations Observed in the United Kingdom. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/threat-assessment-brief-rapid-increase-sars-cov-2-variant-united-kingdom (accessed on 26 December 2020).
  39. Nicola, M.; Alsafi, Z.; Sohrabi, C.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C.; Agha, M.; Agha, R. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 78, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Calina, D.; Docea, A.O.; Petrakis, D.; Egorov, A.M.; Ishmukhametov, A.A.; Gabibov, A.G.; Shtilman, M.I.; Kostoff, R.; Carvalho, F.; Vinceti, M.; et al. Towards effective COVID19 vaccines: Updates, perspectives and challenges (Review). Int. J. Mol. Med. 2020, 46, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Conte, C.; Sogni, F.; Affanni, P.; Veronesi, L.; Argentiero, A.; Esposito, S. Vaccines against Coronaviruses: The State of the Art. Vaccines 2020, 8, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. World Health Organization (WHO). Draft Landscape of COVID-19 Candidate Vaccines. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines (accessed on 26 December 2020).
  43. Harrison, E.A.; Wu, J.W. Vaccine confidence in the time of COVID-19. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2020, 35, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. 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] [PubMed]
  46. 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. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. 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; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  48. 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, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Grech, V.; Bonnici, J.; Zammit, D. Vaccine hesitancy in Maltese family physicians and their trainees vis-a-vis influenza and novel COVID-19 vaccination. Early Hum. Dev. 2020, 105259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. 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]
  51. Wang, J.; Jing, R.; Lai, X.; Zhang, H.; Lyu, Y.; Knoll, M.D.; Fang, H. Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination during the COVID-19 Pandemic in China. Vaccines 2020, 8, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Harapan, H.; Wagner, A.L.; Yufika, A.; Winardi, W.; Anwar, S.; Gan, A.K.; Setiawan, A.M.; Rajamoorthy, Y.; Sofyan, H.; Mudatsir, M. Acceptance of a COVID-19 Vaccine in Southeast Asia: A Cross-Sectional Study in Indonesia. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. 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]
  54. 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]
  55. Kwok, K.O.; Li, K.K.; Wei, W.I.; Tang, A.; Wong, S.Y.S.; Lee, S.S. Influenza vaccine uptake, COVID-19 vaccination intention and vaccine hesitancy among nurses: A survey. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2020, 114, 103854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kabamba Nzaji, M.; Kabamba Ngombe, L.; Ngoie Mwamba, G.; Banza Ndala, D.B.; Mbidi Miema, J.; Luhata Lungoyo, C.; Lora Mwimba, B.; Cikomola Mwana Bene, A.; Mukamba Musenga, E. Acceptability of Vaccination Against COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Pragmat. Obs. Res. 2020, 11, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gagneux-Brunon, A.; Detoc, M.; Bruel, S.; Tardy, B.; Rozaire, O.; Frappe, P.; Botelho-Nevers, E. Intention to get vaccinations against COVID-19 in French healthcare workers during the first pandemic wave: A cross sectional survey. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sarasty, O.; Carpio, C.E.; Hudson, D.; Guerrero-Ochoa, P.A.; Borja, I. The demand for a COVID-19 vaccine in Ecuador. Vaccine 2020, 38, 8090–8098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wong, L.P.; Alias, H.; Wong, P.F.; Lee, H.Y.; AbuBakar, S. The use of the health belief model to assess predictors of intent to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and willingness to pay. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2020, 16, 2204–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ward, J.K.; Alleaume, C.; Peretti-Watel, P.; Group, C. 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] [PubMed]
  61. 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]
  62. Salali, G.D.; Uysal, M.S. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is associated with beliefs on the origin of the novel coronavirus in the UK and Turkey. Psychol. Med. 2020, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. 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]
  64. Taylor, S.; Landry, C.A.; Paluszek, M.M.; Groenewoud, R.; Rachor, G.S.; Asmundson, G.J.G. A Proactive Approach for Managing COVID-19: The Importance of Understanding the Motivational Roots of Vaccination Hesitancy for SARS-CoV2. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 575950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Reiter, P.L.; Pennell, M.L.; Katz, M.L. Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated? Vaccine 2020, 38, 6500–6507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Malik, A.A.; McFadden, S.M.; Elharake, J.; Omer, S.B. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US. EClinicalMedicine 2020, 26, 100495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Barello, S.; Nania, T.; Dellafiore, F.; Graffigna, G.; Caruso, R. ‘Vaccine hesitancy’ among university students in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2020, 35, 781–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rhodes, A.; Hoq, M.; Measey, M.A.; Danchin, M. Intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 in Australia. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bell, S.; Clarke, R.; Mounier-Jack, S.; Walker, J.L.; Paterson, P. Parents’ and guardians’ views on the acceptability of a future COVID-19 vaccine: A multi-methods study in England. Vaccine 2020, 38, 7789–7798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sherman, S.M.; Smith, L.E.; Sim, J.; Amlot, 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. Vaccines Immunother. 2020, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Zhang, K.C.; Fang, Y.; Cao, H.; Chen, H.; Hu, T.; Chen, Y.Q.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Z. Parental acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination for children under the age of 18 years in China: Cross-sectional online survey. JMIR Pediatr. Parent. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. 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. Med. Lav. 2020, 111, 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Grech, V.; Gauci, C.; Agius, S. Vaccine hesitancy among Maltese healthcare workers toward influenza and novel COVID-19 vaccination. Early Hum. Dev. 2020, 105213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Grech, V.; Gauci, C. Vaccine hesitancy in the University of Malta Faculties of Health Sciences, Dentistry and Medicine vis-a-vis influenza and novel COVID-19 vaccination. Early Hum. Dev. 2020, 105258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Al-Mohaithef, M.; Padhi, B.K. Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in Saudi Arabia: A Web-Based National Survey. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2020, 13, 1657–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Phadke, V.K.; Bednarczyk, R.A.; Salmon, D.A.; Omer, S.B. Association between Vaccine Refusal and Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States: A Review of Measles and Pertussis. JAMA 2016, 315, 1149–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Benecke, O.; DeYoung, S.E. Anti-Vaccine Decision-Making and Measles Resurgence in the United States. Glob. Pediatr. Health 2019, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Gangarosa, E.J.; Galazka, A.M.; Wolfe, C.R.; Phillips, L.M.; Gangarosa, R.E.; Miller, E.; Chen, R.T. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: The untold story. Lancet 1998, 351, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Borba, R.C.; Vidal, V.M.; Moreira, L.O. The re-emergency and persistence of vaccine preventable diseases. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2015, 87, 1311–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Wong, L.P.; Wong, P.F.; AbuBakar, S. Vaccine hesitancy and the resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases: The way forward for Malaysia, a Southeast Asian country. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2020, 16, 1511–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lurie, N.; Saville, M.; Hatchett, R.; Halton, J. Developing Covid-19 vaccines at pandemic speed. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1969–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Graham, B.S. Rapid COVID-19 vaccine development. Science 2020, 368, 945–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Sharma, O.; Sultan, A.A.; Ding, H.; Triggle, C.R. A Review of the Progress and Challenges of Developing a Vaccine for COVID-19. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 585354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Pogue, K.; Jensen, J.L.; Stancil, C.K.; Ferguson, D.G.; Hughes, S.J.; Mello, E.J.; Burgess, R.; Berges, B.K.; Quaye, A.; Poole, B.D. Influences on Attitudes Regarding Potential COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States. Vaccines 2020, 8, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Hamadani, J.D.; Hasan, M.I.; Baldi, A.J.; Hossain, S.J.; Shiraji, S.; Bhuiyan, M.S.A.; Mehrin, S.F.; Fisher, J.; Tofail, F.; Tipu, S.M.U. Immediate impact of stay-at-home orders to control COVID-19 transmission on socioeconomic conditions, food insecurity, mental health, and intimate partner violence in Bangladeshi women and their families: An interrupted time series. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 8, e1380–e1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ridenhour, B.; Kowalik, J.M.; Shay, D.K. Unraveling r 0: Considerations for public health applications. Am. J. Public Health 2018, 108, S445–S454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Billah, M.A.; Miah, M.M.; Khan, M.N. Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0242128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Anderson, R.M.; Vegvari, C.; Truscott, J.; Collyer, B.S. Challenges in creating herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection by mass vaccination. Lancet 2020, 396, 1614–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Britton, T.; Ball, F.; Trapman, P. A mathematical model reveals the influence of population heterogeneity on herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Science 2020, 369, 846–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wang, J.; Peng, Y.; Xu, H.; Cui, Z.; Williams, R.O., 3rd. The COVID-19 Vaccine Race: Challenges and Opportunities in Vaccine Formulation. AAPS Pharm. Sci. Tech. 2020, 21, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Teerawattananon, Y.; Dabak, S.V. COVID Vaccination Logistics: Five Steps to Take Now; Nature Publishing Group: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  92. Palamenghi, L.; Barello, S.; Boccia, S.; Graffigna, G. Mistrust in biomedical research and vaccine hesitancy: The forefront challenge in the battle against COVID-19 in Italy. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2020, 35, 785–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Weintraub, R.L.; Subramanian, L.; Karlage, A.; Ahmad, I.; Rosenberg, J. COVID-19 Vaccine To Vaccination: Why Leaders Must Invest In Delivery Strategies Now: Analysis describe lessons learned from past pandemics and vaccine campaigns about the path to successful vaccine delivery for COVID-19. Health Aff. 2021, 40, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Habersaat, K.B.; Betsch, C.; Danchin, M.; Sunstein, C.R.; Böhm, R.; Falk, A.; Brewer, N.T.; Omer, S.B.; Scherzer, M.; Sah, S. Ten considerations for effectively managing the COVID-19 transition. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020, 4, 677–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Dodd, R.H.; Cvejic, E.; Bonner, C.; Pickles, K.; McCaffery, K.J.; Sydney Health Literacy Lab COVID-19 Group. Willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in Australia. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nguyen, L.H.; Drew, D.A.; Graham, M.S.; Joshi, A.D.; Guo, C.-G.; Ma, W.; Mehta, R.S.; Warner, E.T.; Sikavi, D.R.; Lo, C.-H. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: A prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Health 2020, 5, e475–e483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Shaukat, N.; Ali, D.M.; Razzak, J. Physical and mental health impacts of COVID-19 on healthcare workers: A scoping review. Int. J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 13, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Nie, Q.; Li, X.; Chen, W.; Liu, D.; Chen, Y.; Li, H.; Li, D.; Tian, M.; Tan, W.; Zai, J. Phylogenetic and phylodynamic analyses of SARS-CoV-2. Virus Res. 2020, 287, 198098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sallam, M.; Dababseh, D.; Yaseen, A.; Al-Haidar, A.; Taim, D.; Eid, H.; Ababneh, N.A.; Bakri, F.G.; Mahafzah, A. COVID-19 misinformation: Mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0243264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Nyhan, B.; Zeitzoff, T. Conspiracy and misperception belief in the Middle East and North Africa. J. Politics 2018, 80, 1400–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Sallam, M.; Dababseh, D.; Yaseen, A.; Al-Haidar, A.; Ababneh, N.A.; Bakri, F.G.; Mahafzah, A. Conspiracy Beliefs Are Associated with Lower Knowledge and Higher Anxiety Levels Regarding COVID-19 among Students at the University of Jordan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Reuben, R.C.; Danladi, M.M.A.; Saleh, D.A.; Ejembi, P.E. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Towards COVID-19: An Epidemiological Survey in North-Central Nigeria. J. Community Health 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. 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]
Vaccines 09 00160 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart of the study selection process.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the study selection process.
Vaccines 09 00160 g001
Vaccines 09 00160 g002 550
Figure 2. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates worldwide. For countries with more than one survey study, the vaccine acceptance rate of the latest survey was used in this graph. The estimates were also based on studies from the general population, except in the following cases where no studies from the general public were found (Australia: parents/guardians; DRC: healthcare workers; Hong Kong: healthcare workers; Malta: healthcare workers).
Figure 2. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates worldwide. For countries with more than one survey study, the vaccine acceptance rate of the latest survey was used in this graph. The estimates were also based on studies from the general population, except in the following cases where no studies from the general public were found (Australia: parents/guardians; DRC: healthcare workers; Hong Kong: healthcare workers; Malta: healthcare workers).
Vaccines 09 00160 g002
Table
Table 1. COVID-19 acceptance rates divided by the included studies and sorted based on the date of survey.
Table 1. COVID-19 acceptance rates divided by the included studies and sorted based on the date of survey.
StudyCountryDate of SurveyResponse Recorded as Vaccine AcceptanceN 6Target PopulationAcceptance Rate (%)Age/Sex Correlation with Higher Vaccine Acceptance
Wang et al. [50]Hong KongFebruary and March, 2020Intend to accept806Nurses40.0Male
Wang et al. [51]ChinaMarch, 2020Yes2058General population91.3Male
Harapan et al. [52]IndonesiaMarch and April 2020Yes1359General population93.3None
Dror et al. [53]IsraelMarch and April 2020Yes388Doctors78.1-
Detoc et al. [54]FranceMarch and April 2020Yes certainly/possibly3259General population77.6Male, age
Dror et al. [53]IsraelMarch and April 2020Yes1112General population75.0-
Kwok et al. [55]Hong KongMarch and April 2020Likely to vaccinate (scored 6 or above out of 10)1205Nurses63.0Age
Dror et al. [53]IsraelMarch and April 2020Yes211Nurses61.1-
Nzaji et al. [56]DRC 2March and April 2020Yes613Healthcare workers27.7Age
Gagneux-Brunon et al. [57]FranceMarch to July, 2020Yes2047Healthcare workers76.9Male, age
Sarasty et al. [58]EcuadorApril, 2020Willing to accept a vaccine1050General population97.0-
Wong et al. [59]MalaysiaApril, 2020Definitely, probably or possibly yes1159General population94.3Male
Neumann-Böhme et al. [47] 1DenmarkApril, 2020Yes1000General population80.0-
Neumann-Böhme et al. [47]UK 3April, 2020Yes1000General population79.0-
Neumann-Böhme et al. [47]ItalyApril, 2020Yes1500General population77.3-
Ward et al. [60]FranceApril and May 2020Certainly or probably5018General population76.0None
Neumann-Böhme et al. [47]PortugalApril, 2020Yes1000General population75.0-
Neumann-Böhme et al. [47]NetherlandApril, 2020Yes1000General population73.0-
Neumann-Böhme et al. [47]GermanyApril, 2020Yes1000General population70.0-
Neumann-Böhme et al. [47]FranceApril, 2020Yes1000General population62.0-
Fisher et al. [61]US 4April, 2020Yes1003General population56.9Male, age
Salali & Uysal [62]UKMay, 2020Yes1088General population83.0None
Lin et al. [63]ChinaMay, 2020Definitely/probably yes3541General population83.5None
Taylor et al. [64]CanadaMay, 2020Yes1902General population80.0Male, age
Taylor et al. [64]USMay, 2020Yes1772General population75.0Male, age
Salali & Uysal [62]TurkeyMay, 2020Yes3936General population66.0Male
Reiter et al. [65]USMay, 2020Definitely/probably willing2006General population68.5Male
Malik et al. [66]USMay, 2020Agree/strongly agree672General population67.0Male, age
Lazarus et al. [46]ChinaJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree712General population88.6-
Barello et al. [67]ItalyJune, 2020Yes735University students86.1-
Lazarus et al. [46]BrazilJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree717General population85.4-
Lazarus et al. [46]South AfricaJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree619General population81.6-
Lazarus et al. [46]South KoreaJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree752General population79.8-
Lazarus et al. [46]MexicoJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree699General population76.3-
Lazarus et al. [46]USJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree773General population75.4-
Lazarus et al. [46]IndiaJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree742General population74.5-
Lazarus et al. [46]SpainJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree748General population74.3-
Lazarus et al. [46]EcuadorJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree741General population71.9-
Lazarus et al. [46]UKJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree768General population71.5-
Lazarus et al. [46]ItalyJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree736General population70.8-
Lazarus et al. [46]CanadaJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree707General population68.7-
Lazarus et al. [46]GermanyJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree722General population68.4-
Lazarus et al. [46]SingaporeJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree655General population67.9-
Lazarus et al. [46]SwedenJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree650General population65.2-
Lazarus et al. [46]NigeriaJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree670General population65.2-
Lazarus et al. [46]FranceJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree669General population58.9-
Lazarus et al. [46]PolandJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree666General population56.3-
Lazarus et al. [46]RussiaJune, 2020Completely/somewhat agree680General population54.9-
Rhodes et al. [68]AustraliaJune, 2020Yes2018Parents and guardians75.8Male, age
Bell et al. [69]UKJuly, 2020Yes, definitely or unsure but leaning towards yes1252Parents and guardians89.1-
Sherman et al. [70]UKJuly, 2020Very likely1500General population64.0Age
Zhang et al. [71]ChinaSeptember, 2020Likely or very likely1052Parents and guardians72.6None
Gretch et al. [49]MaltaSeptember, 2020Likely123GPs and GP trainees61.8-
La Vecchia et al. [72]ItalySeptember, 2020Yes/probably yes1055General population53.7-
Gretch et al. [73]MaltaSeptember, 2020Likely1002Healthcare workers52.0-
Gretch & Gauci [74]MaltaSeptember, 2020Likely852University students/staff44.2-
Freeman et al. [48]UKSeptember and October, 2020Endorsing 4/7 items of Oxford Scale 55114General population71.7Male, age
Al-Mohaithef & Badhi [75]Saudi ArabiaUnknownYes992General population64.7None
Sallam et al. [45]JordanDecember, 2020Yes2173General population28.4Male
Sallam et al. [45]KuwaitDecember, 2020Yes771General population23.6Male
1 The study by Neumann-Böhme et al. reported that males and participants > 55 years were more willing to accept COVID-19 vaccines; however, this finding was not stratified per country. 2 DRC: The Democratic Republic of the Congo; 3 UK: United Kingdom; 4 US: United States; 5 Oxford Scale: Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale developed by Freeman et al. [48]; 6 N: Number.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sallam, M. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates. Vaccines 2021, 9, 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020160

AMA Style

Sallam M. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates. Vaccines. 2021; 9(2):160. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020160

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sallam, Malik. 2021. "COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates" Vaccines 9, no. 2: 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020160

APA Style

Sallam, M. (2021). COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates. Vaccines, 9(2), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020160

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop