A rapid review of evidence on the determinants of and strategies for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in low- and middle-income countries.
Journal
Journal of global health
ISSN: 2047-2986
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101578780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
entrez:
16
12
2021
pubmed:
17
12
2021
medline:
18
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among the general population and health care workers play an important role in successfully controlling the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic. While there is evidence for vaccine hesitancy across the globe, wide variation in factors influencing vaccine acceptance has been reported, mainly from High-Income Countries (HIC). However, the evidence from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) remains unclear. The objective of this review was to describe the determinants of vaccine acceptance and strategies to address those in an LMIC context. The World Health Organization's (WHO) Measuring Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) Increasing Vaccination Model was employed to identify factors that influenced vaccine acceptance. All evidence related to supply-side and demand-side determinants and social and health system processes were examined. A comprehensive search for published literature was conducted in three databases and grey literature in relevant websites of government, multinational agencies, and COVID-19 resource aggregators, followed by a narrative synthesis. Overall, the results showed that the vaccine acceptance rates differed across LMICs, with a wide variety of reasons cited for vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine acceptance was reportedly greater among males, those with higher education, elevated socio-economic status, the unmarried, those employed as health care workers. Evidence suggested that exposure to misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and public concerns over the safety of vaccines may contribute to lower acceptance rates. Strategies to increase vaccine acceptance rates included direct engagement with communities through influencers, including community leaders and health experts; clear and transparent communication about COVID-19 vaccines, financial and non-financial incentives; and strong endorsement from health care workers. Trust in government was identified as a significant enabler of vaccine acceptance. There is a need for measures to address public acceptability, trust and concern over the safety and benefit of approved vaccines. Local context is essential to consider while developing programs to promote vaccine uptake. The governments worldwide also need to strategize to develop plans to address the anxiety and vaccine related concerns of community regarding vaccine hesitancy. There is a need for further research to evaluate strategies to address vaccine hesitancy in LMIC.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among the general population and health care workers play an important role in successfully controlling the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic. While there is evidence for vaccine hesitancy across the globe, wide variation in factors influencing vaccine acceptance has been reported, mainly from High-Income Countries (HIC). However, the evidence from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) remains unclear. The objective of this review was to describe the determinants of vaccine acceptance and strategies to address those in an LMIC context.
METHODS
METHODS
The World Health Organization's (WHO) Measuring Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) Increasing Vaccination Model was employed to identify factors that influenced vaccine acceptance. All evidence related to supply-side and demand-side determinants and social and health system processes were examined. A comprehensive search for published literature was conducted in three databases and grey literature in relevant websites of government, multinational agencies, and COVID-19 resource aggregators, followed by a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, the results showed that the vaccine acceptance rates differed across LMICs, with a wide variety of reasons cited for vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine acceptance was reportedly greater among males, those with higher education, elevated socio-economic status, the unmarried, those employed as health care workers. Evidence suggested that exposure to misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and public concerns over the safety of vaccines may contribute to lower acceptance rates. Strategies to increase vaccine acceptance rates included direct engagement with communities through influencers, including community leaders and health experts; clear and transparent communication about COVID-19 vaccines, financial and non-financial incentives; and strong endorsement from health care workers. Trust in government was identified as a significant enabler of vaccine acceptance.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There is a need for measures to address public acceptability, trust and concern over the safety and benefit of approved vaccines. Local context is essential to consider while developing programs to promote vaccine uptake. The governments worldwide also need to strategize to develop plans to address the anxiety and vaccine related concerns of community regarding vaccine hesitancy. There is a need for further research to evaluate strategies to address vaccine hesitancy in LMIC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34912550
doi: 10.7189/jogh.11.05027
pii: jogh-11-05027
pmc: PMC8645216
doi:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
05027Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: The authors completed the ICMJE Declaration of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Nat Rev Immunol. 2021 Apr;21(4):198-199
pubmed: 33712744
Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Apr;35(4):325-330
pubmed: 32318915
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Mar 12;9(3):
pubmed: 33809002
Nat Med. 2021 Aug;27(8):1385-1394
pubmed: 34272499
Infect Dis Ther. 2020 Sep;9(3):421-432
pubmed: 32447713
Nat Med. 2021 Feb;27(2):225-228
pubmed: 33082575
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 May 17;9(5):
pubmed: 34067682
Pan Afr Med J. 2021 Mar 02;38:230
pubmed: 34046135
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2016 Apr 2;12(4):1045-50
pubmed: 26577532
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Aug;103(2):603-604
pubmed: 32588810
Infect Drug Resist. 2011;4:197-207
pubmed: 22114512
Arch Dis Child. 2021 Feb;106(2):113-114
pubmed: 32912868
Vaccines (Basel). 2020 Jun 17;8(2):
pubmed: 32560340
Vaccines (Basel). 2020 Dec 30;9(1):
pubmed: 33396832
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018;14(10):2391-2396
pubmed: 29923787
J Family Med Prim Care. 2021 Jun;10(6):2369-2375
pubmed: 34322440
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 15;16(9):e0257237
pubmed: 34525110
R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Oct 14;7(10):201199
pubmed: 33204475
J Health Commun. 2020 Oct 2;25(10):799-807
pubmed: 33719881
Front Public Health. 2021 Feb 10;9:632914
pubmed: 33643995
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 27;16(4):e0250495
pubmed: 33905442
Am J Prev Med. 2020 Oct;59(4):493-503
pubmed: 32778354
BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 24;11(8):e050303
pubmed: 34429316
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Apr 01;9(4):
pubmed: 33915829
Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4176-9
pubmed: 25896376
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Feb 16;9(2):
pubmed: 33669441
Vaccine. 2019 Mar 7;37(11):1495-1502
pubmed: 30755367
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Nov;20(11):e637-e644
pubmed: 31674322