Cited by 1,264Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyRisk Perception and ManagementMisinformation and Its Impacts

The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights Through a 67-Country Survey

Open access
Larson, Heidi J., de Figueiredo, Alexandre, Xiahong, Zhao, Schulz, William S., Verger, Pierre, Johnston, Iain G., Cook, Alex R., Jones, Nick S.·2016·EBioMedicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Public trust in immunization is an increasingly important global health issue. Losses in confidence in vaccines and immunization programmes can lead to vaccine reluctance and refusal, risking disease outbreaks and challenging immunization goals in high- and low-income settings. National and international immunization stakeholders have called for better monitoring of vaccine confidence to identify emerging concerns before they evolve into vaccine confidence crises. METHODS: We perform a large-scale, data-driven study on worldwide attitudes to immunizations. This survey - which we believe represents the largest survey on confidence in immunization to date - examines perceptions of vaccine importance, safety, effectiveness, and religious compatibility among 65,819 individuals across 67 countries. Hierarchical models are employed to probe relationships between individual- and country-level socio-economic factors and vaccine attitudes obtained through the four-question, Likert-scale survey. FINDINGS: Overall sentiment towards vaccinations is positive across all 67 countries, however there is wide variability between countries and across world regions. Vaccine-safety related sentiment is particularly negative in the European region, which has seven of the ten least confident countries, with 41% of respondents in France and 36% of respondents in Bosnia & Herzegovina reporting that they disagree that vaccines are safe (compared to a global average of 13%). The oldest age group (65+) and Roman Catholics (amongst all faiths surveyed) are associated with positive views on vaccine sentiment, while the Western Pacific region reported the highest level of religious incompatibility with vaccines. Countries with high levels of schooling and good access to health services are associated with lower rates of positive sentiment, pointing to an emerging inverse relationship between vaccine sentiments and socio-economic status. CONCLUSIONS: Regular monitoring of vaccine attitudes - coupled with monitoring of local immunization rates - at the national and sub-national levels can identify populations with declining confidence and acceptance. These populations should be prioritized to further investigate the drivers of negative sentiment and to inform appropriate interventions to prevent adverse public health outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.042

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larson, H. J., de Figueiredo, A., Xiahong, Z., Schulz, W. S., Verger, P., Johnston, I. G., Cook, A. R., & Jones, N. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Larson, Heidi J.
Venue
EBioMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-10
Volume
12
Pages
295-301
ISSN
2352-3964 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2519901476
Cited by
1,264
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 75 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 177 · 2022: 186 · 2021: 236 · 2020: 142 · 2019: 106 · 2018: 78 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 6
FWCI
105.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EBioMedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
EPSRC (EP/N014529/1, EP/I005986/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
vaccine confidence, vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal, vaccine safety beliefs, vaccine effectiveness perception, educational attainment, health care access, cross-national comparison
MeSH terms
Geography, Humans, Immunization, Population Surveillance, Socioeconomic Factors, Vaccination, Vaccines, Global Health, Odds Ratio, History, 21st Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review