Cited by 1,089Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyRisk Perception and ManagementMisinformation and Its Impacts

Attitudes to vaccination: A critical review

Open access
Yaqub, Ohid, Castle-Clarke, Sophie, Sevdalis, Nick, Chataway, Joanna·2014·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

This paper provides a consolidated overview of public and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards vaccination in Europe by bringing together for the first time evidence across various vaccines, countries and populations. The paper relies on an extensive review of empirical literature published in English after 2009, as well as an analysis of unpublished market research data from member companies of Vaccines Europe. Our synthesis suggests that hesitant attitudes to vaccination are prevalent and may be increasing since the influenza pandemic of 2009. We define hesitancy as an expression of concern or doubt about the value or safety of vaccination. This means that hesitant attitudes are not confined only to those who refuse vaccination or those who encourage others to refuse vaccination. For many people, vaccination attitudes are shaped not just by healthcare professionals but also by an array of other information sources, including online and social media sources. We find that healthcare professionals report increasing challenges to building a trustful relationship with patients, through which they might otherwise allay concerns and reassure hesitant patients. We also find a range of reasons for vaccination attitudes, only some of which can be characterised as being related to lack of awareness or misinformation. Reasons that relate to issues of mistrust are cited more commonly in the literature than reasons that relate to information deficit. The importance of trust in the institutions involved with vaccination is discussed in terms of implications for researchers and policy-makers; we suggest that rebuilding this trust is a multi-stakeholder problem requiring a co-ordinated strategy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.018

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • They typically consulted social networks of parents, including parent-lobby groups, for nonjudgmental discussion and access to the information they needed.

    “They typically consulted social networks of parents, including parent-lobby groups, for nonjudgmental discussion and access to the information they needed.”

    From Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy (2016) · cites this paper as Yaqub et al 2014

  • The children's pediatricians were generally not consulted, not because parents feared reproach, but because they felt that the physicians had to support the 'official' line.

    “The children's pediatricians were generally not consulted in this process of inquiry, not because parents feared reproach, but because they felt that the physicians had to support the 'official' line (Leach and Fairhead 2007, 64; see also Evans et al 2001 and Yaqub et al 2014).”

    From Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy (2016) · cites this paper as Yaqub et al 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yaqub, O., Castle-Clarke, S., Sevdalis, N., & Chataway, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • St Mary's Hospital (GB)
  • The Open University (GB)
Corresponding author
Yaqub, Ohid
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
112
Pages
1-11
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031092644
Cited by
1,089
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 135 · 2022: 203 · 2021: 194 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 6
FWCI
6.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Vaccines Europe
  • Sanofi Pasteur
  • UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
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 attitudes, vaccine hesitancy, public attitudes, healthcare workers, institutional trust, vaccine safety concerns, misinformation, social media, vaccine refusal
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Europe, Humans, Vaccination

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