CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,066Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchRisk Perception and Management

Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy–A systematic review

Open access
Jarrett, Caitlin, Wilson, Rose, O’Leary, Maureen, Eckersberger, Elisabeth, Larson, Heidi J.·2015·Vaccine
DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts. METHODS: A systematic review of peer reviewed (January 2007-October 2013) and grey literature (up to October 2013) was conducted using a broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy concerning vaccines. This search strategy was applied and adapted across several databases and organizational websites. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for 166 (peer reviewed) and 15 (grey literature) evaluation studies. In addition, the quality of evidence relating to a series of PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control, outcomes) questions defined by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy (WG) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria; data were analyzed using Review Manager. RESULTS: Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.

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.vaccine.2015.04.040

Cites

181 of 181 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?

  • There is little systematic research on correcting vaccine misinformation and no strong evidence recommending any specific intervention to address vaccine hesitancy.

    “Notwithstanding the centrality of the vaccine issue, there is little systematic research on correcting vaccine misinformation and we found no strong evidence recommending any specific intervention to address vaccines hesitancy [3, 40, 41].”

    From Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies (2017) · cites this paper as [40]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. WHO SAGE working group dealing with vaccine hesitancy. In: Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy -a systematic review. 2014. http://www.who. int/immunization/sage/meetings/2014/october/3 SAGE WG Strategies addressing vaccine hesitancy 2014.pdf?ua=1
  2. Walter EB, Hellkamp AS, Goldberg KC, Montgomery D, Patterson B, Dolor RJ. Improving influenza vaccine coverage among asthmatics: a practice-based research network study. J Clin Outcomes Manag 2008;15(5):227-34.
  3. Honda H, Sato Y, Yamazaki A, Kumagai A. A multifaceted intervention to increase the influenza vaccination rate of healthcare workers without a mandatory policy in Japan. In: 28th International Congress of Chemother- apy and Infection Incorporating the 14th Asia-Pacific Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infection, vol. 42. 2013. p. S107.
  4. Baudier F, Tarrapey F, Leboube G. Pilot campaign to promote vaccination: description preliminary results of a regional French program. Med Mal Infect 2007;37(6):331-6.
  5. Bandaly F, Asmar G, Motillon S. Impact of the vaccination recommendations against influenza on the perceptions and motivations of the profession- als of an emergency-SMUR-Short stay medical unit department. JEUR 2009;22(3):81-5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jarrett, C., Wilson, R., O’Leary, M., Eckersberger, E., & Larson, H. J.
Affiliations
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Larson, Heidi J.
ORCID
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
33
Issue
34
Pages
4180-4190
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040
OpenAlex
W1997491007
Cited by
1,066
References
181
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 150 · 2022: 202 · 2021: 183 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 13 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Vaccine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
vaccine hesitancy, vaccine hesitancy interventions, vaccine uptake, vaccine confidence, social mobilization, mass communication, health care worker training, non-monetary incentives, multicomponent intervention, influenza vaccination, HPV vaccine, childhood vaccines, DTP vaccine, polio vaccine, low- and middle-income countries
MeSH terms
Communication, Health Personnel, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Compliance, Vaccination, Vaccines, World Health Organization, Treatment Refusal

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