Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding factors influencing vaccination acceptance during pregnancy globally: A literature review

Open access
Wilson, Rose J., Paterson, Pauline, Jarrett, Caitlin, Larson, Heidi J.·2015·Vaccine

Abstract

Maternal vaccination has been evaluated and found to be extremely effective at preventing illness in pregnant women and new-borns; however, uptake of such programmes has been low in some areas. To analyse factors contributing to uptake of vaccines globally, a systematic review on vaccine hesitancy was carried out by The Vaccine Confidence Project in 2012. In order to further analyse factors contributing to uptake of maternal immunisation, a further search within the broader systematic review was conducted using the terms 'Pregnan*' or 'Matern*'. Forty-two articles were identified. Pregnancy-related articles were further screened to identify those focused on concerns, trust and access issues regarding maternal vaccination reported by pregnant women and healthcare workers. Thirty-five relevant articles were included which were then searched using the snowballing technique to identify additional relevant references cited in these articles. A search alert was also conducted from February to April 2015 in PubMed to ensure that no new relevant articles were missed. A total of 155 relevant articles were included. Most of the literature which was identified on hesitancy surrounding vaccination during pregnancy reports on determinants of influenza vaccine uptake in North America. Research conducted in low-income countries focused primarily on tetanus vaccine acceptance. The main barriers cited were related to vaccine safety, belief that vaccine not needed or effective, not recommended by healthcare worker, low knowledge about vaacines, access issues, cost, conflicting advice. From the point of view of healthcare workers, barriers included inadequate training, inadequate reimbursement and increased workload. Twenty-seven out of 46 (59%) articles mentioning ethnicity reported lower rates of coverage among ethnic minorities. Barriers to vaccination in pregnancy are complex and vary depending on context and population. There are wide gaps in knowledge regarding the attitudes of healthcare workers and how ethnicity and gender dynamics influence a pregnant woman's decision to vaccinate.

Overview

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.2015.08.046

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 370

Metadata

Authors
Wilson, R. J., Paterson, P., Jarrett, C., & Larson, H. J.
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
33
Issue
47
Pages
6420-6429
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1126583247
Cited by
370
References
1
FWCI
24.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding factors influencing vaccination acceptance during pregnancy globally: A literature review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.08.046
The paper
Wilson, R. J., Paterson, P., Jarrett, C., & Larson, H. J. (2015). Understanding factors influencing vaccination acceptance during pregnancy globally: A literature review. Vaccine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.08.046

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.