The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 11 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine
Open accessAbstract
Several coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are currently in human trials. In June 2020, we surveyed 13,426 people in 19 countries to determine potential acceptance rates and factors influencing acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of these, 71.5% of participants reported that they would be very or somewhat likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine, and 48.1% reported that they would accept their employer’s recommendation to do so. Differences in acceptance rates ranged from almost 90% (in China) to less than 55% (in Russia). Respondents reporting higher levels of trust in information from government sources were more likely to accept a vaccine and take their employer’s advice to do so. Survey data from across 19 countries reveal heterogeneity in attitudes toward acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine and suggest that trust in government is associated with vaccine confidence.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In June 2020, a 19-country survey of 13,426 adults found that 71.5% would be very or somewhat likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 48.1% would accept their employer’s recommendation to do so. Acceptance varied widely by country and was strongly associated with trust in government.
Key findings
- Overall, 71.5% reported they would take a proven safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine, and 48.1% said they would accept an employer recommendation to get vaccinated.
- Country variation was large: China had the highest positive response for the general vaccine question (631/712, 88.6%) and Russia the lowest (373/680, 54.9%); Poland had the highest negative response (182/666, 27.3%). For employer recommendation, China had 83.7% positive responses (596/712), while Russia had the lowest willingness (184/680, 27.1%) and highest negative response (278/680, 40.9%).
- Trust in government was associated with acceptance: OR = 1.67 (95% CI 1.54, 1.80) for the general vaccine question and OR = 4.35 (95% CI 4.01, 4.72) for the employer-recommendation question.
- Older age and higher income/education were positively associated with acceptance. For example, respondents aged 65+ vs 18–24 had OR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.48, 2.02) for the general question, and those earning >$32/day vs <$2/day had OR = 2.18 (95% CI 1.79, 2.64). Men were slightly less likely than women to respond positively (OR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.78, 0.91), and self/family COVID-19 sickness was not associated with acceptance (OR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.87, 1.08).
Methods
- The study analyzed two vaccine-acceptance questions from the COVID-SCORE online survey, collected June 16–20, 2020, from 13,426 respondents aged 18+ in 19 countries, with 619–773 participants per country.
- Participants were recruited through multiple international online panel providers; sampling was random and described elsewhere.
- Responses used a five-point Likert scale. Logistic regressions coded “completely agree” or “somewhat agree” as 1 and all other responses as 0, with univariate models against age, gender, income, education, COVID-19 sickness in self/family, country cases and mortality per million, and trust in government.
Limitations
- The paper states that public surveys are snapshots at a point in time, the survey occurred in a highly dynamic COVID-19 landscape, and reported willingness may not predict actual acceptance. It also notes that events after the survey may have increased hesitancy, and that employment status was not investigated for the age/employer-recommendation finding.
- The text makes evident that the regressions are univariate rather than multivariable-adjusted, so associations may not be independent.
- The online panel design may limit representativeness despite random sampling, and the outcomes are self-reported intentions rather than observed vaccination behavior.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
23 Own result · 8 Not checked yet · 6 Own method · 4 Own interpretation · 1 Partly supported · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In many countries, vaccine hesitancy and misinformation present substantial obstacles to achieving coverage and community immunity5,6.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Main
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Larson, H. J., Jarrett, C., Eckersberger, E., Smith, D. M. D. & Paterson, P. Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007-2012. Vaccine 32, 2150–2159 (2014). source
- Partly supportedcites [6] Lane, S., MacDonald, N. E., Marti, M. & Dumolard, L. Vaccine hesitancy around the globe: analysis of three years of WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form data—2015–2017. Vaccine 36, 3861–3867 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports vaccine hesitancy in the majority of countries and describes efforts to improve vaccine acceptance. That supports the claim that hesitancy is a widespread obstacle to vaccination, but our copy does not establish misinformation as a separate obstacle or assess effects on coverage or community immunity. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondents who said that they trusted their government were more likely to accept a vaccine than those who said that they did not (OR = 1.67; 95% CI (1.54, 1.80)).”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gender differences were small, but the univariate association for both questions suggested that men were slightly less likely to respond positively than women, with an OR of 0.84 (95% CI (0.78, 0.91)) of men responding positively relative to women for the general question”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Differences in acceptance rates ranged from almost 90% (in China) to less than 55% (in Russia).”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Abstract
plainn = 13,426- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This difference was strongest (odds ratio (OR) = 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.48, 2.02)) when responses from the oldest age cohort and those from the youngest age cohort were compared (Table 2).”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondents from Poland reported the highest proportion of negative responses (182 of 666, 27.3%)”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and 48.1% reported that they would accept their employer’s recommendation to do so.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“and 48.1% said that they would get vaccinated if their employer recommended it”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Abstract
hedgedn = 13,426- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we observed high heterogeneity in responses between countries.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Discussion
plainn = 13,426- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People aged 25–54, 55–64 and 65+ were more likely to accept the vaccine than those who were aged 18–24.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and an OR of 0.93 (95% CI (0.87, 1.00)) for the business-related question.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 7
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When asked whether “You would accept a vaccine if it were recommended by your employer and was approved safe and effective by the government,” 14.0% (1,881 of 13,426) completely agreed, whereas 25.9% (3,478 of 13,426) somewhat or completely disagreed (Table 1).”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondents from China gave the highest proportion of positive responses (631 of 712 respondants, 88.6%) and the lowest proportion of negative responses (5 of 712, 0.7%) when asked if they would take a ‘proven, safe and effective vaccine’.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A similar trend was observed in regard to acceptance of the vaccine if one’s employer required it, except that responses from the oldest age cohort were similar to the youngest age cohort.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Russia had the highest proportion of negative responses (278 of 680, 40.9%) and the lowest proportion of respondents (184 of 680, 27.1%) willing to accept their employer’s recommendation (Supplementary Table 1).”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was considerable variation by country, with China again having the highest proportion of positive responses (596 of 712, 83.7%) and the lowest proportion of negative responses (26 of 712, 3.7%).”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of these, 71.5% of participants reported that they would be very or somewhat likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Of these, 71.5% responded that they would take a vaccine if it were proven safe and effective”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Abstract
plainn = 13,426- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No personally identifiable information was collected or stored.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Methods > Study participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Misinformation spread through multiple channels could have a considerable effect on the acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine8.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Main
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Cornwall, W. Officials gird for a war on vaccine misinformation. Science 369, 14–19 (2020). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Anti-vaccination activists are already campaigning in multiple countries against the need for a vaccine, with some denying the existence of COVID-19 altogether7.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Main
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Enserink, M. & Cohen, J. Fact-checking Judy Mikovits, the controversial virologist attacking Anthony Fauci in a viral conspiracy video. Science https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral (2020). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondents’ identities were verified using IP addresses and mobile phone numbers to ensure that each participant was real and unique upon initial registration.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Methods > Study participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study was approved by Emerson College, USA (institutional review board protocol no. 20–023-F-E-6/12), with an expiration date of June 11, 2021.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Methods > Study participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This particular survey was conducted in the context of a highly dynamic and changing landscape, with daily variations in perceived disease threat and COVID-19 vaccine development itself.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, reporting one’s willingness to get vaccinated might not be necessarily a good predictor of acceptance, as vaccine decisions are multifactorial and can change over time.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The accelerated pace of vaccine development has further heightened public anxieties and could compromise acceptance9.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Main
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Fadda, M., Albanese, E. & Suggs, L. S. When a COVID-19 vaccine is ready, will we all be ready for it? Int. J. Public Health 65, 711–712 (2020). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Lessons learned from previous infectious disease outbreaks and public health emergencies, including HIV, H1N1, SARS, MERS and Ebola, remind us that trusted sources of information and guidance are fundamental to disease control16.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Siegrist, M. & Zingg, A. The role of public trust during pandemics: implications for crisis communication. Eur. Psychol. 19, 23–32 (2014). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Researchers have identified promising interventions for building confidence and reducing vaccine hesitancy in different contexts12,13”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Thomson, A., Vallée-Tourangeau, G. & Suggs, L. S. Strategies to increase vaccine acceptance and uptake: from behavioral insights to context-specific, culturally-appropriate, evidence-based communications and interventions. Vaccine 36, 6457–6458 (2018). source
- Not checked yetcites [13] European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Catalogue of interventions addressing vaccine hesitancy. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/files/documents/Catalogue-interventions-vaccine-hesitancy.pdf (2017).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It must be kept in mind that all public surveys of the type reported here are snapshots taken at a point in time.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The online questionnaire was administered by Emerson College to gather information from respondents after obtaining their written, informed consent about the survey and this project.”
§ A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine > Methods > Study participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The level of vaccine acceptance required for community immunity is higher than the levels of willingness observed in most of the 19 countries.
“In most of the 19 countries surveyed in our study, current levels of willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine are insufficient to meet the requirements for community immunity.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The heterogeneity analysis reported in Fig. 5, in which we analysed whether vaccination rates differ by age, sex, schooling and wealth variables, was not pre-specified and followed heterogeneity tests that are common in the vaccine literature54.”
From Last-mile delivery increases vaccine uptake in Sierra Leone (2024) · cites this paper as [54]
In the citing paper
“For COVID-19, information from employers and government sources has been shown to improve vaccine acceptance rates, which range from 55% to 90% around the world244.”
From mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation (2021) · cites this paper as [244]
In the citing paper
“For COVID-19, information from employers and government sources has been shown to improve vaccine acceptance rates, which range from 55% to 90% around the world244.”
From mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation (2021) · cites this paper as [244]
Citations
Cites
Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants
MacDonald, N. E. (2015) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 · Cited by 5,573
The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/266350 · Cited by 3,543
Larson, H. J., Jarrett, C., Eckersberger, E., Smith, D. M. D., & Paterson, P. (2014) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.081 · Cited by 2,254
Self-citationMeasuring trust in vaccination: A systematic review
Larson, H. J., Clarke, R. M., Jarrett, C., Eckersberger, E., Levine, Z., Schulz, W. S., & Paterson, P. (2018) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2018.1459252 · Cited by 789
Self-citationLane, S., MacDonald, N. E., Marti, M., & Dumolard, L. (2018) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.03.063 · Cited by 530
The Role of Public Trust During Pandemics: Implications for Crisis Communication
Siegrist, M., & Zingg, A. (2014) · European Psychologist · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000169 · Cited by 420
Karafillakis, E., & Larson, H. J. (2017) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.061 · Cited by 317
Self-citationQuinn, S. C., Parmer, J., Freimuth, V. S., Hilyard, K. M., Musa, D., & Kim, K. H. (2013) · Biosecurity and Bioterrorism Biodefense Strategy Practice and Science · doi:10.1089/bsp.2012.0048 · Cited by 235
Lazarus, J. V., Ratzan, S., Palayew, A., Billari, F. C., Binagwaho, A., Kimball, S., Larson, H. J., Melegaro, A., Rabin, K., White, T. M., et al. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240011 · Cited by 232
Self-citationExposing concerns about vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review
Muñoz, D. C., Llamas, L. M., & Bosch‐Capblanch, X. (2015) · International Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1007/s00038-015-0715-6 · Cited by 160
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 1,000
Persuasion, not coercion or incentivisation, is the best means of promoting COVID-19 vaccination
Pennings, S., & Symons, X. (2021) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-107076 · Cited by 54
Public opinion on a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in France: a cross-sectional survey
Gagneux‐Brunon, A., Botelho-Nevers, É., Bonneton, M., Peretti‐Watel, P., Verger, P., Launay, O., & Ward, J. K. (2021) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.10.016 · Cited by 59
Jain, L., Vij, J., Satapathy, P., Chakrapani, V., Patro, B. K., Kar, S. S., Singh, R., Pala, S., Sankhe, L., Modi, B., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.735902 · Cited by 54
The Role of Risk Perception in Students’ COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Longitudinal Study
Hilverda, F., & Vollmann, M. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines10010022 · Cited by 54
Yenew, C., Dessie, A. M., Gebeyehu, A. A., & Yeshiwas, A. G. (2023) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2023.2207442 · Cited by 62
Paul, K. T., Zimmermann, B. M., Corsico, P., Fiske, A., Geiger, S., Johnson, S. B., Kuiper, J. M. L., Lievevrouw, E., Marelli, L., Prainsack, B., et al. (2022) · SSM - Qualitative Research in Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2021.100035 · Cited by 54
Rizal, A. R. A., Nordin, S. M., Ahmad, W. F. W., Khiri, M. J. A., & Hussin, S. H. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19042378 · Cited by 54
Citizens from 13 countries share similar preferences for COVID-19 vaccine allocation priorities
Duch, R. M., Roope, L. S. J., Violato, M., Becerra, M. F., Robinson, T. S., Bonnefon, J., Friedman, J. R., Loewen, P. J., Mamidi, P., Melegaro, A., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2026382118 · Cited by 53
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy concerns: Findings from a Ghana clinical radiography workforce survey
Botwe, B. O., Antwi, W. K., Adusei, J. A., Mayeden, R. N., Akudjedu, T. N., & Sule, D. S. (2021) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2021.09.015 · Cited by 53
Valckx, S., Crèvecoeur, J., Verelst, F., Vranckx, M., Hendrickx, G., Hens, N., Damme, P. V., Pepermans, K., Beutels, P., & Neyens, T. (2021) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.10.073 · Cited by 53
Gambaran Penerimaan Vaksin COVID-19 di Kota Semarang
Arumsari, W., Desty, R. T., & Kusumo, W. E. G. (2021) · Indonesian Journal of Health Community · doi:10.31331/ijheco.v2i1.1682 · Cited by 53
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: a social media analysis using deep learning
Nyawa, S., Tchuente, D., & Wamba, S. F. (2022) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-022-04792-3 · Cited by 55
Ahamed, F., Ganesan, S., James, A., & Zaher, W. A. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11620-z · Cited by 52
Calcium Signals during SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Assessing the Potential of Emerging Therapies
Berlansky, S., Sallinger, M., Grabmayr, H., Humer, C., Bernhard, A., Fahrner, M., & Frischauf, I. (2022) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells11020253 · Cited by 52
Oleksy, T., Wnuk, A., Gambin, M., Łyś, A., Bargiel-Matusiewicz, K., & Pisuła, E. (2022) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2022.111524 · Cited by 30
Niu, Q., Liu, J., Kato, M., Shinohara, Y., Matsumura, N., Aoyama, T., & Nagai‐Tanima, M. (2022) · JMIR Infodemiology · doi:10.2196/32335 · Cited by 55
Leong, C., Jin, L. J., Kim, D., Kim, J., Teo, Y. Y., & Ho, T. (2022) · Communications Medicine · doi:10.1038/s43856-022-00123-6 · Cited by 52
RetractedCharacterizing Discourse about COVID-19 Vaccines: A Reddit Version of the Pandemic Story
Wu, W., Lyu, H., & Luo, J. (2021) · Health Data Science · doi:10.34133/2021/9837856 · Cited by 52
Enria, L., Bangura, J., Kanu, H. M., Kalokoh, J., Timbo, A. D., Kamara, M. S., Fofanah, M., Kamara, A. N., Kamara, A. I., Kamara, M. M., et al. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258252 · Cited by 52
da Silva, D. T., Biello, K. B., Lin, W., Valente, P. K., Mayer, K. H., Hightow‐Weidman, L., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9030204 · Cited by 51
Babicki, M., & Mastalerz–Migas, A. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9050503 · Cited by 51
Predicting vaccine uptake during COVID-19 crisis: A motivational approach
Schmitz, M., Luminet, O., Klein, O., Morbée, S., den Bergh, O. V., Oost, P. V., Waterschoot, J., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2021) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.11.068 · Cited by 51
Delgado-Gallegos, J. L., Padilla-Rivas, G. R., Zúñiga-Violante, E., Avilés-Rodríguez, G. J., Arellanos-Soto, D., Gastelum-Arias, L. J., Franco-Villareal, H., Cosío-León, M. D. L. Á., Romo-Cárdenas, G. S., Moreno‐Treviño, M. G., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.728690 · Cited by 52
SARS-CoV-2: Emergence of New Variants and Effectiveness of Vaccines
Singh, D. D., Parveen, A., & Yadav, D. K. (2021) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2021.777212 · Cited by 52
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its determinants among sub-Saharan African adolescents
Wang, D., Chukwu, A. U., Mwanyika‐Sando, M., Abubakari, S. W., Assefa, N., Madzorera, I., Hemler, E. C., Ismail, A., Lankoandé, B., Mapendo, F., et al. (2022) · PLOS Global Public Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0000611 · Cited by 51
Galanis, P., Vraka, I. S., Siskou, O. C., Konstantakopoulou, O., Katsiroumpa, A., & Καϊτελίδου, Δ. (2021) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2021.07.28.21261261 · Cited by 51
COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among the Public in Kuwait: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Alibrahim, J., & Awad, A. I. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18168836 · Cited by 50
Duong, T. V., Lin, C.-Y., Chen, S., Huang, Y., Okan, O., Dadaczynski, K., & Lai, C.-F. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9090985 · Cited by 50
Griva, K., Tan, K. K.-Y., Chan, F. H. F., Periakaruppan, R., Ong, B. W. L., Soh, A. S., & Chen, M. I.-C. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9121415 · Cited by 50
Psychological factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Indonesia
Yanto, T. A., Octavius, G. S., Heriyanto, R. S., Ienawi, C., Nisa, H., & Pasai, H. E. (2021) · The Egyptian Journal of Neurology Psychiatry and Neurosurgery · doi:10.1186/s41983-021-00436-8 · Cited by 50
Jairoun, A. A., Al‐Hemyari, S. S., El‐Dahiyat, F., Jairoun, M., Shahwan, M. J., Al‐Ani, M., Habeb, M., & Babar, Z.-U.-D. (2022) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice · doi:10.1186/s40545-022-00422-2 · Cited by 50
Phillips, R., Gillespie, D., Hallingberg, B., Evans, J., Taiyari, K., Torrens‐Burton, A., Cannings-John, R. L., Williams, D., Sheils, E., Ashfield-Watt, P. A. L., et al. (2022) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12606 · Cited by 50
COVID-19 vaccine literacy: A scoping review
Biasio, L. R., Zanobini, P., Lorini, C., Monaci, P., Fanfani, A., Gallinoro, V., Cerini, G., Albora, G., Riccio, M. D., Pecorelli, S. L., et al. (2023) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2023.2176083 · Cited by 57
Acceptability of COVID-19 Vaccine in Africa
Wirsiy, F. S., Nkfusai, N. C., Ako-Arrey, D. E., Dongmo, E. K., Manjong, F. T., & Cumber, S. N. (2021) · International Journal of Maternal and Child Health and AIDS · doi:10.21106/ijma.482 · Cited by 50
Marchlewska, M., Hamer, K., Baran, M., Górska, P., & Kaniasty, K. Z. (2022) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines10020268 · Cited by 50
Global diversity of policy, coverage, and demand of COVID-19 vaccines: a descriptive study
Chen, Z., Zheng, W., Wu, Q., Chen, X., Peng, C., Tian, Y., Sun, R., Dong, J., Wang, M., Zhou, X., et al. (2022) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-022-02333-0 · Cited by 52
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients with diabetes in Saudi Arabia
Aldossari, K. K., Alharbi, M. B., Alkahtani, S. M., Alrowaily, T. Z., Alshaikhi, A. M., & Twair, A. A. A. (2021) · Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome Clinical Research & Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2021.102271 · Cited by 49
Moscardino, U. M. M., Musso, P., Inguglia, C., Ceccon, C., Miconi, D., & Rousseau, C. (2022) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.03.018 · Cited by 52
Faye, S. L., Krumkamp, R., Doumbia, S., Tounkara, M., Strauss, R. A., Ouédraogo, H. G., Sagna, T., Barry, A. M., Mbawah, A. K., Doumbia, C. O., et al. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059138 · Cited by 49
Brackstone, K., Marzo, R. R., Bahari, R., Head, M., Patalinghug, M. E., & Su, T. T. (2022) · PLOS Global Public Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0000742 · Cited by 49
Solante, R., Álvarez, C., Burhan, E., Chariyalertsak, S., Chiu, N., Chuenkitmongkol, S., Dung, D. V., Hwang, K., Ibarra, J. O., Kiertiburanakul, S., et al. (2022) · Expert Review of Vaccines · doi:10.1080/14760584.2023.2143347 · Cited by 51
Yuan, S., & Chu, H. (2021) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2021.08.019 · Cited by 49
Spetz, M., Lundberg, L., Nwaru, C. A., Li, H., Santosa, A., Leach, S., Gisslén, M., Hammar, N., Rosvall, M., & Nyberg, F. (2022) · The Lancet Regional Health - Europe · doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100331 · Cited by 49
Burel, G., Farrell, T., & Alani, H. (2021) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102732 · Cited by 48
The Current Status of Drug Repositioning and Vaccine Developments for the COVID-19 Pandemic
Won, J., & Lee, H. (2020) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms21249775 · Cited by 49
Mesesle, M. (2021) · Infection and Drug Resistance · doi:10.2147/idr.s316461 · Cited by 48
Nomhwange, T., Wariri, O., Nkereuwem, E., Olanrewaju, S., Nwosu, N., Adamu, U., Danjuma, E., Onuaguluchi, N., Enegela, J. E., Nomhwange, E., et al. (2022) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101499 · Cited by 48
Supply and delivery of vaccines for global health
Excler, J., Privor-Dumm, L. A., & Kim, J. H. (2021) · Current Opinion in Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.coi.2021.03.009 · Cited by 48
Improving prediction of COVID-19 evolution by fusing epidemiological and mobility data
García-Cremades, S., Morales-García, J., Hernández-Sanjaime, R., Martínez‐España, R., Bueno-Crespo, A., Hernández‐Orallo, E., López-Espín, J. J., & Cecilia, J. M. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-94696-2 · Cited by 49
Acceptance and Intake of COVID-19 Vaccines among Older Germans
Malesza, M., & Wittmann, E. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm10071388 · Cited by 47
Rodríguez-Blanco, N., Montero-Navarro, S., Botella-Rico, J. M., Felipe-Gómez, A. J., Sánchez-Más, J., & Tuells, J. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18105272 · Cited by 47
Behavioural responses to Covid-19 health certification: a rapid review
Drury, J., Mao, G., John, A. M., Kamal, A., Rubin, G. J., Stott, C., Vandrevala, T., & Marteau, T. M. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11166-0 · Cited by 47
Freitas, L. D., Basdeo, D., & Wang, H. (2021) · The Lancet Regional Health - Americas · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2021.100051 · Cited by 47
Babicki, M., Malchrzak, W., Hans-Wytrychowska, A., & Mastalerz–Migas, A. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9121444 · Cited by 50
de Figueiredo, A., Simas, C., & Larson, H. J. (2022) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.10.051 · Cited by 47
Self-citationBrackstone, K., Atengble, K., Head, M., & Boateng, L. (2022) · Pan African Medical Journal · doi:10.11604/pamj.2022.43.165.37314 · Cited by 47
Begum, T., Efstathiou, N., Bailey, C., & Guo, P. (2024) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.05.041 · Cited by 49
Using Social and Behavioral Science to Support COVID-19 Pandemic Response
Cucchiarini, V., Lunn, P., Robertson, D. A., & Viale, R. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_319-1 · Cited by 47
Sprengholz, P., Eitze, S., Felgendreff, L., Korn, L., & Betsch, C. (2021) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-107122 · Cited by 46
Goruntla, N., Chintamani, S. H., Bhanu, P., Samyuktha, S. S., Veerabhadrappa, K. V., Pradeepkumar, B., & Ramaiah, J. D. (2021) · Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine · doi:10.4103/1995-7645.312512 · Cited by 49
Temsah, M.-H. A., Barry, M. A., Aljamaan, F., Alhuzaimi, A., Al-Eyadhy, A. A., Saddik, B. A., Alrabiaah, A. A., Alsohime, F., Alhaboob, A. A. N., Alhasan, K. A., et al. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048586 · Cited by 46
Zakar, R., Momina, A. U., Shahzad, S., Hayee, M., Shahzad, R. B., & Zakar, M. Z. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19031305 · Cited by 46
Unmasking COVID-19 Vaccine “Infodemic” in the Social Media
Demuyakor, J., Nyatuame, I. N., & Obiri, S. (2021) · Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies · doi:10.30935/ojcmt/11200 · Cited by 47
Predicting vaccine hesitancy from area‐level indicators: A machine learning approach
Carrieri, V., Lagravinese, R., & Resce, G. (2021) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.4430 · Cited by 46
Baeza-Rivera, M. J., Salazar-Fernández, C., Leal, L. A., & Manríquez-Robles, D. (2021) · Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology · doi:10.1177/18344909211051799 · Cited by 50
Factors Influencing Vaccine Hesitancy in China: A Qualitative Study
Wang, J., Ji, Q., Dong, S., Zhao, S., Li, X., Zhu, Q., Long, S., Zhang, J., & Jin, H. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9111291 · Cited by 47
Roberts, C. H., Brindle, H. E., Rogers, N. T., Eggo, R. M., Enria, L., & Lees, S. S. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.745630 · Cited by 46
The politics of vaccine hesitancy in the United States
Cao, J., Ramirez, C. M., & Alvarez, R. M. (2021) · Social Science Quarterly · doi:10.1111/ssqu.13106 · Cited by 49
Lincoln, T. M., Schlier, B., Strakeljahn, F., Gaudiano, B. A., So, S. H., Kingston, J. L., Morris, E. M. J., & Ellett, L. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-05915-3 · Cited by 46
McPartlin, S. O., Morrison, J., Rohrig, A., & Weijer, C. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m4258 · Cited by 45
Iliyasu, Z., Umar, A. A., Abdullahi, H. M., Kwaku, A. A., Amole, T. G., Tsiga-Ahmed, F. I., Garba, R. M., Salihu, H. M., & Aliyu, M. H. (2021) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2021.1974796 · Cited by 45
COVID-19 Vaccine Tweets After Vaccine Rollout: Sentiment–Based Topic Modeling
Huangfu, L., Mo, Y., Zhang, P., Zeng, D. D., & He, S. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/31726 · Cited by 45
Bari, M. S., Hossain, M. J., Ahmmed, F., Sarker, M. M. R., Khandokar, L., Chaithy, A. P., Aziz, F., Mitra, S., Emran, T. B., Islam, M. S., et al. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9121449 · Cited by 45
Lounis, M., Rais, M. A., Bencherit, D., Aouissi, H. A., Oudjedi, A., Klugarová, J., Pokorná, A., Klugar, M., & Riad, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.896343 · Cited by 45
Public Willingness and Hesitancy to Take the COVID-19 Vaccine in Afghanistan
Nemat, A., Bahez, A., Salih, M., Raufi, N. K., Noor, N. A. S., Essar, M. Y., Ehsan, E., & Asady, A. (2021) · American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.21-0231 · Cited by 45
Vaccine hesitancy in Africa: causes and strategies to the rescue
Aborode, A. T., Fajemisin, E. A., Ekwebelem, O. C., Tsagkaris, C., Taiwo, E. A., Uwishema, O., Awoniyi, O. O., Ahmad, S., Essar, M. Y., Adanur, I., et al. (2021) · Therapeutic Advances in Vaccines and Immunotherapy · doi:10.1177/25151355211047514 · Cited by 45
Argote, P., Barham, E., Daly, S. Z., Gerez, J. E., Marshall, J., & Pocasangre, O. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0259059 · Cited by 45
Hess, S., Lancsar, E., Mariel, P., Meyerhoff, J., Song, F., van den Broek‐Altenburg, E. M., Alaba, O. A., Amaris, G., Arellana, J., Basso, L. J., et al. (2022) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114800 · Cited by 47
Chen, L., Qu, J., Kalyani, F. S., Zhang, Q., Fan, L., Fang, Y., Li, Y., & Xiang, C. (2022) · Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences · doi:10.1007/s00018-021-04096-y · Cited by 47
Understanding hesitancy with revealed preferences across COVID-19 vaccine types
Kutasi, K., Koltai, J., Szabó‐Morvai, Á., Röst, G., Karsai, M., Bíró, P., & Lengyel, B. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-15633-5 · Cited by 49
Sun, Y., Chen, X., Cao, M., Xiang, T., Zhang, J., Wang, P., & Dai, H. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.664905 · Cited by 44
Tsai, F., Yang, H.-W., Lin, C.-P., & Liu, J. Z. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18115579 · Cited by 44
Kwok, K. O., Li, K., Tang, A., Tsoi, M. T. F., Chan, E. Y. Y., Tang, J. W.-T., Wong, A., Wei, W. I., & Wong, S. Y. S. (2021) · Emerging infectious diseases · doi:10.3201/eid2707.210054 · Cited by 44
Hossain, M. E., Rana, M. J., Islam, S., Khan, M. A., Chakrobortty, S., Ema, N. S., & Bekun, F. V. (2021) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2021.1968215 · Cited by 44
Zhao, Y., Liu, L., Sun, J., Yan, W., Yuan, K., Zheng, Y., Lu, Z.-A., Liu, L., Ni, S., Su, S., et al. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9101172 · Cited by 44
Nery, N., Ticona, J. P. A., Cardoso, C. W., Prates, A. P. P. B., Vieira, H. C. A., de Almeida, A. S., Souza, M. M. D. S., dos Reis, O. B., Pellizzaro, M., Portilho, M. M., et al. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262649 · Cited by 44
Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Mose, A., Kasahun, A. W., Shitu, S., Haile, K., Timerga, A., Melis, T., Sahle, T., & Zewdie, A. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269273 · Cited by 44
Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Russia
Roshchina, Y. M., Roshchin, S., & Rozhkova, K. V. (2022) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.042 · Cited by 47
Schmid, P., & Betsch, C. (2022) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470221129608 · Cited by 44
Nguyen, P.-H., Tsai, J., Lin, M.-H., & Hu, Y. (2021) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math9233075 · Cited by 44
Global safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines: how pharmacovigilance rose to the challenge
Rudolph, A., Mitchell, J., Barrett, J., Sköld, H., Taavola, H., Erlanson, N., Melgarejo-González, C., & Yue, Q. (2022) · Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety · doi:10.1177/20420986221118972 · Cited by 46
Sönmezer, M. Ç., Şahin, T. K., Erul, E., Ceylan, F., Hamurcu, M. Y., Morova, N., Al, I. R., & Ünal, S. (2022) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines10020278 · Cited by 45
Mirza, M. W., Siddiq, A., & Khan, I. R. (2022) · Signal Image and Video Processing · doi:10.1007/s11760-022-02214-2 · Cited by 43
Adeyanju, G. C., Betsch, C., Adamu, A. A., Gumbi, K. S., Head, M., Aplogan, A., Tall, H., & Essoh, T.-A. (2022) · Global Health Research and Policy · doi:10.1186/s41256-022-00261-3 · Cited by 43
COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant women worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Azami, M., Nasirkandy, M. P., Ghaleh, H. E. G., & Ranjbar, R. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272273 · Cited by 44
Hong, J., Bo, P., Jiang, H., Zhang, Q., Xu, X., Jiang, H., Ye, J. K., Cui, Y., Yan, X., Zhai, X., et al. (2022) · Journal of Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/jmv.28294 · Cited by 43
Faturohman, T., Kengsiswoyo, G. A. N., Harapan, H., Zailani, S. H. M., Rahadi, R. A., & Arief, N. N. (2021) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.53506.2 · Cited by 43
Scientific Literacy Linked to Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccinations: A Pre-Registered Study
Motoki, K., Saito, T. I., & Takano, Y. (2021) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.707391 · Cited by 51
Brailovskaia, J., Schneider, S., & Margraf, J. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260230 · Cited by 43
Wired to Doubt: Why People Fear Vaccines and Climate Change and Mistrust Science
Dobson, G. P. (2022) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.809395 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Lazarus, J. V., Ratzan, S. C., Palayew, A., Gostin, L. O., Larson, H. J., Rabin, K., Kimball, S., & El-Mohandes, A.
- Affiliations
- Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ES)
- City University of New York (US)
- Georgetown University (US)
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
- Emerson College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lazarus, Jeffrey V.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Medicine
- Published
- 2020-10-20
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 225-228
- ISSN
- 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
- 1546-170X
- PMC
- PMC7573523
- OpenAlex
- W3093974194
- Semantic Scholar
- abe8c2a1c2a072c6c0f729204a329d82fffad38c
- Cited by
- 2,904
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 91 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 276 · 2023: 541 · 2022: 950 · 2021: 901 · 2020: 32
- FWCI
- 335.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2021-01-11)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- Scholarship - GEORGETOWN LAW (Georgetown University) (submittedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- City University of New York
- Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (CEX 2018-000806-S)
- Centres de Recerca de Catalunya (CEX2018-000806-S)
- Generalitat de Catalunya (CEX2018-000806-S)
- Università Bocconi
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Keywords
- COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine acceptance, vaccine hesitancy, vaccine confidence, public trust in government, cross-national comparison, vaccine attitudes
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Internationality, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
