The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What factors promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance during pandemics? A systematic review and thematic analysis
Abstract
Summary: Examine the factors that promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance during pandemics, major epidemics and global outbreaks. A systematic review and thematic analysis of 28 studies on the Influenza A/H1N1 pandemic and the global spread of Ebola Virus Disease. We found seven major factors that promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance: demographic factors influencing vaccination (ethnicity, age, sex, pregnancy, education, and employment), accessibility and cost, personal responsibility and risk perceptions, precautionary measures taken based on the decision to vaccinate, trust in health authorities and vaccines, the safety and efficacy of a new vaccine, and lack of information or vaccine misinformation. An understanding of participant experiences and perspectives toward vaccines from previous pandemics will greatly inform the development of strategies to address the present situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss the impact vaccine hesitancy might have for the introduction and effectiveness of a potential COVID-19 vaccine. In particular, we believe that skepticism toward vaccines can still exist when there are no vaccines available, which is contrary to contemporary conceptualizations of vaccine hesitancy. We recommend conducting further research assessing the relationship between the accessibility and cost of vaccines, and vaccine hesitancy.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
The Health Belief Model: a decade later.
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984) · Health Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/109019818401100101 · Cited by 8,437
A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews
Boeije, H. (2002) · Quality and Quantity · doi:10.1023/a:1020909529486 · Cited by 3,073
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
A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis
Aronson, J. (1995) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/1995.2069 · Cited by 1,758 · cited 1×
“In initial coding, we used the preliminary coding schema developed during the first stage to create a number of templates that categorized the findings from the results and discussion sections of included studies (Aronson, 1995).”
MethodVaccination of special populations: Protecting the vulnerable
Doherty, M., Schmidt-Ott, R., Santos, J. I., Stanberry, L. R., Hofstetter, A. M., Rosenthal, S. L., & Cunningham, A. L. (2016) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.11.015 · Cited by 208
Metadata
- Authors
- Truong, J., Bakshi, S., Wasim, A., Ahmad, M., & Majid, U.
- Venue
- Health Promotion International
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-07-09
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 0957-4824 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2245
- OpenAlex
- W3177601311
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 3.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: What factors promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance during pandemics? A systematic review and thematic analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/heapro/daab105
- The paper
- Truong, J., Bakshi, S., Wasim, A., Ahmad, M., & Majid, U. (2022). What factors promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance during pandemics? A systematic review and thematic analysis. Health Promotion International. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daab105
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.