Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,228

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Barriers of Influenza Vaccination Intention and Behavior – A Systematic Review of Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy, 2005 – 2016

Open access
Schmid, Philipp, Rauber, Dorothee, Betsch, Cornelia, Lidolt, Gianni, Denker, Marie-Luisa·2017·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccine hesitancy is a significant threat to global efforts to reduce the burden of seasonal and pandemic influenza. Potential barriers of influenza vaccination need to be identified to inform interventions to raise awareness, influenza vaccine acceptance and uptake. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to (1) identify relevant studies and extract individual barriers of seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccination for risk groups and the general public; and (2) map knowledge gaps in understanding influenza vaccine hesitancy to derive directions for further research and inform interventions in this area. METHODS: Thirteen databases covering the areas of Medicine, Bioscience, Psychology, Sociology and Public Health were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between the years 2005 and 2016. Following the PRISMA approach, 470 articles were selected and analyzed for significant barriers to influenza vaccine uptake or intention. The barriers for different risk groups and flu types were clustered according to a conceptual framework based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and discussed using the 4C model of reasons for non-vaccination. RESULTS: Most studies were conducted in the American and European region. Health care personnel (HCP) and the general public were the most studied populations, while parental decisions for children at high risk were under-represented. This study also identifies understudied concepts. A lack of confidence, inconvenience, calculation and complacency were identified to different extents as barriers to influenza vaccine uptake in risk groups. CONCLUSION: Many different psychological, contextual, sociodemographic and physical barriers that are specific to certain risk groups were identified. While most sociodemographic and physical variables may be significantly related to influenza vaccine hesitancy, they cannot be used to explain its emergence or intensity. Psychological determinants were meaningfully related to uptake and should therefore be measured in a valid and comparable way. A compendium of measurements for future use is suggested as supporting information.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0170550

Cites

9 of 9 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

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 1,228

Metadata

Authors
Schmid, P., Rauber, D., Betsch, C., Lidolt, G., & Denker, M.-L.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2017-01-26
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
e0170550
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2581492029
Cited by
1,228
References
9
FWCI
11.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Barriers of Influenza Vaccination Intention and Behavior – A Systematic Review of Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy, 2005 – 2016. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0170550
The paper
Schmid, P., Rauber, D., Betsch, C., Lidolt, G., & Denker, M.-L. (2017). Barriers of Influenza Vaccination Intention and Behavior – A Systematic Review of Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy, 2005 – 2016. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170550

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.