scholarly journals Predictors of meningococcal vaccine uptake in university and college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s):  
Joanna Whisnant ◽  
Jacqueline Martin-Kerry ◽  
Lydia Flett ◽  
Peter Knapp
Author(s):  
Yagmur Amanvermez ◽  
Metta Rahmadiana ◽  
Eirini Karyotaki ◽  
Leonore Wit ◽  
David D. Ebert ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 699-708 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marija Vasilevska ◽  
Jennifer Ku ◽  
David N. Fisman

Background and objective.Healthcare workers experience occupational risk of infection and may transmit infections to patients. Vaccination provides an efficient means of protecting workers and patients, but uptake may be low. We sought to identify factors influencing vaccine acceptance by healthcare workers in order to obtain insights leading to more effective vaccination programs in this population.Design.Systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods.We searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases to identify studies published up to May 2012. Factors influencing vaccination acceptance were devised a priori. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to generate summary estimates of effect. Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored using statistical tools.Results.Thirty-seven studies evaluating a variety of vaccines (against influenza, pertussis, smallpox, anthrax, and hepatitis B) were included. Homogeneous effects on vaccine acceptance were identified with desire for self-protection (odds ratio [OR], 3.42 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.42–4.82]) and desire to protect family and friends (OR, 3.28 [95% CI, 1.10–9.75]). Concern that vaccine transmits the illness it was meant to prevent decreased acceptance (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30–0.58]). Differences in physician and nurse acceptance of immunization were seen between Asian and non-Asian studies.Conclusions.Consideration of self-protection (rather than absolute disease risk or protection of patients) appears the strongest and most consistent driver of healthcare workers’ decisions to accept vaccination, though other factors may also be impactful, and reasons for between-study divergence in effects is an important area for future research. This finding has important implications for the design of programs to enhance healthcare worker vaccine uptake.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2014;35(6):699–708


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Okechukwu Nna ◽  
Michael Abel Alao ◽  
Babatunde Ogunbosi ◽  
Uchenna Okeke ◽  
Canice Anyachukwu

Abstract Background The unprecedented development of COVID 19 vaccine within a few months and its introduction into the population brought a sigh of relief with the promise of preventing primary infections, halting spread, reducing hospitalization of infected people, and ultimately inducing herd immunity. However, public perception in many communities leaves a lot to worry about as the so much sort-after vaccine has been met with safety concerns, scepticism and hesitancy. We seek to produce a protocol for a reliable and accurate systematic review and meta-analysis on the hesitancy of COVID 19 vaccine uptake in the mist of a global pandemic.MethodsWe developed a search strategy using MeSH terms, text words and entry terms. Nine databases will be searched: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, AJOL, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Research gate and Scopus. Only observational studies retrievable in the English Language will be included. The primary measurable outcome is the prevalence of COVID 19 vaccine hesitancy globally. The secondary outcomes are factors that influence COVID 19 vaccine hesitancy including race, age, gender, occupation, socioeconomic class, level of education, geographic location, misinformation, social media influence and vaccine safety. Identified studies will be screened, deduplicated, selected and data items extracted using DistillerSR software. All studies will be assessed for methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Assessment of risk of bias in the selected studies will be performed using the NIH Quality assessment tool for observational studies and the Cochrane tool of risk of bias. Publication bias will be assessed using the funnel plot as well as Egger’s regression intercept. The pooled prevalence, standard error and 95% CI will be reported. The strength of evidence from this analysis will be assessed by using NIH Quality Assessment for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis.DiscussionThe outcome of this analysis will give insight into the level of COVID 19 vaccine hesitancy and its correlates across geographical regions globally. It will examine if herd immunity via vaccination is attainable at the pooled rate of hesitancy. This will help Governments to redesign their public messages and sensitization. Systematic Review RegistrationThis protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42021231165.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document