Barriers and facilitators of childhood COVID-19 vaccination among parents: A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background The acceptance of vaccination against COVID-19 among parents of young children plays a significant role in controlling the current pandemic. A wide range of factors that influence vaccine hesitancy in adults has been reported worldwide, but less attention has been given to COVID-19 vaccination among children. Vaccine hesitancy is considered a major challenge in achieving herd immunity, and it is more challenging among parents as they remain deeply concerned about their child’s health. In this context, a systematic review of the current literature is inevitable to assess vaccine hesitancy among parents of young children to ensure a successful ongoing vaccination program. Method A systematic search of peer-reviewed English literature indexed in Google Scholar, PubMed, Embase, and Web of science was performed using developed keywords between 1 January 2020 and August 2022. This systematic review included only those studies that focused on parental concerns about COVID-19 vaccines in children up to 12 years without a diagnosis of COVID-19. Following PRISMA guidelines, a total of 108 studies were included. The quality appraisal of the study was performed by Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results The results of 108 studies depict that vaccine hesitancy rates differed globally with a considerably large number of factors associated with it. The highest vaccine hesitancy rates among parents were reported in a study from the USA (86.1%) and two studies from Saudi Arabia (>85%) and Turkey (89.6%). Conversely, the lowest vaccine hesitancy rates ranging from 0.69 and 2% were found in two studies from South Africa and Switzerland, respectively. The largest study (n = 227,740) was conducted in Switzerland while the smallest sample size (n = 12) was represented by a study conducted in the USA. The most commonly reported barriers to childhood vaccination were mothers’ lower education level (N = 46/108, 43%), followed by financial instability (N = 19/108, 18%), low confidence in new vaccines (N = 13/108, 12%), and unmonitored social media platforms (N = 5/108, 4.6%). These factors were significantly associated with vaccine refusal among parents. However, the potential facilitators for vaccine uptake among respondents who intended to have their children vaccinated include higher education level (N = 12/108, 11%), followed by information obtained through healthcare professionals (N = 9/108, 8.3%) and strong confidence in preventive measures taken by the government (N = 5/81, 4.6%). Conclusion This review underscores that parents around the globe are hesitant to vaccinate their kids against COVID-19. The spectrum of factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and uptake varies across the globe. There is a dire need to address vaccine hesitancy concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of approved vaccines. Local context is inevitable to take into account while developing programs to reduce vaccine hesitancy. There is a dire need to devise strategies to address vaccine hesitancy among parents through the identification of attributing factors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».