A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of caregiver acceptance of malaria vaccine for under-five children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Malaria is the second leading cause of death in children after diarrheal disease, with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) accounting for over 9 in 10 incidence and deaths. Widespread acceptance and uptake of the RTS,S vaccine, recently approved by the world health organization (WHO), is projected to significantly reduce malaria incidence and deaths. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to determine the malaria vaccine acceptance rate and the factors associated with acceptance. METHODS: We searched six databases including Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane, African Index Medicus, The Regional Office for Africa Library, and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS) to identify studies evaluating the malaria vaccine acceptance rate. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they were original articles published in the English language in peer-reviewed journals and assessed the prevalence of willingness to accept a free malaria vaccine, and not qualitative. The risk of publication bias was checked using both Beggar's funnel plot and Egger's test, while the I2 statistic was used to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies. Study quality was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to evaluate the pooled prevalence of malaria vaccine acceptance. The protocol for this article was registered prospectively on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), with ID number CRD42022334282). RESULTS: Our analysis included 11 studies with a total sample size of 14, 666 participants. The aggregate malaria vaccine acceptance rate was 95.3% (95% CI:93.0%-97.2%). Among the general population, the acceptance rate was 96.3% (95% CI:92.0%-99.0%) and among mothers, it was 94.4% (95% CI:90.8%-97.2%). By country, Nigeria had the highest acceptance rate (97.6%, 95% CI:96.0%-98.8%), followed by Ghana (94.6%, 95% CI:93.8%-95.3%) and Tanzania (92.5%, 95% CI:84.4%-97.8%). Sociodemographic determinants of vaccine acceptance included place of residence, tribe, age, sex, occupation, and religion. Reasons for low acceptance included safety concerns, efficacy profile, vaccine's requirement for multiple injections, and poor level of awareness. CONCLUSION: Future efforts should be focused on identifying factors that may improve the actual uptake of the RTS,S vaccine in malaria-endemic communities.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».