Prevalence and factors related to COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy and unwillingness in Canada: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the prevalence and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and vaccine unwillingness in Canada. Eleven databases were searched in March 2022. The pooled prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy and unwillingness was estimated. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed. Out of 667 studies screened, 86 full-text articles were reviewed, and 30 were included in the systematic review. Twenty-four articles were included in the meta-analysis; 12 for the pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy (42.3% [95% CI, 33.7%-51.0%]) and 12 for vaccine unwillingness (20.1% [95% CI, 15.2%-24.9%]). Vaccine hesitancy was higher in females (18.3% [95% CI, 12.4%-24.2%]) than males (13.9% [95% CI, 9.0%-18.8%]), and in rural (16.3% [95% CI, 12.9%-19.7%]) versus urban areas (14.1% [95%CI, 9.9%-18.3%]). Vaccine unwillingness was higher in females (19.9% [95% CI, 11.0%-24.8%]) compared with males (13.6% [95% CI, 8.0%-19.2%]), non-White individuals (21.7% [95% CI, 16.2%-27.3%]) than White individuals (14.8% [95% CI, 11.0%-18.5%]), and secondary or less (24.2% [95% CI, 18.8%-29.6%]) versus postsecondary education (15.9% [95% CI, 11.6%-20.2%]). Factors related to racial disparities, gender, education level, and age are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".