MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306160615 · doi:10.3390/tropicalmed7100298

COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Acceptance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4306160615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shaimaa Abdelaziz Abdelmoneim, Malik Sallam, Dina Mohamed Hafez, Ehab Elrewany, Hesham Metwalli Mousli, Elsayed Mohamed Hammad, Sally Waheed Elkhadry, Mohammed Fathelrahman Adam, Amr Abdelraouf Ghobashy, Manal Naguib, Ahmed El-Sayed Nour El-Deen, Narjiss Aji, Ramy Mohamed Ghazy

Bibliographic record

VenueTropical Medicine and Infectious Disease · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBooster (rocketry)MedicineVaccinationBooster doseMeta-analysisConfidence intervalCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsycINFOMEDLINEInternal medicineImmunologyDiseaseImmunizationInfectious disease (medical specialty)Immune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster dose vaccination after completing the primary vaccination series for individuals ≥18 years and most-at-risk populations. This study aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose uptake and intention to get the booster dose among general populations and healthcare workers (HCWs). We searched PsycINFO, Scopus, EBSCO, MEDLINE Central/PubMed, ProQuest, SciELO, SAGE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect according to PRISMA guidelines. From a total of 1079 screened records, 50 studies were extracted. Meta-analysis was conducted using 48 high-quality studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool. Using the 48 included studies, the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance among 198,831 subjects was 81% (95% confidence interval (CI): 75–85%, I2 = 100%). The actual uptake of the booster dose in eight studies involving 12,995 subjects was 31% (95% CI: 19–46%, I2 = 100%), while the intention to have the booster dose of the vaccine was 79% (95% CI: 72–85%, I2 = 100%). The acceptance of the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs was 66% (95% CI: 58–74%), I2 = 99%). Meta-regression revealed that previous COVID-19 infection was associated with a lower intention to have the booster dose. Conversely, previous COVID-19 infection was associated with a significantly higher level of booster dose actual uptake. The pooled booster dose acceptance in the WHO region of the Americas, which did not include any actual vaccination, was 77% (95% CI: 66–85%, I2 = 100%). The pooled acceptance of the booster dose in the Western Pacific was 89% (95% CI: 84–92%, I2 = 100), followed by the European region: 86% (95% CI: 81–90%, I2 = 99%), the Eastern Mediterranean region: 59% (95% CI: 46–71%, I2 = 99%), and the Southeast Asian region: 52% (95% CI: 43–61%, I2 = 95). Having chronic disease and trust in the vaccine effectiveness were the significant predictors of booster dose COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The global acceptance rate of COVID-19 booster vaccine is high, but the rates vary by region. To achieve herd immunity for the disease, a high level of vaccination acceptance is required. Intensive vaccination campaigns and programs are still needed around the world to raise public awareness regarding the importance of accepting COVID-19 vaccines needed for proper control of the pandemic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTropical Medicine and Infectious DiseaseSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207