Acceptance towards Monkeypox Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaccination it is considered a vital strategy in order to mitigate monkeypox by protecting from severe disease and helping in reduction of hospitalisations. In this sense, this study aims to estimate the global prevalence of vaccination acceptance against monkeypox. We conducted a systematic review with a comprehensive search strategy for the following databases: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. A random-effect model meta-analysis was carried out using observational studies assessing the intention of vaccines against monkeypox from multiple continents. The quality assessment was developed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. In addition, a subgroup analysis by study location and population and a sensitivity analysis was developed.Eleven cross-sectional studies were included. A total of 8045 participants were included. The pooled prevalence of monkeypox vaccination acceptance in all participants was 56.0% (95%CI: 42.0-70.0%). In the subgroup analysis of monkeypox vaccine acceptance according to continents, the prevalence of vaccine acceptance was 50.0% (95%CI: 24.0-76.0%) in Asian countries and 70.0% (95%CI: 55.0-84.0%) in European countries. The prevalence of vaccine acceptance was 43.0% (95%CI: 35.0-50.0%) in the general population, 63.0% (95%CI: 42.0-70.0%) in healthcare workers, and 84.0% (95%CI: 83.0-86.0%) in the LGBTI community. Despite the high prevalence of monkeypox vaccination acceptance in the LGBTI community found in our study, vaccination acceptance from healthcare workers and the general population are lower. Governments could use these results for planning, developing or promoting vaccination strategies and public health policies focused on these populations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".