Determinants of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance or hesitancy in Italy: an overview of the current evidence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy is a major public health issue and a challenge for the implementation of COVID-19 immunization campaigns. The objective of this study was to address the determinants of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance or hesitancy in the Italian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review by searching PubMed until May 3rd, 2022, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles assessing determinants of Italians' attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in terms of hesitancy and/or acceptance were considered eligible. Quality and risk of bias assessment was performed through the Newcastle Ottawa Scale appraisal tool. Determinants were grouped in three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination specific influences. RESULTS: Out of 606 articles, 59 studies were included in the analysis. Included studies demonstrated that, in Italy, COVID-19 vaccination acceptance or hesitancy is mostly influenced by perceived safety, efficacy and usefulness of the vaccine. CONCLUSION: These findings should be considered to plan tailored interventions for counteracting COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in Italy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".