Prevalence of Mpox vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among people living with HIV: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaccine acceptance among People Living with HIV (PLWH) is crucial for managing and mitigating the spread of infectious diseases, including Mpox. This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the rate of vaccine acceptance for Mpox among PLWH and identify factors influencing these rates. METHODS: We searched major databases including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to 30 August 2024 for observational studies involving PLWH that reported on mpox vaccine acceptance rates. A random-effects model was employed for the meta-analysis, utilizing R software version 4.4. Heterogeneity among the studies was quantified using the I² statistic, and the methodological quality of each study was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Out of 1,123 articles identified, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria and included 7,248 participants. The pooled estimate of the Mpox vaccine acceptance rate was 61.1% (95% CI: 44.2-75.7%), with high heterogeneity (I² = 99%). Additionally, a pooled vaccine hesitancy prevalence was 13.2%, (95% CI: 2.4-48.6%), reflecting substantial variability and had high heterogeneity (I² = 98%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis reveal moderate Mpox vaccine acceptance and considerable hesitancy among PLWH. To further increase vaccine uptake and address any remaining hesitancy in this at-risk population, targeted public health strategies and ongoing research are necessary. Strengthening vaccine acceptance is critical to safeguarding PLWH against emerging infectious diseases such as Mpox. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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 | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".