A systematic review on the psychological factors behind vaccine hesitancy in the COVID-19 era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vaccine hesitancy may represent a global threat because of its inherent consequences for health, social and economic systems. Understanding the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy is fundamental to developing effective healthcare policies. While previous studies have mainly focused on sociological and cultural variables and transient illness-specific fears and beliefs, the present systematic review focuses on the psychological factors (such as emotional dispositions, cognitive functioning and expectations, and stable personality traits) associated with vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 era. Methods: A systematic review using a systematic search of PubMed, PsychINFO and Web of Science databases was performed with a time frame ranging between 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2025 focusing on psychological factors and vaccine hesitancy. Studies targeting the general population and employing validated instruments to assess emotional, cognitive and personality factors and vaccine hesitancy were selected, while investigations on context-specific, psycho-social, cultural and political factors were excluded. Quality and risk of bias in the selected studies was assessed using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and main studies' characteristics, variables and outcomes were synthesised using a narrative approach and table. Results: Fourteen studies were finally included in the qualitative synthesis. The results showed that some variables such as depressive and anxiety levels, as well as emotion regulation strategies may affect vaccination behaviour, although some cultural and generational differences were also observed. Differences in cognitive flexibility, decision-making, and personal expectations may influence vaccine hesitancy. Notably, some personality factors, like extraversion, openness, conscientiousness and dark personality traits, may influence hesitancy to vaccinate. Conclusion: This review highlights emotional, cognitive, and personality factors associated with vaccine hesitancy, providing evidence for personalised, evidence-based interventions aimed at promoting adherence to national vaccination policies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".