IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/c3j2f.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Risk-Benefit Balance in the COVID-19 “Vaccine Hesitancy” Literature: An Umbrella Review Protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Chaufan, Claudia

    (York University)

  • Hemsing, Natalie
  • McDonald, Jennifer
  • Heredia, Camila

Abstract

“Vaccine hesitancy” has been described as a major public health problem, especially in the COVID-19 era. Identified factors driving “hesitancy” include the concerns of recipients with the safety, side effects, and risk-benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccines1 — a proper assessment and disclosure of which are critical to the requisite process of informed consent. However, the expert literature has given little attention to the evidence informing these concerns, focusing instead on features of the recipients themselves to explain the phenomenon of so-called “hesitancy”. This umbrella review will expand the scope of research on “vaccine hesitancy” by examining how the safety, side effects, and risk-benefit ratio concerns of recipients of COVID-19 vaccines are addressed in the expert literature. We will include systematic reviews on COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy” that examine hesitancy in any population involved with COVID-19 vaccination decisions for themselves or as caretakers (e.g., decisions about “vaccinating” their children) to capture the broadest possible range of perspectives on the phenomenon of interest. Only completed, published, and refereed systematic reviews in English will be included. We will search PubMed, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 platform (COVID-19 L·OVE), and the WHO Global Research on COVID-19 Database to locate quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies reviews. Reviews that meet the inclusion criteria will undergo quality assessment (AMSTAR) and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently conduct title and abstract screening and extract and synthesize the data. Disagreements will be resolved through full team discussion. Subgroup analyses will be performed to compare findings according to social indicators of target populations, country location of the first author, and other contextual factors. Thematic analysis and synthesis will be used to “transform the data” into themes by applying a deductive-inductive approach. Frequency distributions will be calculated to assess the strength of support for each theme. Findings will be presented in tabular and narrative forms to facilitate their interpretation. Informed consent is a fundamental bioethical principle in medical research and practice. Insufficient attention to the concerns of vaccine recipients about these matters, compounded by a neglect to discuss the evidence-base informing these concerns, may contribute to the very problem that the COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy” expert literature purports to address. This is especially true of an intervention based on novel technologies and intended to be delivered on a global scale. Identifying if and how the expert literature engages with these concerns is critical.

Suggested Citation

  • Chaufan, Claudia & Hemsing, Natalie & McDonald, Jennifer & Heredia, Camila, 2022. "The Risk-Benefit Balance in the COVID-19 “Vaccine Hesitancy” Literature: An Umbrella Review Protocol," SocArXiv c3j2f, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:c3j2f
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/c3j2f
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/641a21c552d061140fd241a6/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/c3j2f?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:c3j2f. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.