IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/r9xs7.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The balance of risks and benefits in the COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy” literature: An umbrella review

Author

Listed:
  • Chaufan, Claudia

    (York University)

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

Abstract

Background: “Vaccine hesitancy” (VH) has been described as a “threat to global health”, especially in the COVID-19 era. Research on VH indicates that the concerns of vaccine recipients with the balance of risks and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, which involve safety and effectiveness considerations (hereafter “safety concerns”), are a leading driver of VH. However, what explains these concerns is underexplored. Goal: We conducted a qualitative umbrella review following PRISMA guidelines and informed by a critical perspective to examine how the safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccine recipients are addressed in the VH literature. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 platform (COVID-19 L. OVE), and the WHO Global Research on COVID-19 Database. We included 49 refereed reviews examining VH in any population involved with COVID-19 vaccination decisions for themselves or as caretakers, with no methodological, quality, temporal, or geographic restrictions, and were published in English, excluding those that authors did not identify as “systematic”. Two reviewers completed article screening and data extraction and synthesis. Thematic synthesis was used to identify themes and frequencies were calculated to assess the strength of support for themes. Disagreements were resolved through full team discussion. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42022351489) and partially funded by a SSHRC grant (# 435-2022-0959). Findings: All reviews assumed that VH was a major barrier to ending the COVID-19 crisis. With vaccines assumed to be “safe and effective”, recipients’ safety concerns were downplayed. Evidence incompatible with “VH-as-a-problem”, whenever mentioned, was dismissed as “misinformation”. Informed consent was either not discussed or was presented as a potential threat to “vaccine confidence”. We observed no differences regardless of study population, methodology, or other study characteristics. Limitations are discussed. Conclusions: Neglecting or dismissing vaccine recipients’ safety concerns contributes to the problem that research on COVID-19 VH purports to address. It also undermines the implementation of informed consent, critical to ethical medical and public health research, policy, and practice. The scant attention to bioethical considerations in current COVID-19 VH research is concerning.

Suggested Citation

  • Chaufan, Claudia & Heredia, Camila & McDonald, Jennifer & Hemsing, Natalie, 2023. "The balance of risks and benefits in the COVID-19 “vaccine hesitancy” literature: An umbrella review," SocArXiv r9xs7, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:r9xs7
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/r9xs7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/64382e1c7078db08d0ba1a10/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/r9xs7?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hyun Kyung Park & Ji Hye Ham & Deok Hyun Jang & Jin Yong Lee & Won Mo Jang, 2021. "Political Ideologies, Government Trust, and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in South Korea: A Cross-Sectional Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-9, October.
    2. Shiyi Cao & Yong Gan & Chao Wang & Max Bachmann & Shanbo Wei & Jie Gong & Yuchai Huang & Tiantian Wang & Liqing Li & Kai Lu & Heng Jiang & Yanhong Gong & Hongbin Xu & Xin Shen & Qingfeng Tian & Chuanz, 2020. "Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-7, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daphne Bussink-Voorend & Jeannine L. A. Hautvast & Lisa Vandeberg & Olga Visser & Marlies E. J. L. Hulscher, 2022. "A systematic literature review to clarify the concept of vaccine hesitancy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(12), pages 1634-1648, December.
    2. Wang, Di & Lu, Jiahui & Zhong, Ying, 2023. "Futile or fertile? The effect of persuasive strategies on citizen engagement in COVID-19 vaccine-related tweets across six national health departments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    3. Dorit Zimand-Sheiner & Ofrit Kol & Smadar Frydman & Shalom Levy, 2021. "To Be (Vaccinated) or Not to Be: The Effect of Media Exposure, Institutional Trust, and Incentives on Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccination," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Alessandro Sapienza & Rino Falcone, 2022. "The Role of Trust in COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: Considerations from a Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Elena Fumagalli & Candelaria Belén Krick & Marina Belén Dolmatzian & Julieta Edith Del Negro & Joaquin Navajas, 2023. "Partisanship predicts COVID-19 vaccine brand preference: the case of Argentina," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.

    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:r9xs7. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.