Next Article in Journal
Transforming Growth Factor-β Concerning Malarial Infection and Severity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Intention by Health Care Workers in Jakarta, Indonesia: Using the Extended Model of Health Behavior Theories
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of Novel Reassortant Shuni Virus Strain in Clinical Cases of Israeli Ruminants, 2020–2021
Previous Article in Special Issue
Validation and Cultural Adaptation of the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) Questionnaire in Arabic Language Widely Spoken in a Region with a High Prevalence of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
TropicalMed
Volume 7
Issue 10
10.3390/tropicalmed7100298
tropicalmed-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Acceptance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Shaimaa Abdelaziz Abdelmoneim
1,
Malik Sallam
2,3,*,
Dina Mohamed Hafez
4,
Ehab Elrewany
5,
Hesham Metwalli Mousli
6,
Elsayed Mohamed Hammad
7,
Sally Waheed Elkhadry
8,
Mohammed Fathelrahman Adam
9,
Amr Abdelraouf Ghobashy
10,
Manal Naguib
11,
Ahmed El-Sayed Nour El-Deen
12,
Narjiss Aji
13 and
Ramy Mohamed Ghazy
5,*
1
Clinical Research Administration, Alexandria Directorate of Health Affairs, Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, Alexandria 21554, Egypt
2
Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Forensic Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
3
Department of Clinical Laboratories and Forensic Medicine, Jordan University Hospital, Amman 11942, Jordan
4
Pharmacy Department, Alexandria University Students Hospital, Alexandria 5422023, Egypt
5
Tropical Health Department, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21561, Egypt
6
Continuous Quality Improvement & Patient Safety Department, Alexandria Urology Hospital, Alexandria 5442045, Egypt
7
Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21544, Egypt
8
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, National Liver Institute, Menoufia University, Menoufia 32511, Egypt
9
Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Science and Technology, Khartoum 12810, Sudan
10
Faculty of Medicine, Kafrelsheikh University Hospital, Kafr el-Sheikh 33516, Egypt
11
Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, Alexandria 21554, Egypt
12
Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Assiut 71524, Egypt
13
Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy of Rabat, Mohammed V University, Rabat 10100, Morocco
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 7(10), 298; https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7100298
Submission received: 14 September 2022 / Revised: 3 October 2022 / Accepted: 4 October 2022 / Published: 13 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Awareness and Attitudes around COVID-19 Vaccination)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster dose vaccination after completing the primary vaccination series for individuals ≥18 years and most-at-risk populations. This study aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose uptake and intention to get the booster dose among general populations and healthcare workers (HCWs). We searched PsycINFO, Scopus, EBSCO, MEDLINE Central/PubMed, ProQuest, SciELO, SAGE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect according to PRISMA guidelines. From a total of 1079 screened records, 50 studies were extracted. Meta-analysis was conducted using 48 high-quality studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool. Using the 48 included studies, the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance among 198,831 subjects was 81% (95% confidence interval (CI): 75–85%, I2 = 100%). The actual uptake of the booster dose in eight studies involving 12,995 subjects was 31% (95% CI: 19–46%, I2 = 100%), while the intention to have the booster dose of the vaccine was 79% (95% CI: 72–85%, I2 = 100%). The acceptance of the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs was 66% (95% CI: 58–74%), I2 = 99%). Meta-regression revealed that previous COVID-19 infection was associated with a lower intention to have the booster dose. Conversely, previous COVID-19 infection was associated with a significantly higher level of booster dose actual uptake. The pooled booster dose acceptance in the WHO region of the Americas, which did not include any actual vaccination, was 77% (95% CI: 66–85%, I2 = 100%). The pooled acceptance of the booster dose in the Western Pacific was 89% (95% CI: 84–92%, I2 = 100), followed by the European region: 86% (95% CI: 81–90%, I2 = 99%), the Eastern Mediterranean region: 59% (95% CI: 46–71%, I2 = 99%), and the Southeast Asian region: 52% (95% CI: 43–61%, I2 = 95). Having chronic disease and trust in the vaccine effectiveness were the significant predictors of booster dose COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The global acceptance rate of COVID-19 booster vaccine is high, but the rates vary by region. To achieve herd immunity for the disease, a high level of vaccination acceptance is required. Intensive vaccination campaigns and programs are still needed around the world to raise public awareness regarding the importance of accepting COVID-19 vaccines needed for proper control of the pandemic.

1. Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly communicable infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. About 3 years have passed since its first reporting in Wuhan, China; still, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose serious threats to the global health [1,2]. Based on the World Health Organization (WHO) statistics, the burden of COVID-19 is manifested in more than 600 million confirmed cases and 6.48 million deaths worldwide as of 7 September 2022, with different patterns and predictors of morbidity and mortality [3,4,5]. As a result, effective preventive measures were warranted with intensive and swift efforts directed towards the development of effective COVID-19 vaccines [6]. By early September 2022, 47 COVID-19 vaccines have been approved by at least one country, and the WHO granted emergency use listing (EUL) to 12 vaccines [7].
Despite the timely development of effective and safe COVID-19 vaccines, hesitancy to get vaccinated emerged as a major hindrance to preventive efforts [8,9,10]. In addition, waning immunity following infection or vaccination and the continuous emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with immune escape potential underlined the necessity of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines [11,12,13]. Booster dose can be defined as an extra dose of vaccine administered following the completion of a primary vaccination series [14]. In the context of COVID-19 vaccination, it is recommended to take the booster dose if it is available based on current evidence showing that protective immunity wanes 4–6 months following the primary vaccination [11,15,16]. Receiving a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines has been proved to significantly increase immunogenicity and to improve the peak antibody levels following the primary immunization series among healthy adults [17,18,19].
Currently, the WHO recommends that individuals aged 18 years or older have a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines 4–6 months following the completion of the primary vaccination series [20]. As of 8 September 2022, data on the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines point to approximately 4 billion people who are fully vaccinated, 4.8 billion who received at least one dose of the vaccine, and only 749 million people who received a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines [21]. Therefore, the investigation of reasons behind hesitancy to have booster doses of COVID-19 vaccination is warranted, which can help to understand the determinants of vaccine uptake, which in turn can help in designing well-informed vaccination campaigns and strategies to promote vaccination [22,23,24].
It has been shown that the prevalence of the behavioral intention to receive a COVID-19 booster dose among the general population is variable in different countries with a range of 62–67% in the U.S., 67–71% in Poland, and 94% in China [25,26,27]. Multiple factors are associated with the acceptance of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccination, including high levels of fear of COVID-19 (low complacency) and trust in COVID-19 vaccination (high confidence), as well as low levels of fear of a booster dose or a new COVID-19 vaccine [28].
The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to address the acceptance of the general population of the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccination and to identify its associated determinants. Through identifying the main predictors of booster dose vaccine acceptance, public health authorities could be able to increase the acceptance and uptake rates of booster doses, resulting in higher vaccination coverage and population immunity with proper control of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Measures

The primary study measure was the estimation of the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance and actual uptake. Acceptance of the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccination was defined as the willingness to receive the vaccine as opposed to vaccine reluctance or rejection.
The secondary study measures included: (1) identification of the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance; (2) assessment of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers (HCWs); and (3) evaluation of the differences in COVID-19 booster dose vaccine acceptance across different WHO regions.

2.2. Data Sources

This meta-analysis was guided by the 2020 Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, with respect to the preferred reporting items of the systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist [29,30]. To access the acceptance and coverage of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses, the search process started on 28 May 2022 and conducted on 4 June 2022 for studies that had been published up until 4 June 2022. In addition to grey literature, published studies in the following databases were included: PsycINFO, Scopus, EBSCO, MEDLINE Central/PubMed, ProQuest, SciELO, SAGE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. Search terms were determined and approved after the consultation of the PubMed help desk. The used keywords are presented in Table S1.

2.3. Data Extraction and Study Selection

All studies reporting the acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose were included with no language restriction or vaccine-type restriction. Abstract-only papers, proposals, conference proceedings, editorials, author responses, reviews, case reports, case series, books, and duplicate records were excluded.
The PRISMA flow chart for the different steps of the current meta-analysis is depicted in Figure 1. All articles were imported into EndNote X8 for Windows (Thomson ResearchSoft, Stanford, CA, USA), to detect and remove duplicates. After the citation’s exportation to an MS Excel sheet containing the authors’ names, publication year, journal name, digital object identifier (DOI), URL link, and abstract, the authors screened both the title and the abstract. This was followed by full-text screening to identify the eligible articles. Screening was performed independently by four authors (S.A.A., H.M.M., E.M.H., and A.E.-S.N.E.-D). The senior author (R.M.G.) solved any disagreement. Further manual search for eligible citations was conducted through careful examination of the references of the included studies and studies citing the selected articles using PubMed and Google Scholar. All included articles were extracted to an MS Excel sheet with the following predefined data: publication year, authors’ names, country, study design, study setting, study population, sample size, duration of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, vaccine booster dose acceptance, predictors of booster dose vaccine acceptance, situation of participants regarding full COVID-19 vaccination, and the assessment tool used. Supplementary files were reviewed for any relevant information. The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (registration: CRD42022333758), and the MS Excel sheets including the relevant used data are available online using the following link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PyffvdDMqXJuzgy4T6WSIl3qJ1Uyf748/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=104751321858570795359&rtpof=true&sd=true (accessed on 9 October 2022) [31].

2.4. Investigations of Heterogeneity

Cochrane’s Q test (I2) was used to assess and measure heterogeneity between studies [29]. Due to substantial heterogeneity, DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models were applied to the pooled outcomes. The degree of heterogeneity was classified into:
  • 0% to 40%: might not be important;
  • 30% to 60%: may represent moderate heterogeneity;
  • 50% to 90%: may represent substantial heterogeneity;
  • 75% to 100%: considerable heterogeneity.

2.5. Publication Bias

Publications’ bias was assessed by visual inspection of the funnel plot and statistically by Egger’s regression test [29].

2.6. Quality Assessment

Quality assessment (QA) was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool customized for cross-sectional and cohort studies [32]. The quality of studies was either very good (9–10 points), good (7–8 points), satisfactory (5–6 points), or unsatisfactory (0–4 points) [33]. The assessment was performed by two independent reviewers (S.W.E. and E.E.) and further checked by two additional reviewers (S.A.A. and M.F.A.).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analyses were conducted using the R 4.2.1 software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Due to the heterogeneity between the studies, a random effect model was used for illustrating the pooled proportion of booster dose COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. To explain the statistical heterogeneity between the included studies, meta-regression analysis was conducted. Sensitivity analysis was performed using leave-one-out analysis to identify the influential studies and to recalculate the pooled proportion a number of times, removing an influential study at each time (Figure S1).
Subgroup analysis was conducted for the assessment of total COVID-19 booster dose vaccine acceptance among different WHO regions and among HCWs based on the intention to get a booster dose of the vaccine and the actual booster dose vaccination uptake (Figure S1).

3. Results

The primary search using the aforementioned databases identified 1079 records, from which 949 studies were screened using the title and abstract, after excluding 130 duplicates by the EndNote X8 software. We excluded 613 irrelevant studies (those that did not report COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance or uptake), 13 review articles, and 250 duplicates that were detected manually during title and abstract screening. After full-text screening, 1 unavailable citation was excluded, and 28 articles were irrelevant. Then, 44 articles were eligible for data extraction in addition to 6 records found through manual search and track citations. After QA, 2 studies were excluded because of their unsatisfactory score [34,35]. Finally, 48 studies were eligible for meta-analysis (Figure 1).

3.1. Characteristics of the Included Studies

Out of the 50 included studies, 32 were published in 2022, while 18 were published in 2021. The total number of participants among the 50 included studies was 194,410 subjects from 23 different counties across 6 WHO regions, with only 1 study conducted across 2 different regions [36]. Most studies were cross-sectional except 4 longitudinal survey studies [37,38,39,40] and 2 retrospective cohort studies [41,42]. The total number of HCWs in the included studies was 9125 subjects. The included studies are overviewed in Table 1 and Table 2. The quality of the included studies ranged between very good and unsatisfactory according to the assessment tool as follows: 3 studies were classified as very good studies, 10 were classified as good studies, 35 were classified as satisfactory studies, and 2 studies were classified as unsatisfactory [34,35].

3.2. Risk of Publication Bias

The absence of publication bias was evident by a nonsignificant Eggers’ test t = −0.41 (95% CI: −2.47 to −14.08, p = 0.670) and the funnel plot, which did not indicate the presence of funnel plot asymmetry (Figure 2).

3.3. Proportion of COVID-19 Acceptance

3.3.1. Actual and Intentional Acceptance of COVID-19 Booster Dose Vaccination

The pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance for the eligible 48 studies with 193,831 participants was 81% (95% CI: 75–85%, I2 = 100%). The highest acceptance rate was 98% (95% CI: 97–98%) [41], while the lowest proportion of acceptance was 41% (95% CI: 38–44%) [46] (Figure 3). Subgroup analysis according to the actual vaccination or intention to be vaccinated did not explain this heterogeneity (Supplementary Figure S1). Since six studies represented the COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance as actual vaccination or intention to be vaccinated [51,54,55,61,66,73], it was a necessary to identify the pooled proportion for the actual booster dose vaccination and intention to receive the booster dose separately.

3.3.2. Actual Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose

The attitude of 12,995 participants included in 8 studies was analyzed. The pooled proportion of the actual uptake of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose was 31% (95% CI: 19–46%, I2 = 100%), ranging from 2% (95% CI: 2–3%) [51] to 74% (95% CI: 71–77%) [56] (Figure 4). After excluding the multicollinearity by correlation and the variance inflation factor (VIF), meta-regression succeeded in explaining 51% of this high heterogeneity with residual heterogeneity τ2 = 0.46 (SE = 0.48). The most fitted model revealed that previous COVID-19 infection increases the actual booster dose acceptance significantly: 0.002 (95% CI: −0.000 to 0.003, p = 0.040); being employed: −2.27 (95% CI: −3.46 to −1.08, p < 0.001); vaccine type: −2 (95% CI: −3.50 to −0.50, p = 0.008); and large sample size greater than 1000 having a significant negative effect on the actual vaccination: −1.49 (95% CI: −2.43 to −0.54, p = 0.002). Being HCWs and the study setting in a high-income country had no significant effect on the uptake of the booster dose: −0.31 (95% CI: −0.97 to 0.34, p = 0.350) and 1.28 (95% CI: −0.169 to 2.730, p = 0.083), respectively.

3.3.3. Intentional Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose

Of the 190,609 participants included in 45 studies, the pooled proportion of intentional booster dose vaccine acceptance was 79% (95% CI: 72–84%, I2= 100%), ranging between 23% (95% CI: 21–24%) [55] and 97% (95% CI: 95–99%) [37] (Figure 5). Meta-regression for the studies that addressed intentional booster dose vaccination explained 52% of this heterogeneity with residual heterogeneity τ2 = 0.749 (SE = 0.293). The most fitted model revealed that previous COVID-19 infection decreased the intention for booster dose: −0.001 (95% CI: −0.002 to −0.000, p = 0.034); being employed increased the intention for booster dose vaccine acceptance: 0.800 (95% CI: 0.14–1.45, p = 0.016); being HCWs had no significant effect on the intention for booster dose: 0.018 (95% CI: −0.37 to 0.41, p = 0.920); and the study setting in the Western Pacific region increased the intention to receive the vaccine booster dose: 2.23 (95% CI: 0.277–4.187, p = 0.025); nevertheless, the studies conducted in the Americas, Europe, Eastern Mediterranean region, or Southeast Asia did not show such an effect: 1.25 (95% CI: −0.642 to 3.1560, p = 0.194), 1.52 (95% CI: −0.38 to 3.44, p = 0.110), 0.86 (95% CI: −1.11 to 2.84, p = 0.390), and 0.35 (95% CI: −2.30 to 3.01, p = 0.790), respectively.

3.4. COVID-19 Booster Dose Vaccine Acceptance among HCWs

Among the 15 studies that included HCW participants, 13,420 HCWs were asked about their attitude towards booster dose, but only 13 studies with 12,616 HCWs reported the acceptance proportion among HCWs. The pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance among HCWs was 66% (95% CI: 58–74%, I2 = 99%) ranging from 36% (95% CI: 31–42%) [54] to 90% (95% CI: 85–94%) [45] (Figure 6).
The pooled intention to get the booster dose among HCWs was 77% (95% CI: 67–83%, I2 = 99%), while the pooled estimation of actual booster dose vaccination was 69% (95% CI: 56–79%, p = 0.080, Supplementary Figure S1).
The meta-regression for the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance among HCWs, including the actual vaccination and intention to be vaccinated, explained 52.47% of the result. This meta-regression revealed that previous COVID-19 infection, large sample size greater than 1000 participants, and high-income country as the study setting had a significant effect on booster dose acceptance among the HCWs: 0.001 (95% CI: 0.001–0.003, p = 0.023), −1.23 (95% CI: −2.02 to −0.44, p = 0.002), and −1.75 (95% CI: −2.98 to −0.52, p = 0.005), respectively. A study setting in the Americas, Eastern Mediterranean region, or Western Pacific region had a statistically significant effect on booster dose acceptance among HCWs: 3.86 (95% CI: 1.80–5.91, p < 0.001), 4.19 (95% CI: 2.28–6.09, p < 0.001), and 3.48 (95% CI: 1.79–5.17, p < 0.001), respectively. The European region as a study region, being fully vaccinated, and employment had no statistically significant effect on booster dose acceptance among HCWs: 1.95 (95% CI: −0.05 to 3.23, p = 0.050), 0.54 (95% CI: −0.03 to 1.13, p = 0.065), and 0.31 (95% CI: −0.67 to 1.29, p= 0.533), respectively.

3.5. Acceptance of COVID-19 Booster Dose Vaccination across the WHO Regions

The pooled acceptance of booster COVID-19 vaccination in the Americas Region, which did not include any actual uptake of booster doses, was 77% (95% CI: 66–85%, I2 = 100%), ranging from 93% (95% CI: 90–95%) [68] to 41% (95% CI: 38–44%) [46] (Figure 7).
The pooled acceptance of booster dose COVID-19 vaccination in the European region was 86% (95% CI: 81–90%, I2 = 99%), ranging from 97% (95% CI: 95–99%) [37] to 62% (95% CI: 59–65%) [28] (Figure 8).
The subgroup analysis for the European region revealed that actual vaccination was 25% (95% CI: 10–48%, I2 = 99%), while the intention to receive the booster dose in the European region was 79% (95% CI: 65–88%, I2 = 100%).
The pooled acceptance of the COVID-19 booster dose of the vaccine in the Western Pacific region was 89% (95% CI: 84–92%, I2 = 100%), ranging from 94% [69] to 60% [48] (Figure 9). The subgroup analysis for the Western Pacific region revealed that the pooled actual booster vaccination was 74% (95% CI: 71–77%) in a single study (Supplementary Figure S1) [56].
The acceptance of booster COVID-19 vaccination in the Eastern Mediterranean region was 59% (95% CI: 46–71%, I2 = 99%), ranging from 71% (95% CI: 69–73%) [81] to 43% (95% CI: 40–46%) [62] (Figure 10).
The subgroup analysis revealed that the uptake of booster doses in the Eastern Mediterranean region was reported in one study [62].
The acceptance of booster COVID-19 vaccination in the Southeast Asian region was 52% (95% CI: 43–61%, I2 = 95%), and the subgroup revealed that the actual vaccination was 28% (95% CI: 8–66%), while the intention to have the booster dose, as reported in a single study, was 41% (95% CI: 39–43%). A single study reported the actual and intentional acceptance of the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccination in the African region (Supplementary Figure S1).

3.6. Predictors of COVID-19 Booster Dose Acceptance

Thirty-six of the 50 extracted studies discussed different predictors for COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance. Age above 45 and the male gender were strong predictors detected in [41,54,60,61,69,74,78,81]. Educational level was a strong predictor as well, according to several included studies [28,37,45,52,61,65,68,69,70,72,76]. Being a HCW was another predictor in 2 studies [48,74], while a previous COVID-19 infection in the family was a predictor in 5 studies [28,49,60,61,63]. Employment status and personal/household income were predictors among several studies [47,51,56,61,72,76,81]. Having a history of chronic disease has been reported to be a predictor of booster dose acceptance in several studies [28,37,39,49,51,69,79], while other studies reported trust in the effectiveness of the vaccine and the fear of an unknown adverse effect as significant determinants of booster dose acceptance [35,37,42,51,66,67,70,75,77,78,79]. Among different populations, history of chronic disease and trust in the vaccine effectiveness were significant predictors through our linear regression model, which explained 39% of the predictors involved in COVID-19 booster dose acceptance: 8151 (95% CI: 2236–14064, p = 0.008) and 6548 (95% CI: 935–12159, p = 0.023, Figure 11).

4. Discussion

Effective and safe vaccines are considered critical in combating the COVID-19 pandemic by achieving population immunity that hinders virus spread [6,82,83,84]. Despite accumulated evidence showing the safety and effectiveness of the currently approved COVID-19 vaccines, the success of vaccination campaigns was challenged by the conspicuous barrier of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy [8,9]. Several factors were shown to be correlated with lower acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination, including the sociodemographic characteristics and psychological factors, including (1) low confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy; (2) high complacency manifested in a higher perception of disease risks; (3) low convenience in terms of accessibility to vaccination services; (4) high calculation of the benefits and risks of vaccination; (5) low collective responsibility needed to protect the vulnerable groups in societies; and (6) high embrace of vaccine conspiracy beliefs [85,86,87,88].
Accordingly, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the approximate rate of vaccine hesitancy towards getting a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccination and to determine its associated factors. In turn, this can help to devise proper and well-informed intervention measures to improve vaccine acceptance, considering growing evidence that booster COVID-19 vaccination is necessary to control the pandemic [14,89]. This comes in light of the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with immune escape potential besides the waning of population immunity [90,91,92].
In this meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the proportion of both the actual uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine booster dose and the intention to get the booster dose across the globe. The overall acceptance rate of booster COVID-19 vaccination among 198,831 subjects across 48 studies conducted in 23 countries was 81% (95% CI: 75–85%). This rate was higher compared with the recent and earlier estimates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, which ranged from 60% to 75% in various meta-analyses [85,93,94]. This higher estimated proportion of accepting the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccination can be related to the timing of the included studies, which were conducted in a recent time period compared with earlier studies tackling COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. In turn, this could have resulted in a more positive attitude towards vaccination, considering growing evidence of the safety and efficacy of the currently approved COVID-19 vaccines, highlighting the time specificity as an attribute of vaccination hesitancy [84,95,96].
The intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose as estimated in this review was 79% (95% CI: 72–85%), while the actual booster dose vaccine uptake was 31% (95% CI: 19–46%). This observed disparity can also be linked to the timing of the studies included, where booster vaccination was not widely available, as well as the prioritization of high-risk groups. In this review, the acceptance of a booster dose among HCWs was 66% (95% CI: 58–74%), which is in line with the previous pooled estimates among health professionals worldwide [9,97]. Furthermore, this study confirmed the previous observation of regional differences in booster dose vaccine acceptance, consistent with previous reviews highlighting this issue [8,9]. It is known that vaccination hesitancy is place- and context-specific phenomenon; therefore, it is necessary to take into account these peculiarities in efforts aiming to promote COVID-19 vaccination [98].
In this review, the pooled acceptance of booster dose vaccination in the Americas, which did not include any actual uptake of booster vaccination, was 77% (95% CI: 66–85%). Higher rates of booster dose acceptance were reported in the Western Pacific (89%, 95% CI: 84–92%) and in the European region (86%, 95% CI: 81–90%). On the other hand, the lowest rates were reported in the Eastern Mediterranean region (59%, 95% CI: 46–71%) and the Southeast Asian region (52%, 95% CI: 43–61%). Thus, the high rates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the Middle East, which was shown previously, extended to involve hesitancy to booster doses as well [8,9,87].
The regional variability in COVID-19 booster dose vaccination can be attributed to the issues of vaccine equity and the implementation of different vaccine mandates [99]. Several low- and middle-income countries had struggles in relation to vaccine supplies, ending up in struggles to reach the intended goals of primary COVID-19 vaccination series [100]. On the other hand, a few high-income countries issued vaccine mandates in relation to COVID-19 booster dose vaccination with vaccine hoarding and low vaccine supply in other regions [101]. Prioritizing vaccine equity for the primary COVID-19 vaccination series should be considered to decrease the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 variant emergence, which could be a major challenge to control the pandemic besides the issue of vaccination hesitancy [102].
A noteworthy finding of the current review was the scarcity of reports addressing COVID-19 booster dose vaccine acceptance in the African region. Besides the issue of vaccine equity and vaccination hesitancy that hinder the successful implementation of vaccination campaigns in the continents, lack of studies can be considered another obstacle that should be addressed urgently [8,103,104].
It was worthy to note that the overall acceptance rate of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccination was relatively high. However, the actual acceptance rate was relatively below the intentional acceptance rates. A potential explanation of this high acceptance rate is perceived safety of the currently available vaccines and perceived severity of COVID-19. In addition, the increase in trust in health authorities over the world can effectively affect the acceptance of vaccination [105]. A recent study that investigated COVID-19 booster dose vaccine acceptance in 14 East Mediterranean region countries showed that hesitancy to receive a booster dose was linked to concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of current vaccines [106]. The study also showed that low perceived benefit was a major determinant of the reluctance to have a booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine [106].
To the best of our knowledge, our review is among the earliest and largest reviews to systematically assess COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance at this scale involving the general public and health professionals; thus, we compared our findings with meta-analyses on vaccine acceptance. Our findings were higher than the results of previously published meta-analysis by Norhayati et al., which reported a pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance from 170 studies in 50 countries of 61% (95% CI: 59–64%) [93]. A recently published systematic review and meta-analysis by Galanis et al. estimated the acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at a level of 79%—similar to our estimate—among the general public based on the inclusion of 14 studies [107].
Interestingly, the acceptance rate of booster dose vaccination among HCWs was relatively lower than the average acceptance estimate. About one-third of HCWs were reluctant to receive booster doses. This finding is very crucial as HCWs play a key role in guiding local communities’ attitudes toward vaccination [108]. In addition, HCWs’ vaccination beliefs and attitudes are critical for primary prevention strategies [109,110]. However, this estimate should be interpreted in light of the relatively low number of studies and HCW participants compared with the general public. Therefore, this pattern is pending further studies to reach reliable conclusions about the attitude of HCWs towards booster dose COVID-19 vaccination.
In a recent study by Dziedzic et al., nearly three-quarters of those polled preferred receiving COVID-19 vaccine booster doses, while 17.6% and 7.9% expressed rejection and uncertainty, respectively [108]. In the previous study conducted in Poland, the authors speculated that the observed high acceptance rate of booster doses among HCWs may be due to the high level of health literacy [108]. Likewise, approximately 71.1% of Saudi HCWs indicated a willingness to receive a COVID-19 booster dose [81]. Thus, more studies are needed to confirm the finding of lower acceptance of booster dose vaccination among HCWs as observed in the current review.
In this study, the main identified predictors of booster dose acceptance were trust in vaccine effectiveness and the presence of a chronic disease among participants with increased vaccine acceptance linked to a history of a chronic disease. Such a result can be attributed to low levels of complacency among individuals with a chronic disease with high levels of perceived severity of COVID-19. Predictors such as age, gender, and fear of unknown adverse effects were insignificant predictors of booster dose acceptance.
In the context of the included studies, having a chronic illness increased the odds ratio of booster dose vaccine acceptance by 1.4 in the Algerian population [54]. Likewise, HCWs with chronic diseases opted more for booster doses of vaccination [81]. This may be related to higher levels of perceived severity and perceived benefit of vaccination compared with the normal population. The intention to receive a booster dose was significantly associated with nationality, marital status, gender, education level, monthly income, and comorbid medical illness. However, this high rate of booster dose vaccine acceptance was not observed in low-middle-income countries. This may be due to the steady increase in COVID-19 vaccine coverage in low- and middle-income countries; however, vaccine coverage in these countries remains lower than the rates reported in higher-income countries.
The acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccine across WHO regions varied significantly, being the highest in the Western Pacific and the lowest in the Southeast Asian region. The pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance ranged across WHO regions from 52% in Southwest Asia to 89% in the Western Pacific. On the other hand, Norhayati et al. found that the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was the highest in Southeast Asia at 74% and the lowest in the Eastern Mediterranean region at 52% [93], which was consistent with an earlier review, which found that COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was over 90% in Southeast Asia, with the lowest proportions of acceptance in the Middle Eastern countries [9]. The Middle East’s low vaccine acceptance was linked to the widespread belief in conspiracies regarding emerging virus infections and subsequent control measures that harmed vaccination acceptance and uptake [87,111,112]. Furthermore, these variations may reflect varying levels of trust in information from government sources. Thus, cultural and regional aspects of vaccine hesitancy should be considered in intervention efforts needed to promote booster dose vaccine acceptance.

Strengths and Limitations

The strengths of this review besides being the largest with such an aim and wide scope included: (1) the search was not limited to articles published in English, which may have allowed the generalizability of the review results. In addition, (2) we included studies with satisfactory, good, and very good quality of data based on the assessment of the risk of bias. Additionally, (3) we included preprints to increase the power of our study. Finally, (4) we searched many databases to find most, and possibly all, published studies addressing the acceptance and uptake of a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines. The main limitation was that most of the records included in this review were cross-sectional studies, which can be thought of as snapshots of vaccine hesitancy status in each country/region. The included studies had different sampling strategies, variable survey instruments, and different assessment tools, which may explain some of the differences in vaccine acceptance rates reported in different studies from the same country. As a result, the findings should be regarded with caution, as these results cannot forecast future changes in vaccine acceptance rates.

5. Conclusions

The global acceptance rate of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination was found to be relatively high; however, the intention to have a booster dose was higher compared with the actual uptake of the booster dose. The relatively low acceptance rate of booster doses among HCWs is an alarming finding that should be studied in future studies. There is an observed difference in booster dose acceptance rates across WHO regions, which may shed light on the issue of vaccine inequity, besides possible links to cultural and regional differences in vaccine acceptance. To sum up, in order to achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a high level of vaccination acceptance is required. Many vaccination campaigns and programs are still needed around the world to raise public awareness and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses. These campaigns should consider the issues of effective coordination, engaging the public, and focusing on the safety and efficacy of the currently available vaccines [113,114]. In addition, policymakers should consider the importance of delivering concise messages highlighting the importance of booster dose vaccination needed to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 cases and to protect vulnerable groups in the population [115,116].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/tropicalmed7100298/s1, Table S1: Search strategy; Figure S1: Additional results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.M.G.; methodology, S.A.A., M.S., D.M.H., E.E., H.M.M., E.M.H., S.W.E., M.F.A., A.A.G., M.N., A.E.-S.N.E.-D., N.A., R.M.G.; software, S.A.A., M.S., R.M.G.; validation, S.A.A., M.S., R.M.G.; formal analysis, S.A.A., M.S., D.M.H., E.E., H.M.M., E.M.H., S.W.E., M.F.A., A.A.G., M.N., A.E.-S.N.E.-D., N.A., R.M.G.; investigation, S.A.A., M.S., D.M.H., E.E., H.M.M., E.M.H., S.W.E., M.F.A., A.A.G., M.N., A.E.-S.N.E.-D., N.A., R.M.G.; resources, M.S., R.M.G.; data curation, S.A.A., M.S., D.M.H., E.E., H.M.M., E.M.H., S.W.E., M.F.A., A.A.G., M.N., A.E.-S.N.E.-D., N.A., R.M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.A., M.S., D.M.H., E.E., H.M.M., E.M.H., S.W.E., M.F.A., A.A.G., M.N., A.E.-S.N.E.-D., N.A., R.M.G.; writing—review and editing, S.A.A., M.S., D.M.H., E.E., H.M.M., R.M.G.; visualization, S.A.A., M.S., R.M.G.; supervision, S.A.A., M.S., R.M.G.; project administration, S.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The full data that support this systematic review are available in the included studies in the reference section. The analyzed data are available from the corresponding authors (M.S and R.M.G.) upon request. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022333758.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

CIconfidence interval
COVID-19coronavirus disease 2019
DOIdigital object identifier
EULemergency use listing
HCWshealthcare workers
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
QAquality assessment
SARS-CoV-2severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
VIFvariance inflation factor
WHOWorld Health Organization

References

  1. Zhu, N.; Zhang, D.; Wang, W.; Li, X.; Yang, B.; Song, J.; Zhao, X.; Huang, B.; Shi, W.; Lu, R.; et al. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Phillips, N. The coronavirus is here to stay—Here’s what that means. Nature 2021, 590, 382–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  4. Asem, N.; Ramadan, A.; Hassany, M.; Ghazy, R.M.; Abdallah, M.; Ibrahim, M.; Gamal, E.M.; Hassan, S.; Kamal, N.; Zaid, H. Pattern and determinants of COVID-19 infection and mortality across countries: An ecological study. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Karmakar, M.; Lantz, P.M.; Tipirneni, R. Association of Social and Demographic Factors With COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates in the US. JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e2036462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nature News. COVID research: A year of scientific milestones. Nature, 2021; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. World Health Organization. WHO COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker and Landscape. Available online: https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/ (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  8. Sallam, M.; Al-Sanafi, M.; Sallam, M. A Global Map of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Rates per Country: An Updated Concise Narrative Review. J. Multidiscip Health 2022, 15, 21–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Sallam, M. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates. Vaccines 2021, 9, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aw, J.; Seng, J.J.B.; Seah, S.S.Y.; Low, L.L. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy-A Scoping Review of Literature in High-Income Countries. Vaccines 2021, 9, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Menni, C.; May, A.; Polidori, L.; Louca, P.; Wolf, J.; Capdevila, J.; Hu, C.; Ourselin, S.; Steves, C.J.; Valdes, A.M.; et al. COVID-19 vaccine waning and effectiveness and side-effects of boosters: A prospective community study from the ZOE COVID Study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2022, 22, 1002–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Saad-Roy, C.M.; Morris, S.E.; Metcalf, C.J.E.; Mina, M.J.; Baker, R.E.; Farrar, J.; Holmes, E.C.; Pybus, O.G.; Graham, A.L.; Levin, S.A.; et al. Epidemiological and evolutionary considerations of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dosing regimes. Science 2021, 372, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Andeweg, S.P.; de Gier, B.; Eggink, D.; van den Ende, C.; van Maarseveen, N.; Ali, L.; Vlaemynck, B.; Schepers, R.; Hahné, S.J.M.; Reusken, C.B.E.M.; et al. Protection of COVID-19 vaccination and previous infection against Omicron BA.1, BA.2 and Delta SARS-CoV-2 infections. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 4738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. World Health Organization. Interim Statement on Booster Doses for COVID-19 Vaccination. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/04-10-2021-interim-statement-on-booster-doses-for-covid-19-vaccination (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  15. Tseng, H.F.; Ackerson, B.K.; Luo, Y.; Sy, L.S.; Talarico, C.A.; Tian, Y.; Bruxvoort, K.J.; Tubert, J.E.; Florea, A.; Ku, J.H.; et al. Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 1063–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Andrews, N.; Stowe, J.; Kirsebom, F.; Toffa, S.; Rickeard, T.; Gallagher, E.; Gower, C.; Kall, M.; Groves, N.; O’Connell, A.-M.; et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 386, 1532–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Choi, A.; Koch, M.; Wu, K.; Chu, L.; Ma, L.; Hill, A.; Nunna, N.; Huang, W.; Oestreicher, J.; Colpitts, T.; et al. Safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant mRNA vaccine boosters in healthy adults: An interim analysis. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 2025–2031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Yue, L.; Xie, T.; Yang, T.; Zhou, J.; Chen, H.; Zhu, H.; Li, H.; Xiang, H.; Wang, J.; Yang, H.; et al. A third booster dose may be necessary to mitigate neutralizing antibody fading after inoculation with two doses of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. J. Med. Virol. 2022, 94, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Munro, A.P.S.; Janani, L.; Cornelius, V.; Aley, P.K.; Babbage, G.; Baxter, D.; Bula, M.; Cathie, K.; Chatterjee, K.; Dodd, K.; et al. Safety and immunogenicity of seven COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose (booster) following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK (COV-BOOST): A blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2021, 398, 2258–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. World Health Organization. Interim Recommendations for Use of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, BNT162b2, under Emergency Use Listing. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-vaccines-SAGE_recommendation-BNT162b2-2021.1 (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  21. World Health Organization. WHO Dashboard Officially Reporting COVID-19 Vaccination Data. Available online: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMWNjNzZkNjctZTNiNy00YmMzLTkxZjQtNmJiZDM2MTYxNzEwIiwidCI6ImY2MTBjMGI3LWJkMjQtNGIzOS04MTBiLTNkYzI4MGFmYjU5MCIsImMiOjh9 (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  22. Larson, H.J.; Jarrett, C.; Eckersberger, E.; Smith, D.M.; Paterson, P. Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: A systematic review of published literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine 2014, 32, 2150–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thomson, A.; Robinson, K.; Vallée-Tourangeau, G. The 5As: A practical taxonomy for the determinants of vaccine uptake. Vaccine 2016, 34, 1018–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Geiger, M.; Rees, F.; Lilleholt, L.; Santana, A.P.; Zettler, I.; Wilhelm, O.; Betsch, C.; Böhm, R. Measuring the 7Cs of Vaccination Readiness. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2022, 38, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yadete, T.; Batra, K.; Netski, D.M.; Antonio, S.; Patros, M.J.; Bester, J.C. Assessing Acceptability of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose among Adult Americans: A Cross-Sectional Study. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rzymski, P.; Poniedziałek, B.; Fal, A. Willingness to Receive the Booster COVID-19 Vaccine Dose in Poland. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Qin, C.; Wang, R.; Tao, L.; Liu, M.; Liu, J. Acceptance of a Third Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine and Associated Factors in China Based on Health Belief Model: A National Cross-Sectional Study. Vaccines 2022, 10, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Galanis, P.; Vraka, I.; Katsiroumpa, A.; Siskou, O.; Konstantakopoulou, O.; Katsoulas, T.; Mariolis-Sapsakos, T.; Kaitelidou, D. Predictors of Willingness of the General Public to Receive a Second COVID-19 Booster Dose or a New COVID-19 Vaccine: A Cross-Sectional Study in Greece. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Higgins, J.P.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  30. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Hafez, D.; Abdulmoneim, S.; Hamdy, N.; Nour El-Deen, A.; Ghazy, R.; Elrewany, E.; Osman, A.; Attia, M. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Acceptance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022333758. Available online: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022333758 (accessed on 9 September 2022).
  32. Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Available online: https://www.ohri.ca//programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed on 22 August 2022).
  33. Moskalewicz, A.; Oremus, M. No clear choice between Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2020, 120, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mori, Y.; Miyatake, N.; Suzuki, H.; Mori, Y.; Okada, S.; Tanimoto, K. Pre-Impressions of the Third COVID-19 Vaccination among Medical Staff: A Text Mining-Based Survey. Vaccines 2022, 10, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Al Janabi, T.; Pino, M. To Boost or Not to Boost: Acceptability of a COVID-19 Booster Dose among Osteopathic Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study from a Medical School in New York. Epidemiologia 2022, 3, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Iguacel, I.; Álvarez-Najar, J.P.; Vásquez, P.D.C.; Alarcón, J.; Orte, M.; Samatán, E.; Martínez-Jarreta, B. Citizen Stance towards Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination and Vaccine Booster Doses: A Study in Colombia, El Salvador and Spain. Vaccines 2022, 10, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gallant, A.J.; Nicholls, L.A.B.; Rasmussen, S.; Cogan, N.; Young, D.; Williams, L. Changes in attitudes to vaccination as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study of older adults in the UK. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0261844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sønderskov, K.M.; Vistisen, H.T.; Dinesen, P.T.; Østergaard, S.D. COVID-19 booster vaccine willingness. Dan. Med. J. 2021, 69, A10210765. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Wu, J.; Li, Q.; Silver Tarimo, C.; Wang, M.; Gu, J.; Wei, W.; Ma, M.; Zhao, L.; Mu, Z.; Miao, Y. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Chinese Population: A Large-Scale National Study. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 781161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hahn, M.B.; Fried, R.L.; Cochran, P.; Eichelberger, L.P. Evolving perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines among remote Alaskan communities. Int. J. Circumpolar. Health 2022, 81, 2021684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Yoshida, M.; Kobashi, Y.; Kawamura, T.; Shimazu, Y.; Nishikawa, Y.; Omata, F.; Zhao, T.; Yamamoto, C.; Kaneko, Y.; Nakayama, A.; et al. Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study, Fukushima Vaccination Community Survey. Vaccines 2022, 10, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Motta, M. The Prevalence and Correlates of Prospective Vaccine Hesitancy Among Individuals who Received COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters. SocArXiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Peterson, C.J.; Abohelwa, M.; Payne, D.; Mohamed, A.A.; Nugent, K. 2019 Novel Coronavirus Vaccination Among Medical Students. J. Prim. Care Community Health 2021, 12, 21501327211058316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sønderskov, K.M.; Vistisen, H.T.; Dinesen, P.T.; Østergaard, S.D. A positive update on COVID-19 booster vaccine willingness among Danes. Dan. Med. J. 2022, 69, A01220047. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Wu, F.; Yuan, Y.; Deng, Z.; Yin, D.; Shen, Q.; Zeng, J.; Xie, Y.; Xu, M.; Yang, M.; Jiang, S.; et al. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster vaccination based on the protection motivation theory: A cross-sectional study in China. J. Med. Virol. 2022, 94, 4115–4124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Marte, M.I.; Pichardo, E.; Kandany, V.N.; Castillo, M.M. Acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine: A cross-sectional study in the Dominican Republic. Princ. Pract. Clin. Res. 2021, 7, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Al-Qerem, W.; Al Bawab, A.Q.; Hammad, A.; Ling, J.; Alasmari, F. Willingness of the Jordanian Population to Receive a COVID-19 Booster Dose: A Cross-Sectional Study. Vaccines 2022, 10, 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hu, T.; Li, L.; Lin, C.; Yang, Z.; Chow, C.; Lu, Z.; You, C. An Analysis of the Willingness to the COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots among Urban Employees: Evidence from a Megacity H in Eastern China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Jairoun, A.A.; Al-Hemyari, S.S.; El-Dahiyat, F.; Jairoun, M.; Shahwan, M.; Al Ani, M.; Habeb, M.; Babar, Z.U. Assessing public knowledge, attitudes and determinants of third COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance: Current scenario and future perspectives. J. Pharm. Policy Pract. 2022, 15, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Qin, C.; Wang, R.; Tao, L.; Liu, M.; Liu, J. Association Between Risk Perception and Acceptance for a Booster Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine to Children Among Child Caregivers in China. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 834572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Babicki, M.; Mastalerz-Migas, A. Attitudes of Poles towards the COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose: An Online Survey in Poland. Vaccines 2022, 10, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Zhang, K.; Fang, Y.; Chan, P.S.; Cao, H.; Chen, H.; Hu, T.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Z. Behavioral Intention to Get a Booster Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine among Chinese Factory Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Alhasan, K.; Aljamaan, F.; Temsah, M.H.; Alshahrani, F.; Bassrawi, R.; Alhaboob, A.; Assiri, R.; Alenezi, S.; Alaraj, A.; Alhomoudi, R.I.; et al. COVID-19 Delta Variant: Perceptions, Worries, and Vaccine-Booster Acceptability among Healthcare Workers. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Lounis, M.; Bencherit, D.; Rais, M.A.; Riad, A. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy (VBH) and Its Drivers in Algeria: National Cross-Sectional Survey-Based Study. Vaccines 2022, 10, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Klugar, M.; Riad, A.; Mohanan, L.; Pokorná, A. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy (VBH) of Healthcare Workers in Czechia: National Cross-Sectional Study. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Koh, S.W.C.; Liow, Y.; Loh, V.W.K.; Liew, S.J.; Chan, Y.-H.; Young, D. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among primary healthcare workers in Singapore. BMC Prim. Care 2022, 23, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kheil, M.H.; Jain, D.; Jomaa, J.; Askar, B.; Alcodray, Y.; Wahbi, S.; Brikho, S.; Kadouh, A.; Harajli, D.; Jawad, Z.N.; et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Arab Americans. Vaccines 2022, 10, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pal, S.; Shekhar, R.; Kottewar, S.; Upadhyay, S.; Singh, M.; Pathak, D.; Kapuria, D.; Barrett, E.; Sheikh, A.B. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Attitude toward Booster Doses among US Healthcare Workers. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Toro-Ascuy, D.; Cifuentes-Muñoz, N.; Avaria, A.; Pereira-Montecinos, C.; Cruzat, G.; Peralta-Arancibia, K.; Zorondo-Rodríguez, F.; Fuenzalida, L.F. Factors Influencing the Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccines in a Country with a High Vaccination Rate. Vaccines 2022, 10, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Folcarelli, L.; Miraglia del Giudice, G.; Corea, F.; Angelillo, I.F. Intention to Receive the COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose in a University Community in Italy. Vaccines 2022, 10, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Wirawan, G.B.S.; Harjana, N.P.A.; Nugrahani, N.W.; Januraga, P.P. Health Beliefs and Socioeconomic Determinants of COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Acceptance: An Indonesian Cross-Sectional Study. Vaccines 2022, 10, 724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Aljamaan, F.; Alhaboob, A.; Saddik, B.; Bassrawi, R.; Assiri, R.; Saeed, E.; Alhasan, K.; Alenezi, S.; Alarabi, M.; Alrabiaah, A.; et al. In-Person Schooling Amidst Children’s COVID-19 Vaccination: Exploring Parental Perceptions Just after Omicron Variant Announcement. Vaccines 2022, 10, 768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wong, L.P.; Alias, H.; Siaw, Y.L.; Muslimin, M.; Lai, L.L.; Lin, Y.; Hu, Z. Intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose and associated factors in Malaysia. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2022, 18, 2078634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rababa’h, A.M.; Abedalqader, N.N.; Ababneh, M. Jordanians’ willingness to receive heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine boosters. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharm. Sci. 2021, 25, 7516–7525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Paul, E.; Fancourt, D. Predictors of uncertainty and unwillingness to receive the COVID-19 booster vaccine: An observational study of 22,139 fully vaccinated adults in the UK. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2022, 14, 100317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Attia, S.; Mausbach, K.; Klugar, M.; Howaldt, H.P.; Riad, A. Prevalence and Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy Among German University Students and Employees. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 846861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lai, X.; Zhu, H.; Wang, J.; Huang, Y.; Jing, R.; Lyu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Feng, H.; Guo, J.; Fang, H. Public Perceptions and Acceptance of COVID-19 Booster Vaccination in China: A Cross-Sectional Study. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Neely, S.R.; Scacco, J.M. Receptiveness of American adults to COVID-19 vaccine boosters: A survey analysis. PEC Innov. 2022, 1, 100019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Miao, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, W.; Wu, J.; Gu, J.; Wang, M.; Wei, W.; Ye, B.; Miao, C.; Tarimo, C.S.; et al. The Psychological Experience of COVID-19 Vaccination and Its Impact on the Willingness to Receive Booster Vaccines among the Chinese Population: Evidence from a National Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Kunno, J.; Supawattanabodee, B.; Sumanasrethakul, C.; Kaewchandee, C.; Wanichnopparat, W.; Prasittichok, K. The Relationship between Attitudes and Satisfaction Concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine and Vaccine Boosters in Urban Bangkok, Thailand: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Al Janabi, T.; Pino, M. Predictors for Actual COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Intended Booster Dosage among Medical Students of an Osteopathic Medical School in New York. Epidemiologia 2021, 2, 553–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lennon, R.P.; Block, R., Jr.; Schneider, E.C.; Zephrin, L.; Shah, A. Underserved population acceptance of combination influenza-COVID-19 booster vaccines. Vaccine 2022, 40, 562–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ben-David, B.M.; Keisari, S.; Palgi, Y. Vaccine and Psychological Booster: Factors Associated With Older Adults’ Compliance to the Booster COVID-19 Vaccine in Israel. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2022, 41, 1636–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Xiaoxiao, W.; Leyuan, L.; Minyue, P.; Xiaoguang, L.; Nan, L. Willingness of the General Public to Receive A COVID-19 Vaccine Booster—China, April–May 2021. China CDC Wkly. 2022, 4, 66–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tung, T.H.; Lin, X.Q.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, M.X.; Zhu, J.S. Willingness to receive a booster dose of inactivated coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine in Taizhou, China. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2022, 21, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. De Giorgio, A.; Kuvačić, G.; Maleš, D.; Vecchio, I.; Tornali, C.; Ishac, W.; Ramaci, T.; Barattucci, M.; Milavić, B. Willingness to Receive COVID-19 Booster Vaccine: Associations between Green-Pass, Social Media Information, Anti-Vax Beliefs, and Emotional Balance. Vaccines 2022, 10, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rzymski, P.; Pazgan-Simon, M.; Kamerys, J.; Moniuszko-Malinowska, A.; Sikorska, K.; Wernik, J.; Zarębska-Michaluk, D.; Supronowicz, Ł.; Sobala-Szczygieł, B.; Skrzat-Klapaczyńska, A.; et al. Severe Breakthrough COVID-19 Cases during Six Months of Delta Variant (B.1.617.2) Domination in Poland. Vaccines 2022, 10, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Jørgensen, F.J.; Nielsen, L.H.; Petersen, M.B. Willingness to Take the Booster Vaccine in a Nationally Representative Sample of Danes. Vaccines 2022, 10, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ma, L.; Yang, J.; Zhang, T.; Han, X.; Huang, Q.; Yang, Y.; Feng, L.; Yang, W.; Wang, C. Willingness toward COVID-19 vaccination, coadministration with other vaccines and receive a COVID-19 vaccine booster: A cross-sectional study on the guardians of children in China. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2022, 18, 2049169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sugawara, N.; Yasui-Furukori, N.; Fukushima, A.; Shimoda, K. Attitudes of Medical Students toward COVID-19 Vaccination: Who Is Willing to Receive a Third Dose of the Vaccine? Vaccines 2021, 9, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Alobaidi, S.; Hashim, A. Predictors of the Third (Booster) Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine Intention among the Healthcare Workers in Saudi Arabia: An Online Cross-Sectional Survey. Vaccines 2022, 10, 987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Britton, T.; Ball, F.; Trapman, P. A mathematical model reveals the influence of population heterogeneity on herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Science 2020, 369, 846–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Ashmawy, R.; Hamdy, N.A.; Elhadi, Y.A.M.; Alqutub, S.T.; Esmail, O.F.; Abdou, M.S.M.; Reyad, O.A.; El-Ganainy, S.O.; Gad, B.K.; Nour El-Deen, A.E.; et al. A Meta-Analysis on the Safety and Immunogenicity of Covid-19 Vaccines. J. Prim. Care Community Health 2022, 13, 21501319221089255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Ghazy, R.M.; Ashmawy, R.; Hamdy, N.A.; Elhadi, Y.A.M.; Reyad, O.A.; Elmalawany, D.; Almaghraby, A.; Shaaban, R.; Taha, S.H.N. Efficacy and Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines 2022, 10, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fajar, J.K.; Sallam, M.; Soegiarto, G.; Sugiri, Y.J.; Anshory, M.; Wulandari, L.; Kosasih, S.A.P.; Ilmawan, M.; Kusnaeni, K.; Fikri, M.; et al. Global Prevalence and Potential Influencing Factors of COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy: A Meta-Analysis. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Abdou, M.S.; Kheirallah, K.A.; Aly, M.O.; Ramadan, A.; Elhadi, Y.A.M.; Elbarazi, I.; Deghidy, E.A.; El Saeh, H.M.; Salem, K.M.; Ghazy, R.M. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination psychological antecedent assessment using the Arabic 5c validated tool: An online survey in 13 Arab countries. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0260321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sallam, M.; Dababseh, D.; Eid, H.; Al-Mahzoum, K.; Al-Haidar, A.; Taim, D.; Yaseen, A.; Ababneh, N.A.; Bakri, F.G.; Mahafzah, A. High Rates of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Its Association with Conspiracy Beliefs: A Study in Jordan and Kuwait among Other Arab Countries. Vaccines 2021, 9, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Al-Sanafi, M.; Sallam, M. Psychological Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance among Healthcare Workers in Kuwait: A Cross-Sectional Study Using the 5C and Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scales. Vaccines 2021, 9, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Wald, A. Booster Vaccination to Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Infection. JAMA 2022, 327, 327–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Canaday, D.H.; Oyebanji, O.A.; White, E.; Keresztesy, D.; Payne, M.; Wilk, D.; Carias, L.; Aung, H.; St Denis, K.; Sheehan, M.L.; et al. COVID-19 vaccine booster dose needed to achieve Omicron-specific neutralisation in nursing home residents. eBioMedicine 2022, 80, 104066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Goldberg, Y.; Mandel, M.; Bar-On, Y.M.; Bodenheimer, O.; Freedman, L.S.; Ash, N.; Alroy-Preis, S.; Huppert, A.; Milo, R. Protection and Waning of Natural and Hybrid Immunity to SARS-CoV-2. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 386, 2201–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Pérez-Alós, L.; Armenteros, J.J.A.; Madsen, J.R.; Hansen, C.B.; Jarlhelt, I.; Hamm, S.R.; Heftdal, L.D.; Pries-Heje, M.M.; Møller, D.L.; Fogh, K.; et al. Modeling of waning immunity after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and influencing factors. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Norhayati, M.N.; Che Yusof, R.; Azman, Y.M. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance. Front. Med. 2022, 8, 783982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wang, Q.; Hu, S.; Du, F.; Zang, S.; Xing, Y.; Qu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Lin, L.; Hou, Z. Mapping global acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Commun. Med. 2022, 2, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Liu, Q.; Qin, C.; Liu, M.; Liu, J. Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect. Dis. Poverty 2021, 10, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kaplan, R.M.; Milstein, A. Influence of a COVID-19 vaccine’s effectiveness and safety profile on vaccination acceptance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2021726118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Galanis, P.; Vraka, I.; Fragkou, D.; Bilali, A.; Kaitelidou, D. Intention of healthcare workers to accept COVID-19 vaccination and related factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2021, 14, 543–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. MacDonald, N.E. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine 2015, 33, 4161–4164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Yamey, G.; Garcia, P.; Hassan, F.; Mao, W.; McDade, K.K.; Pai, M.; Saha, S.; Schellekens, P.; Taylor, A.; Udayakumar, K. It is not too late to achieve global covid-19 vaccine equity. BMJ 2022, 376, e070650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bardosh, K.; de Figueiredo, A.; Gur-Arie, R.; Jamrozik, E.; Doidge, J.; Lemmens, T.; Keshavjee, S.; Graham, J.E.; Baral, S. The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: Why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good. BMJ Glob. Health 2022, 7, e008684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ye, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Wei, X.; Cao, Z.; Yuan, H.-Y.; Zeng, D.D. Equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines makes a life-saving difference to all countries. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2022, 6, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Machado, B.A.S.; Hodel, K.V.S.; Fonseca, L.M.d.S.; Pires, V.C.; Mascarenhas, L.A.B.; da Silva Andrade, L.P.C.; Moret, M.A.; Badaró, R. The Importance of Vaccination in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Brief Update Regarding the Use of Vaccines. Vaccines 2022, 10, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bongers, A.; Riggall, G.; Kokareva, L.; Chin, B. Managing the challenges associated with decreasing demand for COVID-19 vaccination in Central and West Asia. BMJ Glob. Health 2022, 7, e010066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Obinna, D.N. Solidarity across borders: A pragmatic need for global COVID-19 vaccine equity. Int. J. Health Plann. Manag. 2022, 37, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chen, X.; Lee, W.; Lin, F. Infodemic, Institutional Trust, and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Cross-National Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ghazy, R.M.; Abdou, M.S.; Awaidy, S.; Sallam, M.; Elbarazi, I.; Youssef, N.; Fiidow, O.A.; Mehdad, S.; Hussein, M.F.; Adam, M.F.; et al. Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Doses Using the Health Belief Model: A Cross-Sectional Study in Low-Middle- and High-Income Countries of the East Mediterranean Region. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Galanis, P.; Vraka, I.; Katsiroumpa, A.; Siskou, O.; Konstantakopoulou, O.; Katsoulas, T.; Mariolis-Sapsakos, T.; Kaitelidou, D. First COVID-19 Booster Dose in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Willingness and Its Predictors. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Dziedzic, A.; Issa, J.; Hussain, S.; Tanasiewicz, M.; Wojtyczka, R.; Kubina, R.; Konwinska, M.D.; Riad, A. COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy (VBH) of healthcare professionals and students in Poland: Cross-sectional survey-based study. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 938067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Aw, J.; Seah, S.S.Y.; Seng, B.J.J.; Low, L.L. COVID-19-Related Vaccine Hesitancy among Community Hospitals’ Healthcare Workers in Singapore. Vaccines 2022, 10, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Gu, M.; Taylor, B.; Pollack, H.A.; Schneider, J.A.; Zaller, N. A pilot study on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in the US. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0269320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Al-Jayyousi, G.F.; Sherbash, M.A.M.; Ali, L.A.M.; El-Heneidy, A.; Alhussaini, N.W.Z.; Elhassan, M.E.A.; Nazzal, M.A. Factors Influencing Public Attitudes towards COVID-19 Vaccination: A Scoping Review Informed by the Socio-Ecological Model. Vaccines 2021, 9, 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Sallam, M.; Al-Mahzoum, K.; Al-Tammemi, A.a.B.; Alkurtas, M.; Mirzaei, F.; Kareem, N.; Al-Naimat, H.; Jardaneh, L.; Al-Majali, L.; AlHadidi, A.; et al. Assessing Healthcare Workers’ Knowledge and Their Confidence in the Diagnosis and Management of Human Monkeypox: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Middle Eastern Country. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Antonini, M.; Eid, M.A.; Falkenbach, M.; Rosenbluth, S.T.; Prieto, P.A.; Brammli-Greenberg, S.; McMeekin, P.; Paolucci, F. An analysis of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in France, Israel, Italy and Spain and their impact on health and economic outcomes. Health Policy Technol. 2022, 11, 100594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Atkinson, C.L.; Atkinson, A.M. Vaccine Hesitancy and Administrative Burden in the Australian National Immunisation Program: An Analysis of Twitter Discourse. Knowledge 2021, 1, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Motta, M.; Sylvester, S.; Callaghan, T.; Lunz-Trujillo, K. Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Through Effective Health Communication. Front. Polit. Sci. 2021, 3, 630133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Chenchula, S.; Karunakaran, P.; Sharma, S.; Chavan, M. Current evidence on efficacy of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination against the Omicron variant: A systematic review. J. Med. Virol 2022, 94, 2969–2976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the included studies.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the included studies.
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g001
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g002 550
Figure 2. Funnel plot of publication bias of the included studies.
Figure 2. Funnel plot of publication bias of the included studies.
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g002
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g003 550
Figure 3. The pooled proportion of total COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance (actual uptake and intention to take the booster dose. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Figure 3. The pooled proportion of total COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance (actual uptake and intention to take the booster dose. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g003
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot of the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose actual uptake. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Figure 4. Forest plot of the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose actual uptake. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g004
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot of the pooled proportion of intentional COVID-19 booster dose acceptance. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Figure 5. Forest plot of the pooled proportion of intentional COVID-19 booster dose acceptance. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g005
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g006 550
Figure 6. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination (actual and intentional) among healthcare workers (HCWs).
Figure 6. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination (actual and intentional) among healthcare workers (HCWs).
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g006
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g007 550
Figure 7. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination in the WHO region of the Americas. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Figure 7. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination in the WHO region of the Americas. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g007
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g008 550
Figure 8. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination in the WHO region of Europe. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Figure 8. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination in the WHO region of Europe. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g008
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g009 550
Figure 9. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination in the WHO Western Pacific region. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Figure 9. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination in the WHO Western Pacific region. p = 0 denoted a p-value < 0.001.
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g009
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g010 550
Figure 10. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination in the Eastern Mediterranean region.
Figure 10. Acceptance of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination in the Eastern Mediterranean region.
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g010
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g011 550
Figure 11. The predictors of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance.
Figure 11. The predictors of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance.
Tropicalmed 07 00298 g011
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review.
Table 1. Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review.
Study, CountryDesign, Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Sample Size (n), Female (%), AgeStudy PeriodPrevious COVID-19 (n)Education/EmploymentCOVID-19 Vaccine Coverage (%)Vaccine Type
Petersonet et al., USA [43]Cross-sectional, medical students234, 63%, NA13 July 2021–3 August 202131Medical studentsFully vaccinated (99.3)Moderna and Pfizer
Sønderskov et al., Denmark [44]Cross-sectional, those who received or were scheduled to receive vaccine and did not receive the booster dose were included; those who did not receive COVID-19 vaccine at all or received a booster dose were excluded1357, NA, NA 10 December 2021–23 December 2021NANAFully vaccinated (95.0)Moderna and Pfizer
Wu et al., China [45]Cross-sectional, individuals who are at least 18 years old and were able to read and complete the self-administered questionnaire independently were included8229, 69%, 79% aged 26–45 years24 October 2021–28 October 202124Junior high school or below (33%), high school (29%), bachelor (36%), master, or above (2%). Employment as HCW (3%), other (98%)Fully vaccinated (100)NA
Marte et al., Dominican Republic [46]Cross-sectional, all permanent residents over 18 years of age1096, 60%, mean age: 37 yearsJuly 2021276Bachelor (32%), master (28%), doctorate (21%), PhD (2%), technicians (7%), high school (11%), elementary school (0.3%); employment: public, private sector, or independently employed (85%), unemployed (15%)Fully vaccinated (81.9)Sinovac (68%), AstraZeneca (20%), Pfizer (4%), others (8%)
Al-Qerem et al., Jordan [47]Cross-sectional, people aged 18 or above, living in Jordan, and fully vaccinated915, NA, 46% were 18–29 years1 October 2021–15 December 2021NAHigh school or less (7%), diploma (5%),
university student (18%), bachelor (64%), postgraduates (6%)		Fully vaccinated (100)Pfizer (57%), AstraZeneca (5%), Sinopharm (38%)
Hu et al., China [48]Cross-sectional, NA 21227, 49%, 75% were
18–39 years		20 October 2021–10 December 2021NABachelor’s degree (53%), postgraduate and above (32%); employment:
civil servants (12%), staff in government-affiliated public institutions (14%), enterprise employees (56%),
doctors (2%)		Fully vaccinated (100)NA
Yadete et al., USA [25]Cross-sectional, NA2138, 50%, NA14 July 2021–19 July 2021NANANANA
Jairoun et al., UAE [49]Cross-sectional, students and faculty staff of Ajman University, aged 18 years and above614, 69%, 38% were 23–26 years 25 August 2021–20 October 2021NAPrimary school/elementary (19%), secondary education (32%), diploma (26%), university degree (11%), postgraduates (12%). Employment in health sector workers (27%)Fully vaccinated (77)NA
Qin et al., China [50]Cross-sectional, Chinese citizen, having child aged under 18 years old1724, 50%, 30 years or below 47% 12 November 2021–19 November 2021NABachelor’s degree (77%)NANA
Babicki and Mastalerz-Migas. Poland [51]Cross-sectional, over the
age of 18, Poland resident, fully vaccinated, exclude no vaccination or incomplete vaccination		1528, 83%, NA23 September 2021–3 October 2021NAUniversity degree (78%)Fully vaccinated (100)Comirnaty, Spikevax, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer
Zhang et al., China [52] Cross-sectional, 18 years or above, a full-time employee of a factory in Shenzhen. Those who did not complete the primary vaccination series and those who received a booster dose were excluded2329/ 51%, 46% were 30–39 years26 October 2021–31 October 2021NACollege/university or higher (46%), employment of a factory in ShenzhenFully vaccinated (93), partially vaccinated (7)Sinopharm, Sinovac, CoronaVac, CanSino
Gallant et al., UK [37]Longitudinal, adults aged 65 and older, living in the UK, independently in the community, were generally in good health311, 48%, mean age: 70 yearsFebruary 2021–March 2021NANAFully vaccinated (2), partially vaccinated (97)NA
Iguacel et al., Colombia, El Salvador, and Spain [36]Cross-sectional, 18 years or older, can read and complete the self-administered questionnaire independently3026, 67%, 40% were 18–25 yearsAugust 2021–December 2021NAHigh level (51%); employment:
nurse (9%), medical doctor (7%), other health professionals (4%)		Fully vaccinated (78)NA
Sønderskov et al., Denmark [38]Longitudinal, adult population of Denmark1555, 49%, mean age: 53 years30 August 2021–15 September 2021NAPrimary and lower secondary school (14%), upper secondary education (7%), vocational education (41%), short-cycle higher education (8%), medium-cycle higher education (21%), long-cycle higher education (10%)Fully vaccinated or planned (95)Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson, AstraZeneca, an combination
Alhasan et al., KSA 1 [53]Cross-sectional, HCW 31279, 62%, mean age: 39 years9–14 August 2021297Low level (23%), medium level (26%), high level (51%); employment: consultant (25%), assistant consultant/fellow (7%), resident/registrar/physician in training (19%), nurse (42%)Fully vaccinated (69)Pfizer or AstraZeneca
Lounis et al., Algeria [54]Cross-sectional, Algerian national, at least 18 years old, capacity to communicate in Arabic or French, and being previously vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2787, 62%, NA 28 January 2022–5 March 2022514Bachelor’s degree (44%), masters’ degree or above (48%); employment: HCW (39%), non-HCW (61%)Fully vaccinated (100)Sinovac (66%), Sinopharm (5%), AstraZeneca (13%), Janssen (3%), Sputnik V (10%),
Pfizer (0.5%)
Klugar et al., Czechia [55]Cross-sectional, HCW3454, 81%, NA3 to 11 November 20211105Medical professionals (30%), allied health professionals (70%)Received a third dose (49), fully vaccinated (50), received only one dose (2)Pfizer (91%)
Koh et al., Singapore [56]Cross-sectional, HCW, temporary staff, pharmacy and diagnostics staff were excluded891, 85%, NA1 January 2021–10 December 2021NAAdministrative staff (14%), allied health workers (5%), ancillary services staff (37%), medical staff (19%), nursing staff (26%)Fully vaccinated (99)Pfizer, Moderna, CoronaVac, Sinopharm
Kheil et al., USA [57]Cross-sectional, adults aged 18 years or older1746, 55%, NA18 October 2021–29 November 2021NACollege (17%), bachelor’s degree (29%), master’s degree (15%), doctorate (25%)Fully vaccinated or planned to receive the second dose (95)Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson
Wu et al., China [39]Longitudinal study, Chinese adults, 18 years old or above29,925, 51%, 18–39 years (84%)6 to 9 August 2021NAHigh school graduate (26%), university graduate (61%)NANA
Pal et al., USA [58]Cross-sectional, adults aged 18 years and working in a healthcare setting in the US were included1358, 79%, 31–60 years (71%)1 February 2021–31 March 2021924Vocational (29%), bachelor’s degree (18%), master’s degree (12%), professional degree (28%); employment:
DMP (40%), DPCP (38%), administration (10%)		Fully vaccinated or planning to receive both doses (92)NA
Hahn et al., USA [40]Longitudinal study, residents in remote Alaskan communities, aged 18 years or older; residents in Juneau were excluded340, 70%, mean age: 43 years9 November 2020–27 September 2021NANAFully vaccinated (100)NA
Yoshida et al., Japan [41]Retrospective cohort study2439, 58%, mean age: 53 yearsDecember 2021 NANAFully vaccinated (100)NA
Toro-Ascuy et al., Chile [59]Cross-sectional, Chilean adult population, 18 years or older744, 65%/ 18–59 years (95%)May 2021–June 2021NAHigh school (37%), undergraduate (42%), postgraduate (21%)Not vaccinated (100)NA
Folcarelli et al., Italy [60]Cross-sectional, fully vaccinated individuals in Naples and did not receive the booster dose615, (57%), mean age: 32 yearsNovember 2021–December 2021102High school or less (69%), bachelor/graduate degree (31%); employment: student (71%)Fully vaccinated (100)Pfizer
Wirawan et al., Indonesia [61]Cross-sectional, residents of Jakarta and Bali, aged 18 years old, and had
received at least one dose of the vaccine		2674, (58%), median age: 29 yearsFebruary 202262Completed high school (53%), completed college (39%); employment:
unemployed (13%), housewife (25%), student (12%), part-time employment (18%), full-time employment (33%)		NANA
Aljamaan et al., KSA [62]Cross-sectional, parents who were residents in KSA1340, 65%, 35–44 years (47%)December 2021–January 2022NAUniversity degree (76%); employment: unemployed/retired (22%), HCW (23%), employee (47%)Fully vaccinated (61), booster (35)NA
Wong et al., Malaysia [63]Cross-sectional, fully vaccinated Malaysian residents aged 18 years or older1010, 64%, mean age: 32 years22 November 2021–9 February 2022145Professional and managerial (38%), general worker (14%), self-employed (6%), student (31%), housewife/retired/unemployed (11%)Fully vaccinated (100)NA
Rababa’h et al., Jordan [64]Cross-sectional, Jordanian adults aged 18 and above475, 76%, 18–39 years (75%)August 2021237Bachelor (51%), graduate studies (34%); employed (58%), unemployed (38%)NANA
Al Janabi and Pino. USA [35]Cross-sectional, medical students319, 51%, age range 18–49 yearsSpring 2021NANAFull NA
Paul and Fancourt. UK [65]Cross-sectional 22,139, NA, NA21 March 2020–6 December 2021NANANANA
Mori et al., Japan [34]Cross-sectional, medical staff at Sakaide260, 74%, mean age: 40 years2 December to 8 December 2021NAMedical doctors (13%), nurses (51%), administrative staff (24%)NANA
Attia et al., Germany [66]Cross-sectional, students and employees in German universities930, 73%, mean age: 29 years7 to 19 December 202155322 were employees and 608 were studentsNAPfizer was the most common
Lai et al., China [67] Cross-sectional, Chinese adults1145, 50%, age range: 18–59 yearsJune 2021NACollege/associate/bachelor’s degree or above (73%), employed (87%)Vaccinated (79%)NA
Neely and Scacco. USA [68]Cross-sectional600, 52%, NAJuly 2021NANA NANA
Motta. USA [42]A retrospective observational study involving adults older than 18 years1551, 54%, mean age: 46 years 22 to 27 April 2022 NANAFully vaccinated (72–78%)NA
Miao et al., China [69] Cross-sectional, residents in China, 18 years of older vaccinated individuals26,755, 53%, NA6 to 9 August 2021NAUniversity graduate (63%)Fully vaccinatedNA
Kunno et al., Thailand [70]Cross-sectional, 18 years or older living in Bangkok and received the first dose of vaccination780, 76%, mean age: 42 yearsSeptember 2021–December 2021362Bachelor’s (61%) (97)NA
Al Janabi and Pino. USA [71] Cross-sectional, students at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM)316, 47%, NASpring of 2021NANAFully vaccinated (95)Pfizer (61%), Moderna (34%), Janssen (5%)
Lennon et al., USA [72]Cross-sectional12,287, 51%, age range: 35 to 59 years old7 May 2021–7 June 2021NASome college, not graduate (30%), college graduate/postgraduate degree (30%)Full NA
Ben-David et al., Israel [73]Cross-sectional400/ 49%, mean age: 69 yearsAugust 2021NAAcademic education (53%)NANA
Wang et al., China [74]Cross-sectional, vaccinated Chinese adults were included2047, NA, age range: 35–40 yearsApril to May 2021 NANA(100) NA
Tung et al., China [75]Cross-sectional 1576, 77%, age: ≥40 years (53%) August 2021NASenior secondary school and below (49%), university and above 798 (51%)Fully vaccinated (96) NA
De Giorgio et al., Croatia [76]Cross-sectional1003, NA, NADecember 2021NANAFully vaccinated (33)Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna
Rzymski et al., Poland [77]Cross-sectional, included Polish aged 18 years or older and fully vaccinated 2427, 51%, age: <50 (62%) September 2021510Tertiary education (71%)(100)Pfizer, others
Jørgensen et al., Denmark [78]Cross-sectional, Danish citizens aged 18 or older31,721, NA, NADecember 2021–13 February 2022NANANA Pfizer and Moderna
Ma et al., China [79]Cross-sectional, included guardians of children aged <6 years in China9424, NA, NA15 September 2021–8 October 2021NANANANA
Sugawara et al., Japan [80]Cross-sectional, included medical students at Tokyo Medical University496, 41%, mean age: 21 yearsJuly 2021NAMedical students(91)NA
Alobaidi and Hashim. KSA [81] Cross-sectional, HCWs in KSA aged >18 years2059, 50%, mean age: 33 years1 October 2021–30 November 2021NANANANA
Galanis et al., Greece [28]Cross-sectional, included those aged 18 years or above, had to understand the Greek language and fully vaccinated815, 76%, mean age: 37 years23 May to 30 May 2022450NA(100)NA
1 KSA: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 2 NA: not applicable or the information was not available.3 HCW: healthcare worker; USA: United states of America; UAE: United Arab of Emirates.
Table
Table 2. Intention to receive booster COVID-19 vaccination and its predictors in the included studies.
Table 2. Intention to receive booster COVID-19 vaccination and its predictors in the included studies.
Study, CountrySurvey Tool UsedValid Study Outcome PredictorsParticipants Accepting Booster Dose TotalActualIntentionStudy Quality Score
Peterson et al., USA [43]OnlineNA 2191 (82%)082%Satisfactory
Sønderskov et al., Denmark [44]OnlineNA1225 (95)095%Unsatisfactory
Wu et al., China [45]OnlineGender, age, occupation, discomfort after vaccination, interval after last vaccination, active attention to news, PMT 3 scale (threat appraisal, response efficacy, self-efficacy, and response cost), VHS 4 scale (complacency, convenience, and confidence)7974 (97)097%Satisfactory
Marte et al., Dominican Republic [46]OnlineNA450 (41)041%Satisfactory
Al-Qerem et al., Jordan [47]OnlineHousehold average monthly income, severity of symptoms, deliberate receipt of COVID-19 vaccination status, risk level408 (45)045%Satisfactory
Hu et al., China [48]OnlineNA737 (60)060%Satisfactory
Yadete et al., USA [25]OnlineNA1321 (62)062%Satisfactory
Jairoun et al., UAE [49]OnlineEmployment, chronic disease status, having relatives infected with COVID-19, COVID-19 full vaccination status, admission to hospital due to COVID-19 522 (85)085%Satisfactory
Qin et al., China [50]OnlineNA1525 (88)088%Satisfactory
Babicki and Mastalerz-Migas. Poland [51]OnlineConfidence level, age, chronic disease status, adverse event occurrence1069 (69.9)2.5%67.4%Satisfactory
Zhang et al., China [52] OnlineSocial-media-related perceptions to booster dose, gender, educational level, monthly personal income, status as frontline workers or management staff1956 (84)084%Satisfactory
Gallant et al., UK [37]OnlineNA302 (97.1)097.1%Unsatisfactory
Iguacel et al.,
Colombia, El Salvador, and Spain [36]		OnlineAge, gender, occupational status, and vaccination status2403 (79.4)079.4%Unsatisfactory
Sønderskov et al., Denmark [38]OnlineAge1418 (91.2)091.2%Satisfactory
Alhasan et al., KSA 1 [53]OnlineNationality, full vaccination status, precaution implementation perception, awareness about the delta variant, and vaccination regimen effectiveness expectations707 (55.3)055.3%Satisfactory
Lounis et al., Algeria [54]OnlineAge, sex, education, profession,
COVID-19 infection status,
postvaccination relief,
postvaccination perceptions		406 (51.6)051.6Good
Klugar et al., Czechia [55]OnlineNA2463 (71.3)48.5%22.8%Very good
Koh et al., Singapore [56]Record reviewSex, workplace, and profession as the key factor in affecting time to COVID-19 booster vaccination658 (73.8)73.8%0Very good
Kheil et al., USA [57]OnlineNA1275 (73)073%Satisfactory
Wu et al., China [39]HybridAge, sex, educational level, marital status, chronic disease condition, smoking status26,340 (88.02)088.02%Good
Pal et al., USA [58]OnlineNA1135 (83.6)083.6%Satisfactory
Hahn et al., USA [40]OnlineNA271 (79.7)079.7Satisfactory
Yoshida et al., Japan [41]Face-to-faceAge, sex, number of adverse reactions after the second vaccination, antibody titer, and place of residence2388 (97.9)97.9%0Satisfactory
Toro-Ascuy et al., Chile [59]OnlineTrust in vaccine status, trust in stakeholders’ status, trust in social media status, trust in press status656 (88.2)088.2%Good
Folcarelli et al., Italy [60]OnlineAge, gender, marital status, having cohabitants, education, COVID-19 infection status for the participant or his/her relevant or friends, COVID-19 booster awareness527 (85.7)85.7%0Good
Wirawan et al., Indonesia [61]OnlineHealth beliefs, media influence, trust in authoritative sources, age, sex, religion, education level, employment status, monthly income, health insurance, and COVID-19 history1505 (56.3)15.141.2Satisfactory
Aljamaan et al., KSA [62]OnlineNA574 (42.8)42.8%0Unsatisfactory
Wong et al., Malaysia [63]OnlineAge group, ethnicity, marital status, average monthly household income, region, past COVID-19 vaccination side effect status, severity of side effects after vaccination, pandemic fatigue status, practices of recommended measures against COVID-19 infection820 (81.2)081.2%Good
Rababa’h et al., Jordan [64]OnlineSide effects status232 (49)049%Satisfactory
Al Janabi and Pino. USA [35]OnlineAge, gender, marital status, race/ethnicity, household income, campus location, vaccine type 281 (88.9)088.9%Satisfactory
Paul and Fancourt. UK [65]OnlineGender, age, ethnicity, education, smoking status, employment status, area of dwelling-092%Satisfactory
Mori et al., Japan [34]OnlineAge, pregnancy status for females, side effect status25 (93.1)093.1%Unsatisfactory
Attia et al., Germany [66]OnlineGender, age, employment status, pregnancy status (for females), ethical opinion of vaccine justice, vaccine safety opinion817 (87.8)27.2%60.6%Good
Lai et al., China [67] OnlineAge, gender, maternal status, education level, employment status, household annual income, residence, and region 971 (84.8)084.8%Very good
Neely and Scacco. USA [68]Online Age, gender, political affiliation, ethnicity, residence, and region556 (92.6)092.6%Good
Motta. USA [42]OnlineAge, gender, education level, employment status, respondents’ political ideology760 (49)49%0Good
Miao et al., China [69] OnlineAge, gender, educational status, ethnicity, religion, marital status, social level, chronic condition status, smoking status, washing hands status, wearing mask, gathering activities, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, risk of COVID-19 infection, curability of COVID-19, vaccine adverse reactions, channel of vaccine information, vaccine conspiracy beliefs, convenience, effectiveness, trust25,105 (93.83)093.83%Satisfactory
Kunno et al., Thailand [70]OnlineLevel of confidence in the effectiveness of the booster dose and the occurrence of adverse events in them or their loved ones, marital status, education level, occupation366 (46.9)46.9%0Satisfactory
Al Janabi and Pino. USA [71] Online Pharma mistrust, vaccine-induced immunity, vaccines adverse effects224 (70.2)70.2%0Unsatisfactory
Lennon et al., USA [72]Mixed (phone and online)Race, ethnicity, educational level, median income, party identification, geography/urbanity 5530 (45)045%Satisfactory
Ben-David et al., Israel [73]Online Academic education, contracting COVID-19, sense of control370 (92.3)60%32.3%Unsatisfactory
Wang et al., China [74]Online Age, gender, healthcare workers, high education1552 (75.8)075.8%Satisfactory
Tung et al., China [75]Online History of allergic reaction, concerns about vaccine effectiveness and safety1436 (91.1)091.1%Satisfactory
De Giorgio et al., Croatia [76]Online Unrealistic optimism, age, educational level, employment, loss of a close person, sources of information regarding COVID-19 and vaccines789 (78.6)078.6%Satisfactory
Rzymski et al., Poland [77]Online COVID-19 vaccine-related side effects status, vaccine trust status1724 (71)071%Satisfactory
Jørgensen et al., Denmark [78]OnlineAge, sex, societal threat, response efficacy, self-efficacy, response cost27,598 (87)087%Satisfactory
Ma et al., China [79]OnlineGuardians’ education level, children disease status, guardians’ vaccination status, vaccine safety and effectiveness concern status 8690 (92.21)092.21%Satisfactory
Sugawara et al., Japan [80]OnlineDevelopment of COVID-19 vaccines parents’ opinion450 (90.7)090.7%good
Alobaidi and Hashim. KSA [81] OnlineGender, age, nationality, marital status, educational level, monthly income, comorbid medical illness status, health beliefs1464 (71.1)071.1%Unsatisfactory
Galanis et al., Greece [28]OnlineEducational level, comorbidity status, influenza vaccination status, self, relatives COVID-19 infection status506 (62)062%Satisfactory
1 KSA: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 2 NA: not applicable or the information was not available; 3 PMT: protection motivation theory; 4 VHS: vaccine hesitancy scale; COVID-19: Coronavirus diseases 2019.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abdelmoneim, S.A.; Sallam, M.; Hafez, D.M.; Elrewany, E.; Mousli, H.M.; Hammad, E.M.; Elkhadry, S.W.; Adam, M.F.; Ghobashy, A.A.; Naguib, M.; et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Acceptance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 7, 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7100298

AMA Style

Abdelmoneim SA, Sallam M, Hafez DM, Elrewany E, Mousli HM, Hammad EM, Elkhadry SW, Adam MF, Ghobashy AA, Naguib M, et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Acceptance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2022; 7(10):298. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7100298

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abdelmoneim, Shaimaa Abdelaziz, Malik Sallam, Dina Mohamed Hafez, Ehab Elrewany, Hesham Metwalli Mousli, Elsayed Mohamed Hammad, Sally Waheed Elkhadry, Mohammed Fathelrahman Adam, Amr Abdelraouf Ghobashy, Manal Naguib, and et al. 2022. "COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Acceptance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease 7, no. 10: 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7100298

APA Style

Abdelmoneim, S. A., Sallam, M., Hafez, D. M., Elrewany, E., Mousli, H. M., Hammad, E. M., Elkhadry, S. W., Adam, M. F., Ghobashy, A. A., Naguib, M., Nour El-Deen, A. E. -S., Aji, N., & Ghazy, R. M. (2022). COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Acceptance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, 7(10), 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7100298

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop