Public attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines in Africa: A systematic review

  1. Patrice Ngangue
  2. Arzouma H. Pilabré
  3. Abibata Barro
  4. Yacouba Pafadnam
  5. Nestor Bationo
  6. Dieudonné Soubeiga

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

As COVID-19 vaccine acquisition and deployment accelerates, tensions also increase. This review aims to identify and understand the significance of population attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines in Africa. A systematic review was conducted. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Global Health databases. Database searches began on June 23, 2021, and the last search date was June 30, 2021. The methodological quality of the studies included in this review was assessed using the Mixed methods appraisal tool. A total of 609 articles were retrieved, and 23 met the eligibility criteria. All 23 included studies were cross-sectional. Three attitudes were identified: acceptance, reluctance, and refusal to be vaccinated. Acceptance of vaccination was motivated by confidence in the accuracy of the government’s response to COVID-19 and the fact that relatives had been diagnosed with or died from COVID-19. Reluctance was based on fear of vaccine quality and side effects, and insufficient clinical trials. Finally, refusal to be vaccinated was justified by reasons such as the unreliability of clinical trials and insufficient data regarding the vaccine’s adverse effects. This review revealed common attitudes of African populations toward COVID-19 vaccines. The results indicate that research needs to focus more on identifying facilitators of COVID-19 vaccination. However, they also provide essential elements for health personnel in charge of vaccination to develop strategies to achieve satisfactory coverage rates.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.4081/jphia.2022.2181
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.19.22274053: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationIt assesses the methodological quality of five categories of studies: qualitative research, randomized trials, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies [16].
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    [15] Eligibility criteria: The criteria for inclusion of articles were as follows: The exclusion criteria were: Eligibility criteria: The criteria for inclusion of articles were as follows: The exclusion criteria were: Information sources: We searched PubMed / MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Global health databases.
    PubMed
    suggested: None
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    EMBASE
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    The complete search strategy, line by line of each database as follows: PubMed/Medline strategy:
    PubMed/Medline
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Strengths and limitations: The main strengths of this systematic review lie in the fact that it included all studies regardless of the design. In addition, the included studies looked at both the general population and specific groups. In addition, document searches were carried out in several databases and in gray literature to reduce the risks associated with publication bias. There may be selection bias due to the restriction of publication languages. For example, the research looked at articles published in French or English. In addition, the synthesis was not conducted to have visibility of attitudes and reasons by type of participant. Furthermore, this review did not address the association of reasons with sociodemographic variables.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.19.22274053v1 on medRxiv