School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.
Risk Sciences International, Ottawa, ON K1P 5J6, Canada.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Jun 8;20(12):6082. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20126082.
Vaccines effectively protect against COVID-19, but vaccine hesitancy and refusal hinder vaccination rates. This systematic review aimed to (1) review and describe current interventions for addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy/refusal and (2) assess whether these interventions are effective for increasing vaccine uptake. The protocol was registered prospectively on PROSPERO and comprehensive search included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases. Only studies that evaluated the effectiveness of non-financial interventions to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were included, while those focusing intentions or financial incentive were excluded. Risk of bias for all included studies was evaluated using Cochrane risk of bias tools. In total, six articles were included in the review (total participants = 200,720). A narrative synthesis was performed due to the absence of common quantitative metrics. Except for one randomized controlled trial, all studies reported that interventions were effective, increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates. However, non-randomized studies were subject to confounding biases. Evidence on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy interventions remains limited and further evidence is needed for the development of clear guidance on effective interventions to increase vaccine uptake.
疫苗能有效预防 COVID-19,但疫苗犹豫和拒绝会阻碍疫苗接种率。本系统评价旨在:(1) 综述并描述目前针对 COVID-19 疫苗犹豫/拒绝的干预措施;(2) 评估这些干预措施是否能有效提高疫苗接种率。本方案前瞻性地在 PROSPERO 上注册,全面检索了 Medline、Embase、CINAHL、PsycInfo 和 Web of Science 数据库。仅纳入评估非金融干预措施以解决 COVID-19 疫苗犹豫的有效性的研究,而排除那些关注意图或金融激励的研究。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估所有纳入研究的偏倚风险。共有 6 篇文章纳入综述(总参与者 = 200720 人)。由于缺乏共同的定量指标,因此进行了叙述性综合。除了一项随机对照试验外,所有研究都报告称干预措施有效,提高了 COVID-19 疫苗接种率。然而,非随机研究易受混杂偏倚影响。关于 COVID-19 疫苗犹豫干预措施的有效性证据仍然有限,需要进一步的证据来制定明确的关于提高疫苗接种率的有效干预措施的指南。