Determination of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine Hesitancy Using a Systematic Review Approach Based on...

Publications on vaccine hesitancy and the novel coronavirus disease 2019 in the scientific literature are increasing every day. An examination of their content will help to eliminate the existing negativity related to vaccine hesitancy through scientific methods. Hence, a systematic approach to the prevention of vaccine hesitancy worldwide can be developed. This article aims to survey how vaccine hesitancy is addressed in the PubMed articles about "vaccine hesitancy" over the novel coronavirus disease, for which the MeSH criteria have been published; to understand their recommendations for the prevention of vaccine hesitancy; to evaluate any related research described as "cross-sectional," "case-control," and "cohort" according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria; and to contribute to the current literature on the subject.

This study is planned to use a systematic review format and STROBE checklist was used to evaluate the articles accessed from PubMed database. Microsoft Excel was used as the data calculation tool.

Sixty-five (81.3%) of the 80 articles investigated in the scope of this study mention "vaccine." While 64 articles (80%) discuss the determination of vaccine hesitancy, 57 (71.3%) articles address its prevention. The keyword "COVID-19" is used in 61 articles (79.2%). The second most frequently used keyword is "vaccine hesitancy" (n = 37, 48.1%), followed by "vaccine" (n = 25, 32.5%). Twenty-nine (48%) of the reviewed articles originate from the WHO American Continents. The second most represented region of research is the European Region (n = 21, 35%), followed by the South East Asian Region (n = 5, 8%).

This study illustrates the recent situation for the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine and reveals the presence of a vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is a risk factor that could prevent herd immunity. The systematic review of scientific articles should continue with improvements in order to tackle the problem as exemplified by the present study. Other checklists as well as STROBE checklist are recommended to be used in similar studies to have more objective conclusions.