Gender differences in the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyse gender differences in COVID-19 vaccination intentions.Subject and methods
PubMed, Web of Science and PsycInfo were searched (November 2020 to January 2021) for studies reporting absolute frequencies of COVID-19 vaccination intentions by gender. Averaged odds ratios comparing vaccination intentions among men and women were computed. Descriptive analyses of the studies were reported.Results
Sixty studies were included in the review and data from 46 studies (n = 141,550) were available for meta-analysis. A majority (58%) of papers reported men to have higher intentions to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Meta-analytic calculations showed that significantly fewer women stated that they would get vaccinated than men, OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.55). This effect was evident in several countries, and the difference was bigger in samples of health care workers than in unspecified general population samples.Conclusion
This systematic review and meta-analysis found lower vaccination intentions among women than men. This difference is discussed in the light of recent data on actual vaccination rates in different countries.Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-021-01677-w.
SUBMITTER: Zintel S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8739532 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsRandom effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain.ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.
| S-EPMC8073806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The world is facing the COVID-19 pandemic. The development of a vaccine is challenging. We aimed to determine the proportion of people who intend to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in France or to participate in a vaccine clinical trial. METHODS:We conducted an anonymous on-line survey from the 26th of March to the 20th of April 2020. Primary endpoints were the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 if a vaccine was available or participate in a vaccine clinical trial. RESULTS:Three thousand two hundred and fifty nine individuals answered the survey; women accounted for 67.4% of the respondents. According to their statements, 2.512 participants (77.6%, 95% CI 76.2-79%) will certainly or probably agree to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Older age, male gender, fear about COVID-19, being a healthcare worker and individual perceived risk were associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Vaccine hesitancy was associated with a decrease in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. One thousand and five hundred and fifty respondents (47.6% 95% CI 45.9-49.3%) will certainly or probably agree to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. Older age, male gender, being a healthcare worker and individual perceived risk were associated with potential acceptance to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. Vaccine hesitancy was associated with refusal for participation in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS:Nearly 75% and 48% of the survey respondents were respectively likely to accept vaccination or participation in a clinical trial against COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy will be the major barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake.
| S-EPMC7498238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Epidemiological differences between men and women have been reported with regards to sepsis, influenza and severe coronavirus infections including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. AIM:To systematically review the literature relating to men versus women on SARS-CoV-2 in order to seek differences in disease characteristics (e.g. infectivity, severity) and outcomes (e.g. mortality). METHODS:We searched 3 electronic databases up or observational studies reporting differences between men and women in the SARS-CoV-2 disease characteristics stated. We identified and included 47 studies, reporting data for 21,454 patients mainly from China. RESULTS:The unadjusted mortality rates of men were higher than those of women, with a mortality OR 0.51 [0.42, 0.61] (p<0.001) for women. The proportion of men presenting with severe disease and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) was also higher than that of women (OR 0.75 [0.60-0.93] p<0.001 and OR 0.45 [0.40-0.52] p<0.001 respectively). Adjusted analyses could not be conducted due to lack of data. CONCLUSION:COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes in males than in females. However, until more detailed data are provided in further studies enabling adjusted analysis, this remains an unproven assumption.
| S-EPMC7608911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Understanding the factors that increase intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines is essential to maximise the vaccination campaign effectiveness. The present experimental study evaluated the effect of exposure to messages targeting cognitive attitude plus anticipated positive (pride) or negative (regret) affective reactions on intention to get vaccinated. Participants included 484 Italian adults randomly allocated to one of four conditions: 1) cognitive attitude message; 2) cognitive attitude plus positive affect message; 3) cognitive attitude plus negative affect message; 4) control condition (no message). Results showed that participants in the second condition reported greater intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 compared with those in the control condition. Parallel mediation analysis indicated that the effect of the second condition on intention was fully mediated by cognitive attitude and anticipated positive affect. These findings suggest that future campaigns aimed at promoting COVID-19 vaccination intention could usefully target both cognitive attitude and anticipated positive affect.
| S-EPMC8452346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed lifestyles worldwide and subsequently induced individuals' sleep problems. Sleep problems have been demonstrated by scattered evidence among the current literature on COVID-19; however, little is known regarding the synthesised prevalence of sleep problems (i.e. insomnia symptoms and poor sleep quality) for males and females separately. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to answer the important question regarding prevalence of sleep problems during the COVID-19 outbreak period between genders. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale checklist, relevant studies with satisfactory methodological quality searched for in five academic databases (Scopus, PubMed Central, ProQuest, Web of Science , and EMBASE) were included and analysed. The protocol of the project was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; identification code CRD42020181644). A total of 54 papers (N = 67,722) in the female subgroup and 45 papers (N = 45,718) in the male subgroup were pooled in the meta-analysis. The corrected pooled estimated prevalence of sleep problems was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19%-29%) for female participants and 27% (95% CI 24%-30%) for male participants. Although in both gender subgroups, patients with COVID-19, health professionals and general population showed the highest prevalence of sleep problems, it did not reach statistical significance. Based on multivariable meta-regression, both gender groups had higher prevalence of sleep problems during the lockdown period. Therefore, healthcare providers should pay attention to the sleep problems and take appropriate preventive action.
| S-EPMC8420603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A COVID-19 vaccine can be an important key for mitigating the spread of the pandemic, provided that it is accepted by a sufficient proportion of the population. This study investigated parents' intention to get vaccinated and to have one's child vaccinated against COVID-19. In May 2020, 612 parents participating with their child in the KUNO-Kids health study completed an online survey. Multivariable logistic regression models were calculated to analyze predictors of intention to vaccinate. Fifty-eight percent of parents intended to get vaccinated against COVID-19, and 51% intended to have their child vaccinated. Significant predictors for the intention to get vaccinated and for having the child vaccinated included stronger parental confidence in one's knowledge about prevention measures and lower beliefs that policy measures were exaggerated.Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy was considerable in our sample of parents in Germany. However, our study revealed some potentially modifiable factors which should be addressed by a comprehensive and tailored communication and education strategy. What is Known? • A COVID-19 vaccine can mitigate the spread of the pandemic. • Many parents are skeptical about vaccinations in general. What is New? • COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy was considerable in our sample of parents from Germany, not only for getting vaccinated but also for having the child vaccinated. • Negative parental attitudes regarding policy measures to contain the pandemic were associated with a lower intention to vaccinate.
| S-EPMC8127511 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7489926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and long COVID has not been firmly established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and long COVID.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched on September 2022 without language restrictions (CRD42022360399) to identify prospective trials and observational studies comparing patients with and without vaccination before severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We also included studies reporting symptomatic changes of ongoing long COVID following vaccination among those with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome were synthesized using a random-effects model. Symptomatic changes after vaccination were synthesized by a one-group meta-analysis.ResultsSix observational studies involving 536,291 unvaccinated and 84,603 vaccinated (before SARS-CoV-2 infection) patients (mean age, 41.2-66.6; female, 9.0-67.3%) and six observational studies involving 8,199 long COVID patients (mean age, 40.0 to 53.5; female, 22.2-85.9%) who received vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Two-dose vaccination was associated with a lower risk of long COVID compared to no vaccination (OR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.92) and one-dose vaccination (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83). Two-dose vaccination compared to no vaccination was associated with a lower risk of persistent fatigue (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.93) and pulmonary disorder (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.47-0.52). Among those with ongoing long COVID symptoms, 54.4% (95% CI, 34.3-73.1%) did not report symptomatic changes following vaccination, while 20.3% (95% CI, 8.1-42.4%) experienced symptomatic improvement after two weeks to six months of COVID-19 vaccination.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination before SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a lower risk of long COVID, while most of those with ongoing long COVID did not experience symptomatic changes following vaccination.
| S-EPMC9905096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeA recent survey has shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has culminated in dramatical and critical treatment particularly in acute infected patients. In fact, this systematic review-meta-analysis was directly pertained to estimation at the efficient value of some clinical managements to confront the COVID-19 infection.MethodsPubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Scholar databases were searched from inception to July 1, 2020, to identify studies reporting the current treatment process and medications (e.g. hydroxychloroquine, antiviral therapy, convalescent plasma, and immunomodulatory agents) for COVID-19. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The outcomes of this study were the frequency of negative conversion cases, clinical improvements, mechanical ventilation demand, intensive care unit (ICU) entry, and mortality. The standard treatment refers to the published guidelines and specialist experience which varies in different articles, and the proposed treatment refers to the kind of interest suggested in the included studies.ResultsA number of 45 articles met the eligibility criteria (out of 6793 articles). Among them, 26 articles involving 3263 patients were included in quantitative analysis. Anti-COVID-19 interventions could significantly increase clinical improvement (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.08-1.27; I2 = 49.8%) and reduce the mortality rate (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; I2 = 74.8%). Although in terms of negative conversion, ICU entry, and mechanical ventilation demand, clinical intervention had no beneficial effect. The clinical effect of immunomodulatory agents (especially tocilizumab and anakinra) was noticeable compared to other medications with RR of 0.22 (95% CI 0.09-0.53; I2 = 40.9%) for mortality and 1.25 (95% CI 1.07-1.46; I2 = 45.4%) for clinical improvement. Moreover, Antivirals (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26; I2 = 47.0%) and convalescent plasma therapy (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.98; I2 = 66.6%) had significant beneficial effects on clinical improvement.ConclusionBased on our findings, all the included interventions significantly declined the mortality and enhanced clinical improvements with no effect on negative conversion and mechanical ventilation demand. Especially, immunomodulators and plasma therapy showed favorable outcomes. An evaluation on the efficacy of proposed treatment against COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7434334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate the effectiveness of antiseptic mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load clinically and in vitro. A systematic electronic search (MEDLINE/Scopus/Cochrane) was conducted to identify prospective clinical and in vitro studies published between 2019 included and 16 June 2023 assessing the effectiveness of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load in saliva or surrogates. Data were summarized in tables and a network meta-analysis was performed for clinical trials. Thirty-five studies (14 RCTs, 21 in vitro) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was judged to be high for 2 clinical and 7 in vitro studies. The most commonly test product was chlorhexidine alone or in combination with other active ingredients, followed by povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide and cetylpyridinium chloride. Overall, the descriptive analysis revealed the effectiveness of the mouthwashes in decreasing the salivary viral load both clinically and in vitro. Network meta-analysis demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity. Among these studies, only chlorhexidine 0.20% was associated to a significant Ct increase in the saliva 5 min after rinsing compared to non-active control (p = 0.027). Data from clinical and in vitro studies suggested the antiviral efficacy of commonly used mouthwashes. Large well-balanced trials are needed to identify the best rinsing protocols.
| S-EPMC10579871 | biostudies-literature