Acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccination in Latin America and the Caribbean: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 49 (September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Alarcón-Braga, Esteban A.; Hernandez-Bustamante, Enrique A.; Salazar-Valdivia, Farley E.; Valdez-Cornejo, Valeria A.; Mosquera-Rojas, Melany D.; Ulloque-Badaracco, Juan R.; Rondon-Saldaña, Jenny C.; Zafra-Tanaka, Jessica H.
• Is Part Of: Travel medicine and infectious disease. Issue 49(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-09
• Subjects: COVID-19 -- Vaccination intention -- Public health; Travel -- Health aspects -- Periodicals; Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; Tropical medicine -- Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102369
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-8939

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Vaccination represents an important strategy to mitigate COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality by protecting against severe forms of the disease and reducing hospitalization and death rates. In this sense, the objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence of Vaccination Intention (VI) against COVID-19 in Latin America and Caribbean (LAC). Methods: We conducted a systematic review with a comprehensive search strategy for the following databases: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. A random-effect model meta-analysis was carried out using observational studies assessing the intention to vaccines against COVID-19 in LAC countries. The Clopper-Pearson method was used to estimate 95% Confidence Intervals. The quality assessment was developed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. A subgroup analysis by study location and a sensitivity analysis were developed. Results: Nineteen cross-sectional studies were included. Five meta-analyzes were performed according to the target population of the included studies. The VI in the general population of LAC was 78.0% (95%CI: 74.0%–82.0%). The VI for non-pregnant women was 78.0% (95%CI: 58.0%–99.0%), for elderly population was 63.0% (95%CI: 59.0%–69.0%), for pregnant women was 69.0% (95%CI: 61.0%–76.0%) and for health-personnel was 83.0% (95% CI: 71.0%–96.0%). The sensitivity analysis for general population meta-analysis that included only low risk of bias studies showed a 77.0% VI (95%CI: 73.0%–82.0%) and for non-pregnant women, 85.0% VI (95%CI: 79.0%–90.0%). Conclusion: Despite the high prevalence of VI in general population found in our study, VI prevalence from elderly people and pregnant women are lower than other population groups and overall population.