Comparative synthesis of sociocultural and political influences (SPIs) on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: an interdisciplinary systematic review.

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been shaped by diverse sociocultural and political influences (SPIs), rendering it a multifaceted and context-specific issue. Various studies spanning different academic domains have endeavoured to dissect these diverse SPIs, revealing that the impact of a particular influencer can vary significantly depending on the context and disciplinary interpretation. However, prevailing review literature has predominantly focused on enumerating influential factors without providing in-depth contextual backgrounds or disciplinary interpretations. Additionally, a majority of these studies have been confined within specific disciplines, hindering the development of a holistic understanding of vaccine hesitancy. To broaden the scope of knowledge, this study aims to systematically review how SPIs on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy have been approached and interpreted across disciplines.

METHODS

This systematic review adopted a qualitative comparative synthesis approach to explore how SPIs on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy had been approached (including their selection and application) in each study across disciplines. Five databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus) were searched to identify peer-reviewed studies that primarily focused on exploring SPIs on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthy adults. Out of 665 records initially retrieved, 28 studies met the eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

Studies that adopted theoretical frameworks explored SPIs from four approaches: 1) Social Cognitive, 2) Disposition-Environment Interaction, 3) Critical Medical anthropology/Medical Ecology, and 4) Social Structures. For studies without theoretical framework were synthesized into three main themes: 1) influences from political ideology, 2) interaction between political views and trust in science; and 3) contextual social cognitive determinants.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative comparative synthesis facilitated the comparison of diverse studies from multiple disciplines. The integration of theoretical and empirical evidence illustrated how different disciplines interpreted SPIs on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, enhancing interdisciplinary understanding and underscoring theoretical and practical research opportunities and gaps. These findings highlighted the complexity of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and emphasised the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach in advancing future vaccine research and communication. Additionally, the findings outlined promising avenues for future interdisciplinary research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023440041.