Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-lcgwf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-24T12:33:34.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Turkey: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2023

Bugra Taygun Gulle Open the ORCID record for Bugra Taygun Gulle [Opens in a new window] ,
Meryem Merve Oren  and
Tuba Dal
Bugra Taygun Gulle*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey
Meryem Merve Oren
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
Tuba Dal
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey
*
Corresponding author: Bugra Taygun Gulle; Email: bugrataygun.gulle@deu.edu.tr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to estimate the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy in Turkey, which can aid future health policies and strategies. A comprehensive search was conducted on various databases using keywords related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Turkey. Quality assessment was performed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies. Data extraction was conducted. The random effect model (DerSimonian and Laird method) was used in pooled prevalence data analysis (95% confidence interval [CI]). A total of 1,072 articles were identified. After removing duplicates and excluding articles, 61 articles remained for bias assessment. Among these, 19 articles with low risk of bias were included in the review and meta-analysis. Total population included in the analysis was 15,164, vaccine hesitancy was 30.5% (95% Cl: 24.3–36.8%). Prevalence of the vaccine hesitancy was found to be 39.8% (95% Cl: 31.4–48.2%) in studies conducted before the initiation of vaccination, while in studies conducted after the commencement of vaccination, hesitancy was 20.4% (95% Cl: 12.9–28%). We suggest conducting high-quality studies in different populations to understand the level of vaccine hesitancy, as many of the previous studies have mainly focused on healthcare workers and students, and rest were community-based studies, which have generally shown high bias. Also, we suggest that early vaccination can reduce vaccine hesitancy.

Keywords

COVID-19Meta-analysisprevalencevaccine hesitancyTurkey

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 151 , 2023 , e199
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. As of April 2023, more than 750 million cases of COVID-19 have been diagnosed worldwide, with nearly 7 million deaths reported due to the virus [2]. Turkey has also been significantly affected, with more than 17 million confirmed cases and over 100,000 deaths due to COVID-19 [3]. Vaccination has emerged as the most promising prospect of controlling the pandemic since the development of effective vaccines [Reference Mathieu4]. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends vaccinating at least 70% of the total populations in countries, including 100% of healthcare workers and vulnerable groups [5]. According to the Ministry of Health, 58 million individuals in Turkey have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, while 53 million have received at least two doses. Information on the vaccination status of vulnerable groups and healthcare workers is not currently available [6].

Despite vaccination being a major achievement in public health, vaccine hesitancy remains a global concern [Reference Dubé7]. Just as in developed countries, vaccine hesitancy has been increasing in developing countries such as Turkey in recent years [Reference Özceylan, Toprak and Esen8]. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy appears to be no exception [Reference Dubé and MacDonald9]. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance rates vary across countries and continents worldwide, with factors such as vaccine efficacy, safety, and trust in the government influencing individuals’ decision to receive the vaccine [Reference Shakeel10].

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted in different countries regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy [Reference Cénat11–Reference Patwary16]. Studies in Turkey have shown that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy ranges from 2% to 98% [Reference Gokdemir17, Reference Kaya Odabaş, Demir and Taspinar18]. However, there is no systematic review and meta-analysis on this subject in Turkey. Therefore, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to estimate the accurate proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Turkey. This study will provide valuable insights to guide evidence-based public health policies for policy makers, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders.

Methods

Protocol and registration

The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 21 April 2023 (CRD42023418992). This registration ensures transparency and reduces the risk of bias in the study. Furthermore, adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines guarantees the comprehensive and accurate reporting of our research methodology [Reference Page19].

Search strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, EBSCO, and TUBITAK-ULAKBIM. The following keywords were used in the research: “COVID-19”, “SARS-COV-2”, “vaccine*”, “hesitancy”, “acceptance”, “willingness”, “Turkey”. “And” and “OR” Boolean logic operators were employed to integrate the keywords. The electronic databases were searched on 22 April 2023.

Selection criteria

Studies that met the following criteria were included in our study:

  • • Articles addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in adults and providing quantitative outcomes.

  • • Articles with participants aged over 18.

  • • Studies conducted in Turkey.

  • • Articles written in English or Turkish.

  • • Peer reviewed, original and published articles.

  • • Articles with full-text available.

  • • Studies with low bias risk.

For the purpose of our study, “vaccine hesitancy” is defined as reluctance or refusal to get vaccinated [Reference MacDonald20].

Selection process

Following the article search process, duplicate articles were removed. After this step, two authors (B.T.G. and M.M.Ö.) independently and blindly screened the titles and abstracts of the studies to assess their eligibility criteria. In cases of disagreement between the two authors, a third author was consulted (T.D.). The full text of selected articles retrieved. The full text of these selected articles was reviewed by two independent authors to finalize eligibility criteria (B.T.G. and M.M.Ö.). Any discrepancies in full-text review were resolved through discussion involving all three authors (B.T.G. and M.M.Ö., and T.D.).

Quality assessment

The quality of selected studies was assessed using the “Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Prevalence Studies”. This tool evaluates various aspects of study methodology, including sampling strategies, data collection methods and analytical techniques. Each of the nine checklist items was scored “0” or “1”, resulting in a total score ranging from 0 to 9, where higher scores represent a lower risk of bias [Reference Munn, Moola, Lisy, Riitano, Tufanaru, Aromataris and Munn21]. In our study, articles scoring above 6 on the JBI Checklist were considered to have a low risk of bias.

Data extraction

Data extraction was performed independently by the two authors (B.T.G. and M.M.Ö.). The extracted information included first author’s name, publication year, survey period, sample size, data collection method, sample characteristics (gender, age, specific features, location), and vaccine hesitancy, which was then transferred to Microsoft Excel. Any disagreements between the authors were resolved by the third researcher (T.D.).

Statistical procedure

Our data analysis was performed using Rev-Man 5 meta-analysis software. Pooled estimates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were depicted using forest plots and a random-effects model. The Cohran Q test and I 2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity, which measures the proportion of the overall variance attributable to differences between studies rather than to chance. I 2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% are regarded as indicating low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. The generic inverse variance method was used in pooled prevalence data analysis (95% confidence interval [CI], random effect model with DerSimonian, and Laird method). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on participants (healthcare workers or not), conducted time of study (before or after national vaccination programme start in Turkey), and data collecting method (online or not). Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s test and a funnel plot. To address potential publication bias, we applied the trim and fill method using SPSS 29 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences).

Results

Study selection

A comprehensive search across databases initially yielded a total of 1,072 articles. After removing duplicate articles, 775 articles (297 duplicates) remained eligible. Subsequently, 660 articles were excluded following title and abstract screening. A full-text assessment of 115 articles led to the identification of 54 articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria (Supplementary Table S1). Following the bias assessment of the 61 articles that met the inclusion criteria, 19 of them had a low risk of bias and were included in the study. The article selection process is visually indicated in Figure 1, constructed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines [Reference Page19].

Figure 1.

Flow-chart of bibliographic research.

Characteristics of the included studies

A total of 19 articles published between 2020 and 2023 were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The cumulative sample size across these articles encompassed 15,164 participants, with the study size ranging from 67 participants to 4,910 participants. Four of the studies represented Turkey. Other local studies were primarily conducted in Istanbul (n = 3), which is the most populous city of Turkey, accounting for 18.7% of the country population [22]. Additionally, studies representing various regions of Turkey were also included in the analysis (Figure 2). A predominant portion of the studies (n = 9, 47.4%) employed online data collection methods. Notably, a substantial proportion of studies (n = 12, 63.2%) focused on healthcare professionals or healthcare students. Out of 12 studies conducted in healthcare workers, 10 were conducted before the vaccination began, while among the seven studies not involving healthcare workers, six were conducted after the vaccination had started. A comprehensive summary of the study characteristics is available in Table 1.

Figure 2.

Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy according to the regions.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the selected studies in meta-analysis and systematic review

a Mean ± standard deviation (if available), or median (IQR) or highest group (percentage) are given.

Vaccine hesitancy and subgroup analysis

Through our meta-analysis, the pooled prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Turkey was estimated to be 30.5% (95% Cl: 24.3–36.8, I 2 = 99%, and p < 0.00001) (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Forest plot of the pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy.

Before the initiation of national COVID-19 vaccination programme in Turkey, prior to 14 January 2021, the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was 39.8% (95% Cl: 31.4–48.2%, I 2 = 98%, and p < 0.00001). On the other hand, after the national COVID-19 vaccination programme, the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was found to be 20.4% (95% Cl: 12.9–28.0%, I 2 = 99%, and p < 0.00001) (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Forest plot of the pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy as determined by the different timing of survey (before vs. after vaccination start).

Among the studies conducted in healthcare workers and students in the healthcare domain, the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was reported as 32.6% (95% Cl: 23.8–41.4%, I 2 = 99%, and p < 0.00001). In contrast, studies encompassing other population groups reported a prevalence of vaccine hesitancy of 27.4% (95% Cl: 17.2–37.6%, I 2 = 99%, and p < 0.00001).

Studies employing online data collections method yielded a prevalence of vaccine hesitancy of 26.5% (95% Cl: 14.6–38.3%, I 2 = 99%, and p < 0.00001). Studies employing alternative data collection approaches, such as face-to-face or telephone interviews, reported a prevalence of vaccine hesitancy of 34.2% (95% Cl: 26.5–41.8%, I 2 = 99%, and p < 0.00001).

Sensitivity analysis was conducted by removing studies one by one, and upon repeating the analysis, the pooled vaccine hesitancy was observed to be between 32.0% (95% CI: 26.3–37.7%, I 2 = 98%, and p < 0.00001) and 28.9% (95% CI: 22.6–35.2%, I 2 = 98%, and p < 0.00001).

Risk of bias

Assessment of the 61 articles meeting the inclusion criteria was performed using the JBI Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Articles scoring six or below were excluded from the study. Upon examining the 42 articles, they were excluded due to high or moderate risk of bias. Excluded articles showed limitations in identifying the target groups, selecting an appropriate sampling method, reporting selected people’s access rates, and providing data the unreachable groups (Supplementary Table S2).

It is observed that there are two studies with high prevalence and high standard error showing asymmetry in the funnel plot. Egger’s test also showed significant publication bias (p < 0.001). When the trim and fill method was applied, adjusting for the studies, the estimated prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was found to be 27.4% (95% Cl: 21.5–33.4). The adjusted funnel plot for publication bias is presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Funnel plot of included and imputed studies in the meta-analysis for publication bias.

Discussion

Vaccine hesitancy is a significant public health problem worldwide. In a Canadian meta-analysis, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reported as 42.3% [Reference Cénat11]. A meta-analysis covering 33 studies from low- and middle-income countries found vaccine hesitancy to be 38.2% [Reference Patwary16]. In the United States, the willingness to get vaccinated for COVID-19 was reported 61% [Reference Dhanani and Franz23]. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were reported at 39.9% in Jordan [Reference Khabour13], 48.9% in Africa [Reference Wake24], ranging from 51.6% to 58.7% in Ethiopia according to various meta-analysis studies [Reference Sahile14, Reference Mose25, Reference Mekonnen and Mengistu26]. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was shown to be lowest in the Middle East at 46% and the highest in Asia at 75% [Reference Alimohamadi27]. According to presented meta-analysis study of Turkey, the pooled prevalence of the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 30.5%.

The relatively lower vaccine hesitancy observed in our study may be attributed two factors. Firstly, a considerable portion of studies in Turkey were conducted after the commencement of COVID-19 vaccination, while most other meta-analyses primarily focused on studies conducted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, in Alimohamadi et al.’s meta-analysis, 73 articles were reviewed from different countries. Out of these studies, 67 (90%) were conducted in 2020, with the remaining conducted in 2021 [Reference Alimohamadi27]. Among the 19 studies included in the meta-analysis conducted in Canada, five of them (26.3%) were conducted after 2020 [Reference Cénat11]. The subgroup analysis of our study revealed that the vaccine hesitancy was 39.8% before January 2021, whereas this was decreased to 20.4% after January 2021. The decrease may be attributed to regulatory approvals, enhanced scientific literature data, the success stories from other countries, and the positive outcomes of vaccinated individuals.

Secondly, relatively low vaccine hesitancy could be associated with the high numbers of healthcare workers and students included in our study. In a meta-analysis of 14 studies among healthcare workers in Italy, the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was found to be 13.1% [Reference Bianchi12]. In our study, the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was found to be 32.6% in studies conducted among healthcare workers, while in other studies, it was 27.4%. The reason for the relatively high prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in our study among healthcare workers may be that most of the studies conducted with healthcare workers were conducted before vaccination program began (83.3%), while most of the other studies were conducted afterward (85.7%). Therefore, the high vaccine hesitancy observed in studies conducted before the vaccination program might have contributed to the high hesitancy among healthcare workers.

In Turkey, although COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been found to be relatively low for the reasons we have mentioned, it can still be a significant obstacle to achieving the WHO’s goals of vaccinating 70% of the population and 100% of healthcare workers and vulnerable groups. We suggested that early initiation of vaccination programmes contributed to reducing the vaccine hesitancy in society and played a crucial role in the management of pandemics.

There are some limitations to our study. Firstly, a notable portion of studies (n = 42, 68.9%) identified in this systematic review was excluded due to high bias (Supplementary Table S2). These excluded articles exhibited significant methodological shortcomings in identifying the target population, selecting samples, and reporting the rate of accessibility to the target group. We emphasize the need for studies with stronger methodologies and less bias in investigating vaccine hesitancy. Secondly, the majority of the studies (n = 15) included in our analysis focused on specific cities or regions within Turkey, revealing varying levels of vaccine hesitancy (Figure 2). Given the influence of cultural and socioeconomic factors on hesitancy, it is essential to conduct more studies across diverse regions to comprehensively understand the extent of this phenomenon. Thirdly, publication bias was detected in our study. Therefore, trim and fill method was applied, and the adjusted vaccine hesitancy was calculated to be 27.4%. Fourthly, high heterogeneity was observed in our analyses. Subgroup analyses based on study time, study group, and data collection method also revealed high heterogeneity. The study possesses notable strengths. Firstly, it employed a rigorous search strategy across multiple databases, ensuring a comprehensive inclusion of relevant articles. Additionally, it is the first meta-analysis conducted in Turkey specifically addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The study is characterized by a substantial sample size and exhibits strong methodological rigor.

Conclusion

In our study, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Turkey was found to be 30.5% (95% Cl: 24.3–36.8). There is a significant difference in vaccine hesitancy between studies conducted before the vaccination programme started and those conducted after the initiation of vaccination (39.8% vs. 20.4, respectively). The findings emphasize the significance of timely vaccination programmes and the necessity of the studies with strong methodologies to effectively combat hesitancy. Since vaccine hesitancy vary across regions, comprehensive research evaluating demographic and epidemiological data is essential for developing targeted interventions and fostering vaccine acceptance.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268823001875.

Data availability statement

The data related to the study are provided in the supplementary materials. For more information, you can request from the corresponding author.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: M.M.Ö., T.D., B.T.G.; Data curation: M.M.Ö., B.T.G.; Formal analysis: M.M.Ö., T.D., B.T.G.; Methodology: M.M.Ö., T.D., B.T.G.; Visualization: M.M.Ö., B.T.G.; Writing – original draft: M.M.Ö., B.T.G.; Writing – review & editing: M.M.Ö., T.D.

Competing interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Coronavirus (n.d.) Available at https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus (accessed 13 July 2023).Google Scholar
WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard (n.d.) Available at https://covid19.who.int (accessed 13 July 2023).Google Scholar
Türkiye: WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard with Vaccination Data (n.d.) Available at https://covid19.who.int (accessed 13 July 2023).Google Scholar
Mathieu, E, et al. (2021) A global database of COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature Human Behaviour 5, 947–953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Global COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy in a Changing World: July 2022 update (n.d.) Available at https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/global-covid-19-vaccination-strategy-in-a-changing-world--july-2022-update (accessed 13 July 2023).Google Scholar
T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı (n.d.) Available at https://covid19asi.saglik.gov.tr/ (accessed 13 July 2023).Google Scholar
Dubé, E, et al. (2013) Vaccine hesitancy: An overview. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 9, 1763–1773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Özceylan, G, Toprak, D and Esen, ES (2020) Vaccine rejection and hesitation in Turkey. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 16, 1034–1039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubé, E and MacDonald, NE (2022) COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Nature Reviews Nephrology 18, 409–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shakeel, CS, et al. (2022) Global COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: A systematic review of associated social and behavioral factors. Vaccine 10, 110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cénat, JM, et al. (2023) Prevalence and factors related to COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy and unwillingness in Canada: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Medical Virology 95, e28156. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.28156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, FP, et al. (2022) COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in Italian healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Review of Vaccines 21, 1289–1300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khabour, OF (2022) The COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Jordan: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 26, 8188–8196.Google Scholar
Sahile, AT, et al. (2022) COVID-19 vaccine acceptance level in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology 2022, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mengistu, DA (2022) Global COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health 10, 1044193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patwary, MM, et al. (2022) COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among low- and lower-middle-income countries: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine 10, 427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gokdemir, O, et al. (2022) Vaccine hesitancy among university students of healthcare. Medicine Science | International Medical Journal 11, 1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaya Odabaş, R, Demir, R and Taspinar, A (2022) Knowledge and attitudes of pregnant women about coronavirus vaccines in Turkiye. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 42, 3484–3491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, MJ, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, NE (2015) Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine 33, 4161–4164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munn, Z, Moola, S, Lisy, K, Riitano, D and Tufanaru, C (2020) Chapter 5: Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence. In Aromataris, E and Munn, Z (eds.), JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01.Google Scholar
TÜİK Kurumsal (n.d.) Available at https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=49685 (accessed 27 July 2023).Google Scholar
Dhanani, LY and Franz, B (2022) A meta-analysis of COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and demographic characteristics in the United States. Public Health 207, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wake, AD (2021) The acceptance rate toward COVID-19 vaccine in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Pediatric Health 8, 2333794X2110487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mose, A, et al. (2022) Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 17, e0269273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekonnen, BD and Mengistu, BA (2022) COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and its associated factors in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health 14, 101001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alimohamadi, Y, et al. (2023) Global COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Public Health 31, 1793–1805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-022-01757-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalkan, Y, et al. (2022) Bir kamu kurumu çalışanlarında COVID-19 aşı tutumu ve ilişkili etmenler. Türkiye Halk Sağlığı Dergisi 20, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konuş, S, et al. (2022) COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination status of first-year medical students. STED/Sürekli Tıp Eğitimi Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.17942/sted.1073402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdem, D and Karaman, I (2022) Impact of corona-phobia on attitudes and acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine among cancer patients: A single-center study. Future Oncology 18, 457–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alıcılar, HE, et al. (2022) Attitudes of Ankara University medical faculty term 3 students towards COVID-19 vaccines and related factors. Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine 75, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kizilkaya, MC, et al. (2023) Barriers to coronavirus disease 19 vaccination in patients with obesity. American Journal of Surgery 225, 357–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oygar, PD, et al. (2022) Evaluation of vaccination status of health care workers for recommended vaccines and their acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 18, 2044707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulca Acar, A, Nur Eke, R and Özen, M (2021) An analysis of the attitudes of family physicians towards the COVID-19 vaccine. Konuralp Tıp Dergisi 13, 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okuyan, B, et al. (2022) Factors associated with Turkish pharmacists’ intention to receive COVID-19 vaccine: An observational study. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 44, 247–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazarus, JV, et al. (2023) A survey of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 23 countries in 2022. Nature Medicine 29, 366–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekmez, M and Ekmez, F (2022) Assessment of factors affecting attitudes and knowledge of pregnant women about COVID-19 vaccination. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 42, 1984–1990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaya, MO, et al. (2021) Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine and role of knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on vaccination willingness among medical students. European Research Journal 7, 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akbulut, S, et al. (2022) Evaluation of vaccine hesitancy and anxiety levels among hospital cleaning staff and caregivers during COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine 10, 1426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yigit, M, Ozkaya-Parlakay, A and Senel, E (2021) Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance of healthcare providers in a tertiary pediatric hospital. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 17, 2946–2950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akbulut, S, et al. (2022) Evaluation of vaccine hesitancy, anti-vaccination, and anxiety levels for medical secretaries during COVID-19 pandemic. Dicle Tıp Dergisi 49, 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarimoğlu, R and Yarimoğlu, S (2021) Attitude towards COVID-19 vaccines of intensive care healthcare workers of a training and research hospital: A descriptive study. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Anesthesiology Reanimation 19, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
İkiışık, H, et al. (2022) COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and related factors among primary healthcare workers in a district of Istanbul: A cross-sectional study from Turkey. Family Medicine and Community Health 10, e001430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çatiker, A, Kaya, A and Kiliç, M (2022) COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among nurses. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Nursing Sciences 14, 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavuncuoğlu, D (2022) Attitudes of family health professionals on COVID-19 vaccines and an evaluation of underlying factors in Samandağ, Hatay. Anatolian Journal of Family Medicine 5, 50–55. https://doi.org/10.5505/anatoljfm.2021.69133.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flow-chart of bibliographic research.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy according to the regions.

Figure 2

Table 1. Characteristics of the selected studies in meta-analysis and systematic review

Figure 3

Figure 3. Forest plot of the pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Forest plot of the pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy as determined by the different timing of survey (before vs. after vaccination start).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Funnel plot of included and imputed studies in the meta-analysis for publication bias.

Supplementary material: File

Gulle et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 34.9 KB