This literature review examines four peer-reviewed articles published in Health Psychology (2023) that explore the multidimensional nature of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The review covers Kalichman and Eaton's analysis of the anti-vaccination movement and social media misinformation, Preis et al.'s study of vaccination intentions among pregnant women, Delporte et al.'s longitudinal investigation of optimism and moralization as predictors of vaccination decisions, and Martin et al.'s examination of racial disparities in medical trust and healthcare experiences. By comparing objectives, methodologies, key findings, and implications, the review synthesizes these studies into a broader argument that effective public health interventions must be multifaceted, demographically targeted, and sensitive to societal, psychological, and systemic factors.
Vaccine hesitancy is a significant challenge in public health, and this became especially apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. The problem is characterized by delays among some members of the public in accepting vaccines, or even outright refusal, despite their availability. Public health authorities argue that this hesitancy poses significant risks to efforts aimed at controlling infectious diseases. The reasons behind vaccine hesitancy are often rooted in culture, personal experience, or anecdotal evidence. Understanding these underlying causes is essential for developing effective strategies to enhance vaccine uptake and combat public health crises.
This review examines four articles that shed light on the issue of vaccine hesitancy. Kalichman and Eaton (2023) explore the historical context and tactics of the anti-vaccination movement. Preis et al. (2023) focus on the specific demographic of pregnant women, examining how social determinants of health influence their vaccination intentions. Delporte et al. (2023) investigate the roles of optimism and moralization in vaccination decisions. Martin et al. (2023) analyze how healthcare experiences and medical trust impact COVID-19 vaccination intentions among Black and White Americans. Together, these studies provide a deeper understanding of the various dimensions of vaccine hesitancy, and individually they offer new insights for public health policies and interventions.
The article by Kalichman and Eaton (2023) examines the anti-vaccination movement, along with its historical roots and contemporary tactics. The authors trace the evolution of vaccine denialism and show how it has adapted and persisted in the modern era, aided by social media as a platform for spreading anti-vaccination messaging. They argue that the anti-vaccine movement exploits public fears and distrust of medical authorities. Their analysis demonstrates the movement's impact on public health, particularly in hindering the uptake of both established and new vaccines. The article concludes with a call for effective counter-messaging strategies to preemptively discredit vaccine denialists and mitigate their influence on public health.
Preis et al. (2023) focus on a specific demographic to investigate factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination intentions and uptake among pregnant women. The researchers apply the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Health Belief Model to explore how perceptions and social determinants of health (SDoH) — such as socioeconomic status and minority identity — affect vaccine-related decisions. The study involved 1,899 pregnant women across the United States and found that SDoH, perceived threats of COVID-19, and attitudes toward infection mitigation behaviors significantly predict vaccine intention. The findings show that lower socioeconomic status and identification as Black or African American are associated with reduced vaccination intention and uptake. The authors conclude that public health strategies must address accessibility barriers and provide targeted information about vaccine safety and efficacy, particularly for vulnerable populations such as pregnant women.
The article by Delporte et al. (2023) is a longitudinal study conducted in Belgium that examines whether personal and comparative optimism, perceived effectiveness, and moralization of vaccination predict individuals' vaccination decisions. The study used 5,000 participants across five waves and investigated these factors in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings show that personal and comparative optimism about COVID-19 infection, severe disease, and outcomes significantly influences vaccination decisions, with variations observed across different age groups and linguistic-cultural regions. Notably, the study finds that moralizing vaccination — viewing it in prosocial terms — is associated with a lower likelihood of a positive vaccination decision, particularly among older participants. These results suggest that public health messages should carefully consider how they frame vaccination, especially when targeting different demographic groups.
Finally, the study by Martin et al. (2023) examines the impact of healthcare experiences and medical trust on COVID-19 vaccination intentions among Black and White Americans. Conducted in two parts, the research explores how current healthcare experiences, knowledge of historical medical mistreatment, and levels of medical trust correlate with vaccination intentions. The findings suggest that Black Americans, compared to White Americans, report lower vaccination intentions, which are associated with less positive healthcare experiences and lower medical trust. Interestingly, knowledge of historical events such as the Tuskegee Study did not directly correlate with vaccination intention or medical trust. The study highlights the importance of improving healthcare experiences and building medical trust, particularly among Black Americans, to enhance vaccination rates and address health disparities.
The objectives and focus of the four articles vary considerably. Kalichman and Eaton (2023) and Delporte et al. (2023) take a broad view of the problem and apply a psychological perspective. Kalichman and Eaton's focus is not on a specific demographic but rather on the anti-vaccination movement as a whole, concentrating on social attitudes and the role of misinformation spread through popular media. Their work aids in understanding the cultural and social dynamics that lead to vaccine hesitancy, especially from a media and psychological perspective. Delporte et al., by contrast, examine specific individual psychological factors — such as optimism and moralization — and how these influence personal vaccination decisions.
In contrast, Preis et al. (2023) and Martin et al. (2023) focus on specific demographic groups. Preis et al. examine pregnant women as an important at-risk demographic in public health, given their vulnerability and the implications for both maternal and child health. Their study is valuable for understanding how vaccine hesitancy operates within this specific group, shaped by unique health beliefs and social determinants. Martin et al. (2023) approach the problem through the lens of race, exploring racial disparities in healthcare experiences and trust, and offer insight into how these factors shape vaccination intentions among Black and White Americans.
The methodological approaches of these studies also differ. Kalichman and Eaton (2023) use a commentary approach, drawing on existing literature and observations to build a narrative around the anti-vaccination movement. This approach is not empirical in the way the other studies are; instead, it applies a historical perspective to map the situation over time.
By contrast, the other three studies employ empirical, data-driven methodologies. Preis et al. (2023), Delporte et al. (2023), and Martin et al. (2023) each collect and analyze data over time to draw their conclusions. These methodologies allow for a more scientific understanding of vaccine hesitancy, and the statistical analysis helps to reveal changes and trends as they occur. The use of structural equation modeling by Preis et al. and the longitudinal five-wave study design by Delporte et al. provide frameworks for analyzing complex relationships among the various factors influencing vaccine hesitancy.
"Highlights distinct findings from each study"
"Integrates findings into public health strategy implications"
These studies collectively emphasize that vaccine hesitancy is not a simple issue with one-size-fits-all solutions. Instead, it is a complex phenomenon influenced by a web of interrelated factors, including misinformation, societal beliefs, individual psychology, demographic characteristics, and systemic healthcare issues. This complexity necessitates public health strategies that are multifaceted, targeted, and sensitive to the diverse needs and concerns of various populations.
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.