We aimed to estimate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine acceptance rate and identify predictors associated with acceptance. To this end, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases until November 4, 2020. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate the rate with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Predictors were identified to be associated with vaccination intention based on the health belief model framework. Thirty-eight articles, with 81,173 individuals, were included. The pooled COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate was 73.31% (95%CI: 70.52, 76.01). Studies using representative samples reported a rate of 73.16%. The pooled acceptance rate among the general population (81.65%) was higher than that among healthcare workers (65.65%). Gender, educational level, influenza vaccination history, and trust in the government were strong predictors of COVID-19 vaccination willingness. People who received an influenza vaccination in the last year were more likely to accept COVID-19 vaccination (odds ratio: 3.165; 95%CI: 1.842, 5.464). Protecting oneself or others was the main reason for willingness, and concerns about side effects and safety were the main reasons for unwillingness. National- and individual-level interventions can be implemented to improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance before large-scale vaccine rollout. Greater efforts could be put into addressing negative predictors associated with willingness.

BackgroundDuring public health emergencies, public officials are busy in developing communication strategies to protect the population from existing or potential threats. However, a population’s social and individual determinants (i.e. education, income, race/ethnicity) may lead to inequalities in individual or group-specific exposure to public health communication messages, and in the capacity to access, process, and act upon the information received by specific sub-groups- a concept defined as communication inequalities.The aims of this literature review are to: 1) characterize the scientific literature that examined issues related to communication to the public during the H1N1 pandemic, and 2) summarize the knowledge gained in our understanding of social determinants and their association with communication inequalities in the preparedness and response to an influenza pandemic.MethodsArticles were searched in eight major communication, social sciences, and health and medical databases of scientific literature and reviewed by two independent reviewers by following the PRISMA guidelines. The selected articles were classified and analyzed in accordance with the Structural Influence Model of Public Health Emergency Preparedness Communications.ResultsA total of 118 empirical studies were included for final review. Among them, 78% were population-based studies and 22% were articles that employed information environment analyses techniques. Consistent results were reported on the association between social determinants of communication inequalities and emergency preparedness outcomes. Trust in public officials and source of information, worry and levels of knowledge about the disease, and routine media exposure as well as information-seeking behaviors, were related to greater likelihood of adoption of recommended infection prevention practices. When addressed in communication interventions, these factors can increase the effectiveness of the response to pandemics.ConclusionsConsistently across studies, a number of potential predictors of behavioral compliance to preventive recommendations during a pandemic were identified. Our findings show the need to include such evidence found in the development of future communication campaigns to ensure the highest rates of compliance with recommended protection measures and reduce communication inequalities during future emergencies.

Four billion people worldwide have experienced COVID-19 confinement. Such unprecedented extent of mobility restriction to curb the COVID-19 pandemic may have profound impacts on how individuals live, travel, and retain well-being. This systematic review aims to identify: 1) the social consequences of mass quarantine—community-wide movement restrictions—during previous and current infectious disease outbreaks, and 2) recommended strategies to mitigate the negative social implications of COVID-19 lockdowns. Considering social determinants of health, we conducted a systematic review by searching five databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CNKI, and the WHO COVID-19 database) for publications from inception to 9 April 2020. No limitation was set on language, location, or study type. Studies that 1) contained peer-reviewed original empirical evidence and 2) focussed on non-epidemiological implications of mass quarantine were included. We thematically synthesised and reported data due to heterogeneous disease and country context. Of 3067 publications found, 15 original peer-reviewed articles were selected for full-text extraction. Psychological distress, heightened communication inequalities, food insecurity, economic challenges, diminished health care access, alternative delivery of education, and gender-based violence were identified as negative social consequences of community-based quarantine in six infectious disease epidemics, including the current COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, altruistic attitudes were identified as a positive consequence during previous quarantines. Diverse psychological and social consequences of mass quarantine in previous and current epidemics were evident, but individual country policies had been highly varied in how well they addressed the needs of affected individuals, especially those who are socially marginalised. Policymakers should balance the pros and cons of movement restrictions, facilitate multi-sectoral action to tackle social inequalities, provide clear and coherent guidance to the public, and undertake time-bound policy evaluations to mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19 lockdowns and to establish preparedness strategies for future epidemics.