COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Level in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the everyday lives of the world’s population and to this end, the development of curative vaccines was upheld as a welcome panacea. Despite the undeniable negative impact of the disease on human beings, lower than expected proportions of people have taken up the vaccines, particularly in the developing non-Western world. Ethiopia represents an interesting case example, of a nation where COVID-19 vaccine acceptance levels have not been well investigated and a need exists to assess the overall level of vaccine acceptance. Methods. A systematic multidatabase search for relevant articles was carried out across Google Scholar, Web of Science, Science Direct, Hinari, EMBASE, Boolean operator, and PubMed. Two reviewers independently selected, reviewed, screened, and extracted data by using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The Joanna Briggs Institute prevalence critical appraisal tools and the modified NewcastleOttawa Scale (NOS) were used to assess the quality of evidence. All studies conducted in Ethiopia, reporting vaccine acceptance rates were incorporated. The extracted data were imported into the comprehensive meta-analysis version 3.0 for further analysis. Heterogeneity was confirmed using Higgins’s method, and publication bias was checked by using Beggs and Eggers tests. A random-effects meta-analysis model with a 95% confidence interval was computed to estimate the pooled prevalence. Furthermore, subgroup analysis based on the study area and sample size was done. Results and Conclusion. After reviewing 67 sources, 18 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Ethiopia was 57.8% (95% CI: 47.2%–67.8%). The level of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Ethiopia was at a lower rate than necessary to achieve herd immunity. The highest level of vaccine acceptance rate was reported via online or telephone surveys followed by the southern region of Ethiopia. The lowest vaccine acceptance patterns were reported in Addis Ababa.

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

“…In the United States, the willingness to get vaccinated for COVID-19 was reported 61% [ 23 ]. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were reported at 39.9% in Jordan [ 13 ], 48.9% in Africa [ 24 ], ranging from 51.6% to 58.7% in Ethiopia according to various meta-analysis studies [ 14 , 25 , 26 ]. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was shown to be lowest in the Middle East at 46% and the highest in Asia at 75% [ 27 ].…”

“…Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted in different countries regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy [11][12][13][14][15][16]. Studies in Turkey have shown that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy ranges from 2% to 98% [17,18].…”

Exploring Community Perceptions of COVID-19 and Vaccine Hesitancy in Selected Cities of Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study

“…In the absence of an effective treatment for any infectious disease, the best way to control the spread of the virus, lessen the socioeconomic consequences, and mitigate the burden of the disease, is to use an effective vaccine [2]. However, at the time of this study the vaccination level in Ethiopia was lower than the required rate to achieve herd immunity at the community level to halt the spread of disease [3]. A very recent community-based study in five regions and Addis Ababa (the capital) also reported that below 30% of the total survey participants (1361) had been vaccinated with at least one dose of the vaccine [4].…”

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

“…Acceptance rates were studied in 58 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and 12 distinct reviews reported on hesitancy rates (Table 2). [22] 0.67 (0.62-0.74) Alimohamadi et al, 2022 [10] 0.81 (0.75-0.85) Abdelmoneim et al, 2022 [23] 0.66 (0.6-0.7) Nehal et al, 2021 [15] 0.39 (0.33-0.46) Khabour, 2022 [24] 0.57 (0.47-0.67) Sahile et al, 2022 [25] 0.61 (0.59-0.64) Norhayati et al, 2021 [12] 0.48 (0.39-0.58) Wake, 2021 [26] 0.78 (0.74-0.82) Alarcón-Braga et al, 2022 [27] 0.56 (0.47-0.64) Mekonnen and Mengistu, 2022 [28] 0.64 (0.6-0.69) Mengistu et al, 2022 [29] 0.68 (0.67-0.68) Gudayu and Mengistie, 2023 [30] 0.62 (0.55-0.69) Kumar et al, 2023 [16] 0.60 (0.52-0.67) Alemayehu et al, 2022 [31] 0.58 (0.49-0.67) Kawuki et al, 2023 [32] 0.67 (0.67-0.68) Wang et al, 2021 [22] 0.51 (0.43-0.58) Belay et al, 2022 [33] 0.72 (0.66-0.78) Robinson et al, 2021 [34] 0.62 (0.58-0.66) Mahmud et al, 2022 [35] 0.55 (0.47-0.62) Azanaw et al, 2022 [36] 0.73 (0.64-0.81) Terry et al, 2022 [37] 0.67 (0.60-0.74) Yenew et al, 2023 [38] 0.60 (0.51-0.68) Kukreti et al, 2022 [39] 0.52 (0.46-0.57) Nnaemeka et al, 2023 [40] 0.71 (0.66-0.76) Akem Dimala et al, 2021 [41] 0.66 (0.61-0.71) Renzi et al, 2022 [42] 0.63 (0.59-0.68) Kazeminia et al, 2022 [43] 0.51 (0. 43 [82] a N/A: not applicable.…”