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

Abstract

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.