Back

Vaccine Hesitancy Among Adults in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol

S, T.; AY, N.; Agiwal, V.; Saisrinivas, H.; Yazhini, R.; Manna, A.

2025-09-24 public and global health
10.1101/2025.09.23.25336433 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundVaccine hesitancy threatens public health progress, especially for populations lacking access to immunisation. Despite efforts to promote lifelong vaccination, adult immunisation is often overlooked. To create practical tools, understanding the level and types of vaccine hesitancy in adults is crucial. This review explores vaccine hesitancy in Indias adults, including psychological, social, and systemic factors influencing perceptions. MethodsWe will include observational studies and qualitative studies published in English that assessed vaccine hesitancy among Indian adults (above 18 years). We will search PubMed, Embase, Scopus, grey literature, and references. Two reviewers will independently review and screen studies and extract data using a standardised form. We will assess risk of bias using the JBI tools for observational studies and COREQ for qualitative studies. We will synthesise findings using either meta-analysis or narrative synthesis. sub-group analysis based on the type of vaccine and population. We will assess publication bias using funnel plots and Eggers test. ResultsSince this is a protocol, results are not yet available. However, we expect to identify key trends related to the prevalence and determinants of vaccine hesitancy among Indian adults, particularly psychological, cultural, and systemic barriers. The synthesis should produce population-specific and vaccine-specific differences in vaccine hesitancy levels. ConclusionThis review will synthesise evidence on adult vaccine hesitancy in India. The proposed evidence will be informing targeted interventions and will support policy-level efforts aimed at improving uptake of immunisations for adults and the vaccine confidence gap.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.