Next Article in Journal
The Relationship between COVID-19 Protection Behaviors and Pandemic-Related Knowledge, Perceptions, Worry Content, and Public Trust in a Turkish Sample
Next Article in Special Issue
Social Support Mediates the Relationship between COVID-19-Related Burnout and Booster Vaccination Willingness among Fully Vaccinated Nurses
Previous Article in Journal
HPV Vaccination Training of Healthcare Providers and Perceived Self-Efficacy in HPV Vaccine-Hesitancy Counseling
Previous Article in Special Issue
Parent Acceptance toward Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccination in Children with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: The Power of Oncologist and Alliance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Vaccines
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/vaccines10122026
vaccines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Predicting Vaccination Intention against COVID-19 Using Theory of Planned Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Yam B. Limbu
1,*,
Rajesh K. Gautam
2 and
Wencang Zhou
1
1
Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, 1 Normal Ave., Montclair, NJ 07043, USA
2
Department of Anthropology, Dr. Harisingh Gour Central University, University Road, Sagar 470003, MP, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vaccines 2022, 10(12), 2026; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10122026
Submission received: 2 October 2022 / Revised: 23 November 2022 / Accepted: 24 November 2022 / Published: 26 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study systematically analyzed the literature using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a theoretical framework to examine the influence of its constructs on vaccination intention against COVID-19. Quantitative studies were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar following the PRISMA guidelines. The average rate of COVID-19 vaccination intention was 73.19%, ranging from 31% to 88.86%. Attitude had the strongest association with vaccination intention (r+ = 0.487, 95% CI: 0.368–0.590), followed by subjective norms (r+ = 0.409, 95% CI: 0.300–0.507), and perceived behavioral control (r+ = 0.286, 95% CI: 0.198–0.369). Subgroup analyses showed that the pooled effect sizes of TPB constructs on vaccination intention varied across geographic regions and study populations. Attitude had large effect sizes in Asia, Europe, and Oceania, especially among the adult general population, parents, and patients. Subjective norms had large effect sizes in Asia and Oceania, especially among parents and patients. Perceived behavioral control was the most dominant predictor of vaccination acceptance in Africa among patients. These findings suggest that TPB provides a useful framework for predicting intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Hence, public awareness and educational programs aimed at promoting COVID-19 vaccination intention should consider using TPB as a framework to achieve the goal.

1. Introduction

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has posed global challenges and a threat to humanity. Hence, in March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a pandemic [1]. Nevertheless, the impact of the pandemic was very distressing; as of 19 September 2022, there were over 609 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 globally, with over 6 million deaths. However, over 12 billion vaccine doses have been administered [2]. Usually, vaccine development takes an average of 10 years; however, in the case of COVID-19, several vaccine candidates entered into clinical trials within 6 months and were conditionally approved in 10 months [3]. More than 287 potential vaccines are being developed, and over 102 clinical trials were recently released [4,5]. According to the WHO, on 22 October 2021, there were 322 vaccine candidates in development. Around 40% were in clinical development (128 vaccine candidates), while 194 were in preclinical development [6]. Despite this success in the development of vaccines, almost one billion people in lower-income countries remain unvaccinated; only 57 countries have vaccinated 70% of their population, and almost all of them are high-income countries [7]. The WHO has a target to reach 70% vaccination coverage as soon as possible, including 100% for those aged over 60 years, health workers, and those with underlying conditions [7]; however, convincing individuals to accept vaccination against COVID-19 remains a major challenge. Similarly, improving vaccination rates, especially booster vaccination among specific groups such as children, is an immense obstacle in some countries such as China [8].
Vaccine hesitancy, which refers to a delay in the acceptance or a refusal of safe vaccines despite the availability of vaccination services [9], has been the major barrier to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Previous studies showed that many people were hesitant to get vaccinated across the world, such as 37.3% in Uganda [10], 64% in Egypt [11], and 23% in the United States [12]. Limbu et al. [13] also reported an overall vaccination hesitancy rate for COVID-19 of 33.23%, with the highest rate in France (60.6%), followed by China (56.4%), South Korea (53.3%), Bangladesh (46.2%), and the United States (43.5%). They also found that vaccine hesitancy was more prevalent among diabetes patients (56.4%), while the lowest vaccine hesitancy was reported among healthcare workers (15%). Vaccine hesitancy is considered one of the greatest threats to the ongoing COVID-19 vaccination programs and to the progress in tackling the disease [9,14]. In order to achieve a higher coverage of the vaccines, it is essential to elicit a positive attitude toward the vaccine amongst individuals and populations [15]. Therefore, it is imperative to identify the causes of refusal/hesitancy and accordingly make suitable interventions [15]; on the other hand, it is essential to identify the factors helping in fostering positive intentions toward the uptake of vaccines. Since vaccination intention, which refers to the intention to take a vaccine when offered [16], is pivotal to the success of vaccination campaigns to attain herd immunity, it is essential to understand the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination intention.
Prior studies showed that COVID-19 vaccination intention ranged from 67% to 91% across countries such as India, Saudi Arabia, Canada, the United States, and China [17,18,19,20,21,22]. Various factors are related to willingness to accept the COVID-19 vaccine, including socioeconomic factors [23,24], psychological determinants [25,26], and informational aspects such as the role of availability of information and misinformation on vaccination intention [23,24,25,27]. Several demographic factors and perception of the disease’s risk have been found to be associated with COVID-19 vaccination intention [21,22,28]. People’s perceptions of health risk, that they are more susceptible to infection of the disease, that it is a serious threat to their health, and that the vaccine will successfully protect them are more likely to get vaccinated [29]. Similarly, a health provider’s recommendation, which is a type of subjective norm, may also impact vaccine uptake [30].
Several theories have been used to predict COVID-19 vaccination intention, including the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [31]. The TPB, proposed by Icek Ajzen as a successor of the theory of reasoned action [32], is one of the best-supported social psychological theories in relation to predicting human behavior in different populations and contexts [33,34,35]. The TPB holds that behavioral intentions are the outcome of a combination of three factors: attitudes about the behavior, subjective norms (i.e., social influence/pressure on people to perform or not to perform the particular behavior), and perceived behavioral control (i.e., an individual’s perception of their ability to perform the behavior). It has been proposed as a theoretical guideline to explain the factors influencing various health behaviors in public health research [36,37]. The basis of the TPB is that we make systematic use of available information and consider the consequences of our actions before engaging in a behavior [38]. With a strong intention to carry out a behavior, a person tends to perform that behavior [38]. According to Ajzen [37], the complexities of the health behaviors can be successfully dealt with by TPB. Hence, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the literature using the TPB as a theoretical framework to investigate the role of its constructs in determining the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

2. Previous Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Several systematic reviews have already been conducted on vaccination intention against COVID-19. These reviews analyzed COVID-19 vaccination intentions across genders [39] and healthcare workers [40], as well as between healthcare workers and the general population [41]. Two studies conducted rapid reviews, a simplified approach to systematic reviews [42,43]. Some studies performed scoping reviews to explore broad factors such as demographic, social, and contextual factors that influenced the intention to use COVID-19 vaccines [44]. Patwary et al. [45] performed a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates and factors associated with acceptance in low- and lower-middle-income countries. In a scoping review, Willems et al. [46] provided some insight into the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and the willingness of healthcare workers, including those who care for people with intellectual disabilities. Wang et al. [47] and Chen et al. [48] estimated the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate and identified predictors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Shakeel et al. [49] conducted a systematic review to examine how and why the rates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy differ across countries and continents. Sallam et al. [50] conducted a concise narrative review and provided an updated perspective on the status of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates worldwide. Roy et al. [51] conducted a systematic review to identify factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and refusal intention. Renzi et al. [52] conducted a meta-analysis to explore the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance with a specific focus on worldwide geographical differences. Terry et al. [53] conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies to identify factors associated with public intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines until February 2021. Alarcón-Braga et al. [54] performed a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of the intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean and to explore how it varies across different age groups. In conclusion, prior systematic reviews mainly focused on narrow topics and rapid, scoping, or narrative reviews. However, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic review and meta-analysis has reviewed the literature using TPB as a theoretical framework and addressed TPB’s utility in predicting vaccination intention against COVID-19.
The current study contributes to the literature in several ways. Firstly, to our knowledge, this study represents the first systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative studies examining the association between TPB constructs and COVID-19 vaccination intention. Secondly, this review and meta-analysis identifies the occurrence of the TPB constructs that are positively associated with behavioral intention to vaccinate against COVID-19. Furthermore, these results are broken down by year of study, geographical region, and population type. The subgroup meta-analyses are performed to examine the impacts of TPB constructs on vaccination intention across geographic regions and study populations. Thirdly, this study provides an up-to-date and comprehensive review of the latest studies, including articles published in 2022, and those articles covering booster/third-dose vaccination intention. Fourthly, this review and meta-analysis also includes the studies that examined parents’ or caregivers’ intention to vaccinate their young children against COVID-19. Lastly, we report on the overall vaccination intention rate by types of vaccines (original shots vs. boosters), country and continent, year, and population type.

3. Methodology

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [55,56]. We searched four databases for articles using the theory of planned behavior to examine COVID-19 vaccination intentions using key terms such as “theory of planned behavior” or “TPB”, “COVID-19”, “corona virus”, “booster shot or dose”, “SARS-CoV-2”, and “vaccination intention”. The search was conducted from 3 January 2022 to 15 August 2022. Full-length papers published during December 2019 and August 2022 were retrieved for analysis.

3.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The main inclusion criteria were quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals, written in English, that used the TPB as a theoretical basis to examine the associations between TPB constructs and COVID-19 vaccination intention. We excluded qualitative studies, non-peer-reviewed studies, conference proceedings, and case reports.

3.2. Search Strategy

We conducted a comprehensive search of the published literature using each of the four selected databases: PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Web of Science (Clarivate), CINAHL, and Google Scholar. The combinations of key terms and Boolean operators (AND, OR) that were used to locate studies in each database are presented in Table 1.
Two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified articles. Non-quantitative studies, and the studies not applying the TPB framework for predicting vaccination intention, were excluded. Full-text articles were obtained for studies whose titles and abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Then these full-text articles were evaluated to confirm if they reported the necessary statistics of TPB constructs with respect to vaccination intention.
PRISMA flow diagram demonstrates the study selection process, the number of records identified, screened, and excluded, and the reasons for exclusion (see Figure 1). A total of 1147 records were retrieved from the electronic databases. Of them, 948 records were removed as duplicates, conference proceedings, qualitative studies, and non-peer-reviewed articles. A total of 104 articles were excluded after screening the abstracts for being irrelevant or not examining the relationships between TPB constructs and vaccination intention. The remaining 95 full-text articles were further assessed for eligibility, and only 43 studies were found eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis.

3.3. Data Extraction and Analysis

The same two researchers extracted data independently of one another. The following information was extracted from each study: author’s name, data collection year, publication year, study objective, study design, participants, sample size, sampling method, measures, statistical analysis techniques, analytical tools, country where the study was conducted, statistics (e.g., effect size, odd ratio, means, and standard deviations), and vaccination rate. We also extracted information on TPB constructs associated with vaccination intention.
Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27 and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 4.0. First, characteristics of studies included in the review were summarized using frequencies and percentages. Average vaccination intention rates were reported by country, sample, and year of data collection. The prevalence and strengths of TPB constructs that were significantly related to vaccination intention were presented by year, geographical region, and population. The effect size metric reported in this meta-analysis was the sample-weighted average correlation (r+). The included studies used different types of effect sizes, such as correlation coefficients, multiple regression coefficients, and odds ratios. Odds ratios were converted into correlation coefficients [57]. When a study neither reported the odds ratios nor the correlation coefficients, the reported standardized regression coefficients were used to calculate the effect size [58]. A random effect model was used for the meta-analyses as the samples in the included studies were heterogeneous [59]. The within-study variation was estimated with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and the between-study variation was estimated with the maximum likelihood estimator for tau (the standard deviation of true effect sizes). The Higgins and Thompsons’ [60] I2 was used to assess heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses on the geographic location (continent) of the study and sample population were conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

4. Results

4.1. Study Characteristics

Forty-three studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Twenty-six of them were published in 2021, sixteen were published in 2022, and one was published in 2020 (see Table 2). However, most studies (24/43) collected data in 2021, sixteen collected data in 2020, and one collected data in 2022. Nearly half of the studies (21/43) were conducted in Asia, in contrast to nine in North America, nine in Europe, three in Africa, and one in Oceania. However, astonishingly, no study was carried out in South America. This review and meta-analysis included studies from twenty countries, including nine from the United States, nine from China, and three from India. Forty-one studies were cross-sectional in design. The studies included in this review and meta-analysis consisted of 64,359 respondents, with an average sample size of 1496 respondents (standard deviation = 2380.71), ranging from 69 [61] to 11,141 [62]. The majority of the studies focused on the general adult population (69.8%), followed by patients (9.2%), students (7%), healthcare workers (4.6%), parents (4.7%), and factory workers (4.7%).

4.2. Vaccination Intention Rate

The average rate of COVID-19 vaccination intention was 73.19% (SD = 11.63), ranging from 31% [62] to 88.86% [31]. However, vaccination acceptance for a booster shot was much higher (85.51%, SD = 2.54) than that for the original shot(s) (72.48%, SD = 11.56). The vaccination intention appeared slightly higher in Western countries (74.49%) than in non-Western countries (72.2%). There was no significant difference between US and Chinese adults in vaccination intention (74.28% versus 75.81%). Vaccination acceptance rate slightly increased in 2021 (75.89%) from 2020 (72.61%). Vaccine acceptance was higher among patients (80.4%), followed by students (78.37%), healthcare workers (75.33%), and the general adult population (72.74%). Vaccine acceptance was lower among parents for their children (59.15%).

4.3. TPB Constructs Associated with Vaccine Intention

Table 2 presents the frequency of significant relationships between TPB constructs and COVID-19 vaccination intention. Although all studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis used the TPB as the theoretical basis, eight studies focused on only one or two of its constructs. Thirty-five studies (81.4%) used the TPB in its entirety. Our results show that people’s attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination was the most frequently demonstrated TPB construct influencing vaccination intention in thirty-eight studies (92.68%); however, three studies [63,64,65] showed an insignificant effect. Two studies did not include it as a predictor. Subjective norms were significantly associated with vaccination intention in thirty studies (78.57%), but the association was not statistically significant in nine studies (21.43%). In one study [66], it was not examined as a determinant. Perceived behavioral control was found to be directly associated with vaccination intention in twenty studies (55.56%); however, surprisingly, the association was not statistically significant in sixteen studies (44.44%). Seven studies did not include it as a model construct. Eight studies tested an extended TPB by incorporating self-efficacy, which was found to be a significant predictor of COVID-19 vaccination intention.
A few studies examined the role of moderators and mediators in the relationships between TPB constructs and vaccination intention. For example, Dou et al. [63] found that the association between attitude and vaccination intention was significantly stronger for Chinese males, whereas the association between subjective norms and vaccination intention was significantly stronger for Chinese females. However, gender difference was not evident in the relationship between perceived behavioral control and vaccination intention. One study [67] surveyed Italians and concluded that the effect of subjective norms on vaccination intention is fully mediated by trust in science. Ekinci et al. [68] showed that the effect of subjective norms on COVID-19 vaccination intention was partially mediated by attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines.
Table
Table 2. Study Characteristics and TPB Constructs Influencing COVID-19 Vaccination Intention.
Table 2. Study Characteristics and TPB Constructs Influencing COVID-19 Vaccination Intention.
Author(s)Year of PublicationCountryVaccine Intention %PopulationSample
Size		Survey
Year		TPB Construct—Vaccination Intention Association
ATTSNPBC
Almoayad et al. [69]2022Saudi Arabia47.43adult general population4872021YESYESNS
An et al. [70]2021Vietnam77.10student8542021YESNSYES
An et al. [71]2021Vietnam80.50patient4622021YESYESYES
Asmare et al. [72]2021Ethiopia64.90adult general population10802021YESYESYES
Barattucci et al. [67]2022Italy83.71adult general population10952021YESYESRNR
Berg and Lin [73]2021USA70.60adult general population3502020YESYESNS
Breslin et al. [74]2021Ireland66.70adult general population4392021YESNSYES
Callow and Callow [31]2021USA88.86adult general population5832020YESYESNS
Chu and Liu [75]2021USA82.10adult general population9342020YESYESNS
Dou et al. [63]2022China73.00adult general population4052021NSYESYES
Drążkowski and Trepanowski [76]2021Poland61.14adult general population5512020YESYESYES
Ekinci et al. [68]2022USA69.90adult general population1008-YESYESRNR
Fan et al. [77]2021China75.86Student31452021YESNSNS
Goffe et al. [78]2021England62.20adult general population16602020YESYESNS
Guidry et al. [79]2021USA59.90adult general population7882020YESYESNS
Hagger and Hamilton [80]2022USA-adult general population4792021YESYESYES
Hayashi et al. [81]2022USA-adult general population1722021YESNSYES
Husain et al. [82]2021India71.50adult general population4002021YESYESYES
Irfan et al. [66]2021Pakistan-adult general population7542020YESRNRRNR
Kaida et al. [61]2022Canada79.70patient 692021YESYESRNR
Khayyam et al. [83]2022Pakistan-healthcare worker6802021YESYESYES
Li et al. [62]2022Hong Kong31.00parent111412022YESYESNS
Mir et al. [84]2021India-adult general population254-YESYESRNR
Ogilvie et al. [85]2021Canada79.80adult general population49482020YESYESNS
Okai and Abekah-Nkrumah [86]2022Ghana62.70adult general population3622021YESNSRNR
Patwary et al. [64]2021Bangladesh85.00adult general population6392021NSNSNS
Prakash et al. [87]2022India83.54adult general population2282021YESYESNS
Qi et al. [88]2021China80.00patient3502021RNRYESNS
Rosental and Shmueli [89]2021Israel82.15student6282020YESNSNS
Rountree and Prentice [90]2021Ireland70.04adult general population19952020YESYESRNR
Seddig et al. [91]2022Germany-adult general population50442021YESYESNS
Servidio et al. [92]2022Italy81.40patient2762021YESYESYES
Shmueli [65]2021Israel80.00adult general population3982020NSYESNS
Sieverding et al. [93]2022Germany76.70adult general population14282020YESYESYES
Thaker and Ganchoudhuri [94]2021New Zealand82.40adult general population6502021YESNSNS
Twum et al. [95]2021Ghana83.00adult general population4782021YESYESYES
Ullah et al. [96]2021Pakistan59.80adult general population10342020YESYESYES
Wolff [97]2021Norway76.71adult general population10032020YESYESYES
Yahaghi et al. [98]2021Iran76.80adult general population108432021YESYESYES
Zhang et al. [99]2021China66.60factory worker20532020YESYESYES
Zhang et al. [100]2020China72.60factory worker20532020YESYESYES
Zhong et al. [101]2022China75.33nurse5472021YESYESYES
Zhou et al. [8]2022China87.30parent16022021YESNSYES
ATT: attitude; SN: subjective norms; PBC: perceived behavioral control; YES: significant; NS: not significant; RNR: result not reported.
Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 display the meta-analytic results and forest plots on the correlations between TPB constructs (including self-efficacy) and vaccination intention, respectively. Attitude had the strongest association with vaccination intention, yielding an average correlation of 0.487 (95% CI: 0.368–0.590). Subject norms had an effect size of 0.409 (95% CI: 0.300–0.507) on vaccination intention. Perceived behavioral control had the smallest effect size of 0.286 (95% CI: 0.198–0.369). Self-efficacy had an overall effect size of 0.301 (95% CI: 0.025–0.534).
We also performed subgroup analyses to explore the sources of high heterogeneity in the main analyses, in which I2 exceeded 75% for each effect size, indicating that the subgroups were very heterogeneous [102]. The breakdown of average effect sizes by moderators (geographic region and study population) are presented in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. The pooled effect sizes of TPB constructs on vaccination intention varied across geographic regions and study populations.
In terms of geographic representation, attitude toward COVID-19 vaccine was a statistically significant predictor of vaccine acceptance in all eighteen studies in a Western context, but only 87% of the studies reported attitude as a significant determinant in a non-Western context. Furthermore, 85% of the Asian studies found a significant positive relationship between attitude and vaccine acceptance, but the association was significant in all studies conducted in North America, Europe, Africa, and Oceania. In sixteen out of nineteen studies (84.2%), subjective norms significantly predicted vaccination intention in Western countries, whereas only 73.9% of the studies (17/23) predicted vaccination intention in non-Western countries. Only 46.7% (7/15) of the studies in a Western setting and 61.9% (13/21) in a non-Western setting found a significant influence of perceived behavioral control on vaccination intention. Perceived behavioral control was found to be a key factor influencing vaccination intention in Africa. Subgroup analyses also revealed that effects of TPB constructs on vaccination intention differed by geographic region. Attitude had large and significant effect sizes on vaccination intention in Asia 0.65 [95% CI: 0.64, 0.66], Europe 0.63 [95% CI: 0.62, 0.63], and Oceania 0.70 [95% CI: 0.67, 0.72]. Subjective norms had large and significant effect sizes on vaccination intention in Asia 0.52 [95% CI: 0.51, 0.53] and Oceania 0.62 [95% CI: 0.59, 0.66]. While perceived behavioral control did not have a large impact in other subgroups, it was a significant predictor of vaccination intention in Africa, with an effect size of 0.46 [95% CI: 0.42, 0.50].
With regard to the study population, attitude predicted intention in all studies, except three studies that surveyed the general adult population [63,64,65]. Subjective norms were a more frequently demonstrated predictor of vaccination intention among patients (100%), healthcare workers (100%), and factory workers (100%) compared with the general adult population (82.8%). Interestingly, all three studies that surveyed students revealed an insignificant effect [70,77,89]. All studies that surveyed healthcare workers [83,101] and factory workers [99] showed a significant effect of perceived behavioral control on vaccination intention. Subgroup analyses also showed that the pooled effect sizes of TPB constructs on vaccination intention varied across different sample populations (see Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5). Attitude had large and significant effect sizes on vaccination intention in the adult general population 0.41 [95% CI: 0.40, 0.42], parents 0.84 [95% CI: 0.83, 0.85], and patients 0.53 [95% CI: 0.47, 0.57]. Subjective norms had large and significant effect sizes on vaccination intention in parents 0.63 [95% CI: 0.62, 0.64] and patients 0.59 [95% CI: 0.56, 0.63]. While perceived behavioral control did not have a large impact in other subgroups, it was a significant predictor of vaccination intention in the patient subgroup, with an effect size of 0.43 [95% CI: 0.37, 0.48].
In terms of the study year, attitude was a significant predictor of vaccination intention more frequently in 2021 (93.8%) than in 2020 (90.9%). On the contrary, subjective norms were a dominant predictor of vaccine acceptance in fourteen studies (93.3%) in 2020, but only 66.7% of the studies reported the same in 2021. Similarly, perceived behavioral control was found to influence vaccination intention more frequently in 2021 (66.7%) than in 2020 (42.9%). We also performed meta-regressions for data collection date and vaccination intention; however, none of the results were significant.
Only two studies examined the effects of TPB constructs on vaccination intention for booster shots. All core TPB constructs were statistically significant, positive predictors of booster vaccine intentions among Americans [81]. Zhou et al. [8] examined the predictors of parents’ intentions regarding the COVID-19 booster vaccination for their children. Attitude and perceived behavioral control were positively associated with parents’ intentions.
Two studies focused on parents’ intention to vaccinate their children. Parent’s intention was stronger if they had higher levels of positive attitudes toward vaccinating their children and if they reported stronger subjective norms [62]. However, perceived behavioral control was not a significant predictor of vaccination intention. Zhang et al. [99] found that positive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, perceived subjective norm (i.e., the perception that a family member would support them in having their children take up COVID-19 vaccination), and perceived behavioral control to have the children take up COVID-19 vaccination were associated with higher parental acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination.

5. Discussion

Vaccination is recognized as the most successful and cost-effective public health intervention to combat the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, it has made a significant contribution to improving global health by reducing the incidence and deaths of many infectious diseases [103,104]. Incidentally, despite the availability of vaccines and mass global drive for vaccination, many people remain hesitant to be vaccinated, are less inclined to receive booster shots, or are even less likely to vaccinate their offspring [13]. As a result, several countries, including some African countries, have not yet achieved herd immunity [103]. The World Health Organization also identified vaccine hesitancy as one of the most critical health threats to the successful implementation of any future COVID-19-like vaccination program [105].
Several studies employed the TPB to study behavioral intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19 [65,77,98,106]. From a theoretical perspective, this study was the first systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative studies that used the TPB as the theoretical framework to examine its constructs contributing to the intention to vaccinate against COVID-19. Our findings suggest that the TPB provides a useful framework for explaining and predicting COVID-19 vaccination intention. Thus, public awareness and educational programs aimed at promoting vaccine acceptance should consider using TPB as a framework with the focus on attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and self-efficacy.
Our findings revealed that the COVID-19 vaccination intention rate was relatively high (73.19%). This finding corroborates the previous reviews of Wang et al. [47] and Terry et al. [53], who reported overall vaccine acceptance rates of 73.31% and 73.3%, respectively. Renzi et al. [52] reported a relatively smaller pooled prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rate (66%). Alarcón-Braga et al. [54] found a very high vaccination acceptance (78.0%) among the general population in Latin America and the Caribbean. These findings indicate that overall vaccination intention rate remained stable and did not increase from 2020 to 2021. Vaccine acceptance was lower among parents for their children (59.15%). Thus, information campaigns targeted at parents should focus on communicating the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Our findings demonstrate that attitude was the strongest and most frequently demonstrated TPB construct influencing vaccination intention, followed by subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. This finding supports previous research [76,80,97]. However, our finding also contradicts other studies [72,95,96,99], in which, among the TPB constructs, perceived behavioral control was the strongest predictor of behavioral intention to vaccinate against COVID-19. However, a few studies reported that subjective norms had a smaller [83,92,96,107] or a larger [98,100,101] effect than other TPB constructs. Interestingly, attitude was the weakest predictor of vaccination intention in four studies [95,99,100,101]. Future research should further clarify these mixed findings.
Possible explanations for these inconsistent findings are that the strength of associations between TPB constructs and behavioral intention to vaccinate against COVDI-19 may vary across different contexts. For example, our results show that the effects of TPB constructs on vaccination intention vary across geographic regions and study populations. While attitude had large effect sizes in Asia, Europe, and Oceania, especially among the adult general population, parents, and patients, subjective norms had large effect sizes in Asia and Oceania, especially among parents and patients. Perceived behavioral control was found to be a key factor influencing vaccination intention in Africa. Our results also confirm that the association between TPB constructs and vaccination intention varied according to study population. While attitude predicted intention among the general population, subjective norms were a stronger predictor of vaccine acceptance among patients and healthcare workers than the general adult population. Perceived behavioral control was an influential predictor of behavioral intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 among healthcare workers. These findings support a need to create messages tailored to specific target populations. More targeted communication strategies can be developed for the vaccine-hesitant populations.
Another explanation for the conflicting results may be presented in terms of data collection year. Our review revealed that subjective norms were a more dominant predictor of vaccine acceptance in 2020 than in 2021. On the contrary, attitude was a significant predictor of vaccine acceptance more frequently in 2021 than in 2020. Similarly, perceived behavioral control was found to influence vaccination intention more frequently in 2021 than in 2020. Therefore, to increase COVID-19 vaccination, people’s belief about the outcomes of vaccination and their perceptions of ability to control factors that hinder vaccination intention should be focused on.
Over half of the studies that examined the association between perceived behavioral control and vaccination intention reported insignificant associations [69,73,91], threatening the TPB’s utility in predicting vaccination intention. A possible reason for the insignificant result could be the types of samples used by the studies. For example, perceived behavioral control had no effect among patients [62] and students [70,77]. Another possible explanation might be the geographical differences. Our study shows that the influence of perceived behavioral control was weaker in non-African countries. This warrants further investigation into the effect of perceived behavioral control on vaccination intention.
To sum up, findings from this investigation provide important insights for public health interventions on how to increase the coverage of vaccination, which is essential to reduce the load of DALYs (disability-adjusted life years) due to COVID-19, and to decrease the mortality rate. As a result of the mass vaccination drive, gradually, the world is overcoming the hazardous effect of the recent pandemic of COVID-19; but, the recurrence of similar and even worse pandemic cannot be denied. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis will be helpful to the agencies involved in vaccination, as well as prevention and control of pandemics.
Vaccination intention is a complicated and multifaceted phenomenon, as well as a dynamic social process. This entails the existence of cognitive, psychological, sociodemographic, and cultural factors. Our results suggest that all TPB constructs are useful tools in promoting vaccination. However, several studies reported statistically insignificant effects of perceived behavior control and subjective norms on COVID-19 vaccination intention. This indicates that the predictive utility of the TPB may be different depending on various factors, including culture, country, target population, and study context. Our results also show that the impacts of TPB constructs on vaccination intention are determined by geographical differences, study population, and study year. Therefore, governments, policymakers, NGOs, and other stakeholders should consider these factors in developing interventions aimed at enhancing people’s positive attitudes toward vaccines, their perceptions of social pressure from their significant others to get vaccinated, and their perceived ability to get vaccines. Effective communication strategies may include encouragement from loved ones and trusted figures such as physicians and religious leaders, sharing personal stories, and peer pressure. Minority, lower-income, and less-educated individuals are disproportionately more susceptible to COVID-19 [107,108]. They also have lower acceptance, which requires special attention, addressing the effect of their chronic distrust of health authorities in order to confront the vicious cycle of skepticism. In policy planning to combat the pandemic, caution should be taken in interpreting and using the results, since intention or survey responses may not directly predict future behavior [109]. Moreover, opinions may change, especially amid the raging pandemic. Reported clinical trials incidents or outcomes and subsequent introductions of vaccines or new treatments would further change people’s minds about getting vaccinated. Hence, policymakers must review their strategy in definite intervals. Since several factors affect individuals’ decision to accept a COVID-19 vaccine, a holistic educational approach to improve confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine should be implemented. Moreover, policymakers should develop and implement targeted education for people with a low level of knowledge that are designed to increase their self-efficacy (i.e., confidence in their ability to receive the vaccines or to overcome vaccination barriers). This study reveals that there exist noticeable psychological, demographic, and geographical disparities in vaccine acceptance. Hence, a country- and population-specific strategy is required for successful mass vaccination drive and to attain herd immunity.
This systematic review and meta-analysis identified several important areas for future research. First, nearly one-fifth of the studies (18.6%) included in this study focused on only one or two of the TPB constructs. Moreover, only three studies [63,73,78] examined the role of moderators and mediators in the relationships between TPB constructs and COVID-19 vaccination intention. Thus, future studies should consider extending the TPB model by incorporating various factors such as mediators, moderators, covariates, and confounders. Second, the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted only in twenty countries, mostly in developed or emerging nations, which focused on the general adult population, patients, students, healthcare workers, parents, and factory workers. Hence, future studies should examine the applicability of the TPB model in predicting vaccine acceptance using diverse samples from understudied countries. Third, our systematic review and meta-analysis also showed that only two studies investigated parental acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination for their children. Hence, more research is needed to understand the applicability of the TPB model for understanding parental vaccine acceptance. Fourth, a vast majority of the studies included in our study were cross-sectional in design. In addition, only two studies [8,80] investigated the associations between TPB constructs and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance for booster shots. Therefore, more longitudinal studies are needed to gain a better understanding of how TPB predicts vaccination intention over time. Finally, the subgroup meta-analytic results of the current study need to be interpreted with caution as the percentage of variability attributed to heterogeneity for most subgroups remained high, indicating that the samples in the included studies were heterogeneous. Therefore, future studies should consider performing subgroup analyses or meta-regression analyses by incorporating other moderating variables.

6. Conclusions

This systematic and meta-analytic review represents an initial attempt to analyze the literature using the TPB as a theoretical model to examine the influence of TPB constructs on vaccination intention against COVID-19. Attitude was the strongest predictor of vaccination intention, followed by subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. However, the effects of these TPB constructs on behavioral intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 were moderated by geographic region and study population. These findings provide important insights for developing health education messages to promote acceptance of vaccination against COVID-19.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.B.L. and R.K.G.; methodology, Y.B.L., R.K.G. and W.Z.; software, Y.B.L. and W.Z.; validation, Y.B.L. and R.K.G.; formal analysis, Y.B.L. and W.Z.; investigation, R.K.G.; resources, R.K.G.; data curation, Y.B.L.; writing—original draft preparation, R.K.G. and Y.B.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.B.L., R.K.G. and W.Z.; visualization, R.K.G. and W.Z.; supervision, Y.B.L.; project administration, R.K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data generated in this study are available by contacting the first author, Yam B. Limbu, if requested reasonably.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19. 11 March 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (accessed on 30 December 2021).
  2. World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed on 25 September 2022).
  3. Li, Y.; Tenchov, R.; Smoot, J.; Liu, C.; Watkins, S.; Zhou, Q. A comprehensive review of the global efforts on COVID-19 vaccine development. ACS Cent. Sci. 2021, 7, 512–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lurie, N.; Saville, M.; Hatchett, R.; Halton, J. Developing Covid-19 vaccines at pandemic speed. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1969–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. World Health Organization. DRAFT Landscape of COVID-19 Candidate Vaccine. 22 January. 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines (accessed on 22 January 2021).
  6. Hadj Hassine, I. Covid-19 vaccines and variants of concern: A review. Rev. Med. Virol. 2022, 32, e2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines (accessed on 25 September 2022).
  8. Zhou, M.; Liu, L.; Gu, S.Y.; Peng, X.Q.; Zhang, C.; Wu, Q.F.; Xu, X.P.; You, H. Behavioral Intention and Its Predictors toward COVID-19 Booster Vaccination among Chinese Parents: Applying Two Behavioral Theories. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. MacDonald, N.E. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine 2015, 33, 4161–4164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kanyike, A.M.; Olum, R.; Kajjimu, J.; Ojilong, D.; Akech, G.M.; Nassozi, D.R.; Agira, D.; Wamala, N.K.; Asiimwe, A.; Matovu, D.; et al. Acceptance of the coronavirus disease-2019 vaccine among medical students in Uganda. Trop. Med. Health 2021, 49, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Saied, S.M.; Saied, E.M.; Kabbash, I.A.; Abdo, S.A.E. Vaccine hesitancy: Beliefs and barriers associated with COVID-19 vaccination among Egyptian medical students. J. Med. Virol. 2021, 25, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lucia, V.C.; Kelekar, A.; Afonso, N.M. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among medical students. J. Public Health 2021, 43, 445–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Limbu, Y.B.; Gautam, R.K.; Pham, L. The Health Belief Model Applied to COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Systematic Review. Vaccines 2022, 10, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Khiri, N.M. Vaccine hesitancy among communities in ten countries in Asia, Africa, and South America during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pathog. Glob. Health 2022, 116, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alam, M.M.; Melhim, L.K.; Ahmad, M.T.; Jemmali, M. Public Attitude towards COVID-19 Vaccination: Validation of COVID-Vaccination Attitude Scale (C-VAS). J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2022, 15, 941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gates, A.; Gates, M.; Rahman, S.; Guitard, S.; MacGregor, T.; Pillay, J.; Ismail, S.J.; Tunis, M.C.; Young, K.; Hardy, K.; et al. A systematic review of factors that influence the acceptability of vaccines among Canadians. Vaccine 2021, 39, 222–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sharun, K.; Rahman, C.F.; Haritha, C.V.; Jose, B.; Tiwari, R.; Dhama, K. Covid-19 vaccine acceptance: Beliefs and barriers associated with vaccination among the general population in India. J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2020, 8, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Reiter, P.L.; Pennell, M.L.; Katz, M.L. Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated? Vaccine 2020, 38, 6500–6507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Taylor, S.; Landry, C.A.; Paluszek, M.M.; Groenewoud, R.; Rachor, G.S.; Asmundson, G.J. A proactive approach for managing COVID-19: The importance of understanding the motivational roots of vaccination hesitancy for SARS-CoV2. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 575950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Harapan, H.; Wagner, A.L.; Yufika, A.; Winardi, W.; Sofyan, H.; Mudatsir, M. Acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine in Southeast Asia: A cross-sectional study in Indonesia. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Al-mohaithef, M.; Padhi, B.K. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Saudi Arabia: A web-based National Survey. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2020, 13, 1657–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, J.; Jing, R.; Lai, X.; Zhang, H.; Lyu, Y.; Knoll, M.D.; Fang, H. Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Vaccines 2020, 8, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chadwick, A.; Kaiser, J.; Vaccari, C.; Freeman, D.; Lambe, S.; Loe, B.S.; Vanderslott, S.; Lewandowsky, S.; Conroy, M.; Ross, A.R.; et al. Online social endorsement and Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United Kingdom. Soc. Media+ Soc. 2021, 7, 20563051211008817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Allington, D.; McAndrew, S.; Moxham-Hall, V.; Duffy, B. Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions, general vaccine attitudes, trust and coronavirus information source as predictors of vaccine hesitancy among UK residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol. Med. 2021, 12, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Murphy, J.; Vallières, F.; Bentall, R.P.; Shevlin, M.; McBride, O.; Hartman, T.K.; McKay, R.; Bennett, K.; Mason, L.; Gibson-Miller, J.; et al. Psychological characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Barello, S.; Palamenghi, L.; Graffigna, G. Looking inside the “black box” of vaccine hesitancy: Unlocking the effect of psychological attitudes and beliefs on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and implications for public health communication. Psychol. Med. 2021, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mannan, D.K.; Farhana, K.M. Knowledge, attitude and acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine: A global cross-sectional study. Int. Res. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020, 7, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fisher, K.A.; Bloomstone, S.J.; Walder, J.; Crawford, S.; Fouayzi, H.; Mazor, K.M. Attitudes toward a potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: A survey of US adults. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020, 173, 964–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Corace, K.M.; Srigley, J.A.; Hargadon, D.P.; Yu, D.; MacDonald, T.K.; Fabrigar, L.R.; Garber, G.E. Using behavior change frameworks to improve healthcare worker influenza vaccination rates: A systematic review. Vaccine 2016, 34, 3235–3242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Rosenthal, S.L.; Weiss, T.W.; Zimet, G.D.; Ma, L.; Good, M.B.; Vichnin, M.D. Predictors of HPV vaccine uptake among women aged 19–26: Importance of a physician’s recommendation. Vaccine 2011, 29, 890–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Callow, M.A.; Callow, D.D. Older adults’ behavior intentions once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2021, 40, 943–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 1977, 84, 888–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lutz, S. The theory of planned behaviour and the impact of past behavior. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 2011, 10, 91–110. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lu, W.; Yuan, L.; Xu, J.; Xue, F.; Zhao, B.; Webster, C. The psychological effects of quarantine during COVID-19 outbreak: Sentiment analysis of social media data. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Adiyoso, W.; Wilopo, W. Social distancing intentions to reduce the spread of COVID-19: The extended theory of planned behavior. Res. Sq. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rosenstock, I.M.; Strecher, V.J.; Becker, M.H. Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Educ. Q. 1988, 15, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ko, N.Y.; Feng, M.C.; Chiu, D.Y.; Wu, M.H.; Feng, J.Y.; Pan, S.M. Applying theory of planned behavior to predict nurses’ intention and volunteering to care for SARS patients in southern Taiwan. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2004, 20, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Zintel, S.; Flock, C.; Arbogast, A.L.; Forster, A.; von Wagner, C.; Sieverding, M. Gender differences in the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Z. Gesundh. Wiss. 2022, 7, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Galanis, P.A.; Vraka, I.; Fragkou, D.; Bilali, A.; Kaitelidou, D. Intention of health care workers to accept COVID-19 vaccination and related factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Al-Amer, R.; Maneze, D.; Everett, B.; Montayre, J.; Villarosa, A.R.; Dwekat, E.; Salamonson, Y. COVID-19 vaccination intention in the first year of the pandemic: A systematic review. J. Clin. Nurs. 2022, 31, 62–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lin, C.; Tu, P.; Beitsch, L.M. Confidence and receptivity for COVID-19 vaccines: A rapid systematic review. Vaccines 2021, 9, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, Y.; Liu, Y. Multilevel determinants of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the United States: A rapid systematic review. Prev. Med. Rep. 2021, 16, 101673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. AlShurman, B.A.; Khan, A.F.; Mac, C.; Majeed, M.; Butt, Z.A. What demographic, social, and contextual factors influence the intention to use COVID-19 vaccines: A scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Patwary, M.M.; Alam, M.A.; Bardhan, M.; Disha, A.S.; Haque, M.Z.; Billah, S.M.; Kabir, M.P.; Browning, M.H.; Rahman, M.M.; Parsa, A.D.; et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance among Low-and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines 2022, 11, 427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Willems, L.D.; Dyzel, V.; Sterkenburg, P.S. COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions amongst Healthcare Workers: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wang, Q.; Yang, L.; Jin, H.; Lin, L. Vaccination against COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of acceptability and its predictors. Prev. Med. 2021, 150, 106694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Chen, F.; He, Y.; Shi, Y. Parents’ and guardians’ willingness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccines 2022, 10, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Shakeel, C.S.; Mujeeb, A.A.; Mirza, M.S.; Chaudhry, B.; Khan, S.J. Global COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: A systematic review of associated social and behavioral factors. Vaccines 2022, 10, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sallam, M.; Al-Sanafi, M.; Sallam, M. A global map of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates per country: An updated concise narrative review. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2022, 15, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Roy, D.N.; Biswas, M.; Islam, E.; Azam, M.S. Potential factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0265496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Renzi, E.; Baccolini, V.; Migliara, G.; Bellotta, C.; Ceparano, M.; Donia, P.; Marzuillo, C.; De Vito, C.; Villari, P.; Massimi, A. Mapping the Prevalence of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance at the Global and Regional Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Terry, E.; Cartledge, S.; Damery, S.; Greenfield, S. Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic; a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alarcón-Braga, E.A.; Hernandez-Bustamante, E.A.; Salazar-Valdivia, F.E.; Valdez-Cornejo, V.A.; Mosquera-Rojas, M.D.; Ulloque-Badaracco, J.R.; Rondon-Saldaña, J.C.; Zafra-Tanaka, J.H. Acceptance towards Covid-19 vaccination in Latin America and the Caribbean: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 49, 102369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, e1–e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Moher, D. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 1, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Rothstein, H.R. Introduction to Meta-Analysis; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  58. Peterson, R.A.; Brown, S.P. On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Field, A.P.; Gillett, R. How to do a meta-analysis. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 2010, 63, 665–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1539–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Kaida, A.; Brotto, L.A.; Murray, M.; Côté, H.C.; Albert, A.Y.; Nicholson, V.; Gormley, R.; Gordon, S.; Booth, A.; Smith, L.W.; et al. Intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine by HIV status among a population-based sample of women and gender diverse individuals in British Columbia, Canada. AIDS Behav. 2022, 26, 2242–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Li, J.B.; Lau, E.Y.H.; Chan, D.K.C. Why do Hong Kong parents have low intention to vaccinate their children against COVID-19? Testing health belief model and theory of planned behavior in a large-scale survey. Vaccine 2022, 40, 2772–2780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Dou, K.; Yang, J.; Wang, L.X.; Li, J.B. Theory of planned behavior explains males’ and females’ intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines differently. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2022, 18, 2086393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Patwary, M.M.; Bardhan, M.; Disha, A.S.; Hasan, M.; Haque, M.Z.; Sultana, R.; Hossain, M.R.; Browning, M.H.; Alam, M.A.; Sallam, M. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among the adult population of Bangladesh using the health belief model and the theory of planned behavior model. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shmueli, L. Predicting intention to receive COVID-19 vaccine among the general population using the health belief model and the theory of planned behavior model. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Irfan, M.; Shahid, A.L.; Ahmad, M.; Iqbal, W.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Ren, S.; Hussain, A. Assessment of public intention to get vaccination against COVID-19: Evidence from a developing country. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2022, 28, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Barattucci, M.; Pagliaro, S.; Ballone, C.; Teresi, M.; Consoli, C.; Garofalo, A.; De Giorgio, A.; Ramaci, T. Trust in Science as a Possible Mediator between Different Antecedents and COVID-19 Booster Vaccination Intention: An Integration of Health Belief Model (HBM) and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Vaccines 2022, 10, 1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Ekinci, Y.; Gursoy, D.; Can, A.S.; Williams, N.L. Does travel desire influence COVID-19 vaccination intentions? J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2022, 31, 413–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Almoayad, F.; Bin-Amer, L.A.; Althubyani, N.T.; Alajmi, S.M.; Alshammari, A.A.; Alsuwayal, R.A. The general public’s intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Health Promot. Educ. 2022, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. An, P.L.; Nguyen, H.; Nguyen, D.D.; Vo, L.Y.; Huynh, G. The intention to get a COVID-19 vaccine among the students of health science in Vietnam. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 4823–4828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. An, P.L.; Nguyen, H.T.N.; Dang, H.T.B.; Huynh, Q.N.H.; Pham, B.D.U.; Huynh, G. Integrating Health Behavior Theories to Predict Intention to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine. Health Serv. Insights 2021, 14, 11786329211060130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Asmare, G.; Abebe, K.; Atnafu, N.; Asnake, G.; Yeshambel, A.; Alem, E.; Chekol, E.; Asmamaw, T. Behavioral intention and its predictors toward COVID-19 vaccination among people most at risk of exposure in Ethiopia: Applying the theory of planned behavior model. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 4838–4845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Berg, M.B.; Lin, L. Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine intentions in the United States: The role of psychosocial health constructs and demographic factors. Transl. Behav. Med. 2021, 11, 1782–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Breslin, G.; Dempster, M.; Berry, E.; Cavanagh, M.; Armstrong, N.C. COVID-19 vaccine uptake and hesitancy survey in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chu, H.; Liu, S. Integrating health behavior theories to predict American’s intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Patient Educ. Couns. 2021, 104, 1878–1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Drążkowski, D.; Trepanowski, R. Reactance and perceived disease severity as determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Psychol. Health Med. 2022, 27, 2171–2178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Fan, C.W.; Chen, I.H.; Ko, N.Y.; Yen, C.F.; Lin, C.Y.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pakpour, A.H. Extended theory of planned behavior in explaining the intention to COVID-19 vaccination uptake among mainland Chinese university students: An online survey study. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 3413–3420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Goffe, L.; Antonopoulou, V.; Meyer, C.J.; Graham, F.; Tang, M.Y.; Lecouturier, J.; Grimani, A.; Bambra, C.; Kelly, M.P.; Sniehotta, F.F. Factors associated with vaccine intention in adults living in England who either did not want or had not yet decided to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 5242–5254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Guidry, J.P.; Laestadius, L.I.; Vraga, E.K.; Miller, C.A.; Perrin, P.B.; Burton, C.W.; Ryan, M.; Fuemmeler, B.F.; Carlyle, K.E. Willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine with and without emergency use authorization. Am. J. Infect. Control 2021, 49, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Hagger, M.S.; Hamilton, K. Predicting COVID-19 booster vaccine intentions. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2022, 14, 819–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hayashi, Y.; Romanowich, P.; Hantula, D.A. Predicting Intention to Take a COVID-19 Vaccine in the United States: Application and Extension of Theory of Planned Behavior. Am. J. Health Promot. 2022, 36, 710–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Husain, F.; Shahnawaz, M.G.; Khan, N.H.; Parveen, H.; Savani, K. Intention to get COVID-19 vaccines: Exploring the role of attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, belief in COVID-19 misinformation, and vaccine confidence in Northern India. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 3941–3953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Khayyam, M.; Chuanmin, S.; Salim, M.A.; Nizami, A.; Ali, J.; Ali, H.; Khan, N.; Ihtisham, M.; Anjum, R. COVID-19 Vaccination Behavior Among Frontline Healthcare Workers in Pakistan: The Theory of Planned Behavior, Perceived Susceptibility, and Anticipated Regret. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 808338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mir, H.H.; Parveen, S.; Mullick, N.H.; Nabi, S. Using structural equation modeling to predict Indian people’s attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccination. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2021, 15, 1017–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ogilvie, G.S.; Gordon, S.; Smith, L.W.; Albert, A.; Racey, C.S.; Booth, A.; Gottschlich, A.; Goldfarb, D.; Murray, M.; Galea, L.A.; et al. Intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine: Results from a population-based survey in Canada. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Okai, G.A.; Abekah-Nkrumah, G. The level and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Ghana. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0270768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Prakash, A.; Jeyakumar Nathan, R.; Kini, S.; Victor, V. Message framing and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among millennials in South India. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0269487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Qi, L.; Yang, L.; Ge, J.; Yu, L.; Li, X. COVID-19 Vaccination Behavior of People Living with HIV: The Mediating Role of Perceived Risk and Vaccination Intention. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rosental, H.; Shmueli, L. Integrating health behavior theories to predict COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: Differences between medical students and nursing students. Vaccines 2021, 9, 783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Rountree, C.; Prentice, G. Segmentation of intentions towards COVID-19 vaccine acceptance through political and health behaviour explanatory models. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2022, 191, 2369–2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Seddig, D.; Maskileyson, D.; Davidov, E.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. Correlates of COVID-19 vaccination intentions: Attitudes, institutional trust, fear, conspiracy beliefs, and vaccine skepticism. Soc. Sci. Med. 2022, 302, 114981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Servidio, R.; Malvaso, A.; Vizza, D.; Valente, M.; Campagna, M.R.; Iacono, M.L.; Martin, L.R.; Bruno, F. The intention to get COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine uptake among cancer patients: An extension of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Support. Care Cancer 2022, 30, 7973–7982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sieverding, M.; Zintel, S.; Schmidt, L.; Arbogast, A.L.; von Wagner, C. Explaining the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19: General attitudes towards vaccination and predictors from health behavior theories. Psychol. Health Med. 2022, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Thaker, J.; Ganchoudhuri, S. The role of attitudes, norms, and efficacy on shifting COVID-19 vaccine Intentions: A longitudinal study of COVID-19 vaccination intentions in New Zealand. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Twum, K.K.; Ofori, D.; Agyapong, G.K.Q.; Yalley, A.A. Intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: A social marketing perspective using the theory of planned behaviour and health belief model. J. Soc. Mark. 2021, 11, 549–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ullah, I.; Lin, C.Y.; Malik, N.I.; Wu, T.Y.; Araban, M.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pakpour, A.H. Factors affecting Pakistani young adults’ intentions to uptake COVID-19 vaccination: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Brain Behav. 2021, 11, e2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Wolff, K. COVID-19 vaccination intentions: The theory of planned behavior, optimistic bias, and anticipated regret. Front. Psychol. 2021, 2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Yahaghi, R.; Ahmadizade, S.; Fotuhi, R.; Taherkhani, E.; Ranjbaran, M.; Buchali, Z.; Jafari, R.; Zamani, N.; Shahbazkhania, A.; Simiari, H.; et al. Fear of COVID-19 and perceived COVID-19 infectability supplement theory of planned behavior to explain Iranians’ intention to get COVID-19 vaccinated. Vaccines 2021, 9, 684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Zhang, K.C.; Fang, Y.; Cao, H.; Chen, H.; Hu, T.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Z. Behavioral intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccination among Chinese factory workers: Cross-sectional online survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e24673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Zhang, K.C.; Fang, Y.; Cao, H.; Chen, H.; Hu, T.; Chen, Y.Q.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Z. Parental acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination for children under the age of 18 years: Cross-sectional online survey. JMIR Pediatr. Parent. 2020, 3, e24827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zhong, Y.; Zhao, H.; Wang, X.; Ji, J. Using the theory of planned behaviour to explain junior nurses’ and final-year student nurses’ intention to care for COVID-19 patients in China: A multisite cross-sectional study. J. Nurs. Manag. 2022, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Idris, I.O.; Ayeni, G.O.; Adebisi, Y.A. Why many African countries may not achieve the 2022 COVID-19 vaccination coverage target. Trop. Med. Health 2022, 50, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). COVID Data Tracker; US Department of Health and Human Services: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2022. Available online: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  105. Verger, P.; Dubé, E. Restoring confidence in vaccines in the COVID-19 era. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2020, 19, 991–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wong, L.P.; Alias, H.; Wong, P.F.; Lee, H.Y.; AbuBakar, S. The use of the health belief model to assess predictors of intent to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and willingness to pay. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2020, 16, 2204–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. CDC. COVID-19 hospitalization and death by race/ethnicity. In Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CDC: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  108. Hawkins, R.B.; Charles, E.J.; Mehaffey, J.H. Socioeconomic Status and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Related Cases and Fatalities. Public Health 2020, 189, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Wieber, F.; Thürmer, J.L.; Gollwitzer, P.M. Promoting the translation of intentions into action by implementation intentions: Behavioral effects and physiological correlates. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vaccines 10 02026 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram showing search strategy and study selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram showing search strategy and study selection process.
Vaccines 10 02026 g001
Vaccines 10 02026 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot showing attitude and vaccination intention correlation.
Figure 2. Forest plot showing attitude and vaccination intention correlation.
Vaccines 10 02026 g002
Vaccines 10 02026 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot showing subjective norms and vaccination intention correlation.
Figure 3. Forest plot showing subjective norms and vaccination intention correlation.
Vaccines 10 02026 g003
Vaccines 10 02026 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot showing perceived behavioral control and vaccination intention correlation.
Figure 4. Forest plot showing perceived behavioral control and vaccination intention correlation.
Vaccines 10 02026 g004
Vaccines 10 02026 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot showing self-efficacy and vaccination intention correlation.
Figure 5. Forest plot showing self-efficacy and vaccination intention correlation.
Vaccines 10 02026 g005
Table
Table 1. Search Strategy.
Table 1. Search Strategy.
SearchSearch Terms (Boolean Operators)
#1“theory of planned behav*” AND “vaccination intent*” OR vaccine accept*” AND “COVID-19”
#2“theory of planned behav*” AND “vaccination intent*” OR vaccine accept*” AND “coronavirus”
#3“theory of planned behav*” AND “vaccination intent*” OR vaccine accept*”AND “SARS-CoV-2”
#4“theory of planned behav*” AND “vaccin* intent*” OR “vaccin* accept*” AND “COVID-19” OR “coronavirus” OR “SARS-CoV-2”
Table
Table 3. The Meta-analysis Results of Subgroup Analyses (Attitude–Intention).
Table 3. The Meta-analysis Results of Subgroup Analyses (Attitude–Intention).
Group# of StudiesEffect Size (95% CI)Z-Valuep-ValueQ-Valuep-ValueI2
Continent
Africa20.33 [0.28, 0,37]13.340.0012.920.0092.26
Asia180.65 [0.64, 0.66]148.900.006362.990.0099.73
Europe70.63 [0.62, 0.63]81.050.001903.420.0099.68
North America90.34 [0.32, 0.35]33.650.001643.740.0099.51
Oceania20.70 [0.67, 0.72]30.860.009.570.0089.56
Total within 9932.650.00
Total between 1632.950.00
Population
Adult general270.58 [0.57, 0.58]129.280.005941.280.0099.56
Factory worker20.10 [0.07, 0.13]6.280.009.440.0089.41
Healthcare worker20.30 [0.26, 0.36]11.180.006.310.0184.15
Parent10.84 [0.83, 0.85]128.880.000.001.000.00
Patient30.53 [0.47, 0.57]16.540.00290.810.0099.31
Student30.39 [0.36, 0.41]27.720.00156.970.0098.73
Total within 6404.810.00
Total between 5160.790.00
Table
Table 4. The Meta-analysis Results of Subgroup Analyses (Subjective Norms–Intention).
Table 4. The Meta-analysis Results of Subgroup Analyses (Subjective Norms–Intention).
Group# of StudiesEffect Size (95% CI)Z-Valuep-ValueQ-Valuep-ValueI2
Continent
Africa20.25 [0.20, 0.29]10.000.00141.790.0099.29
Asia190.52 [0.51, 0.53]110.420.003731.040.0099.52
Europe80.17 [0.16, 0.19]19.410.001318.080.0099.47
North America70.27 [0.25, 0.29]24.250.001116.750.0099.46
Oceania20.62 [0.59, 0.66]26.350.0012.510.0092.01
Total within 6320.190.00
Total between 1948.530.00
Population
Adult general260.41 [0.40, 0.42]84.380.005710.760.0099.56
Factory worker20.24 [0.21, 0.26]15.410.0085.400.0098.83
Healthcare worker20.35 [0.30, 0.40]12.930.0094.640.0098.94
Parent10.63 [0.62, 0.64]78.250.000.001.000.00
Patient40.59 [0.56, 0.63]23.370.00183.860.0098.37
Student3−0.01 [−0.04, 0.02]−0.780.433.750.1546.61
Total within 6078.420.00
Total between 2190.300.00
Table
Table 5. The Meta-analysis Results of Subgroup Analyses (PBC–Intention).
Table 5. The Meta-analysis Results of Subgroup Analyses (PBC–Intention).
Group# of StudiesEffect Size (95% CI)Z-Valuep-ValueQ-Valuep-ValueI2
Continent
Africa20.46 [0.42, 0.50]19.670.0088.760.0098.87
Asia150.38 [0.37, 0.39]74.760.001089.850.0098.72
Europe70.09 [0.08, 0.11]10.060.00663.560.0099.10
North America60.04 [0.01, 0.06]3.090.0012.080.0358.60
Total within 1854.250.00
Total between 1370.100.00
Population
Adult general200.27 [0.26, 0.28]51.130.002838.610.0099.33
Factory worker20.13 [0.10, 0.16]8.120.006.780.0185.25
Healthcare worker20.37 [0.32, 0.42]13.680.0037.620.0097.34
Parent10.36 [0.34, 0.38]39.780.000.001.000.00
Patient30.43 [0.37, 0.48]12.830.00112.900.0098.23
Student20.28 [0.25, 0.31]18.210.000.000.960.00
Total within 2995.920.00
Total between 228.440.00
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Limbu, Y.B.; Gautam, R.K.; Zhou, W. Predicting Vaccination Intention against COVID-19 Using Theory of Planned Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines 2022, 10, 2026. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10122026

AMA Style

Limbu YB, Gautam RK, Zhou W. Predicting Vaccination Intention against COVID-19 Using Theory of Planned Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines. 2022; 10(12):2026. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10122026

Chicago/Turabian Style

Limbu, Yam B., Rajesh K. Gautam, and Wencang Zhou. 2022. "Predicting Vaccination Intention against COVID-19 Using Theory of Planned Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Vaccines 10, no. 12: 2026. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10122026

APA Style

Limbu, Y. B., Gautam, R. K., & Zhou, W. (2022). Predicting Vaccination Intention against COVID-19 Using Theory of Planned Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines, 10(12), 2026. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10122026

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop