A social ecological approach to identify the barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination acceptance: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that has caused substantial impact on population health, healthcare, and social and economic systems around the world. Several vaccines have been developed to control the pandemic with varying effectiveness and safety profiles. One of the biggest obstacles to implementing successful vaccination programmes is vaccine hesitancy stemming from concerns about effectiveness and safety. This review aims to identify the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance and to organize the factors using the social ecological framework.
METHODS: We adopted the five-stage methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley to guide this scoping review. Selection criteria was based on the PICo (Population, Phenomenon of interest and Context) framework. Factors associated with acceptance and hesitancy were grouped into the following: intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, and public policy factors using the social ecological framework.
RESULTS: Fifty-one studies fulfilled this review's inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in Europe and North America, followed by Asia and the Middle East. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy rates varied across countries. Some common demographic factors associated with hesitancy were younger age, being female, having lower than college education, and having a lower income level. Most of the barriers and facilitators to acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines were intrapersonal factors, such as personal characteristics and preferences, concerns with COVID-19 vaccines, history/perception of general vaccination, and knowledge of COVID-19 and health. The remaining interpersonal, institution, community, and public policy factors were grouped into factors identified as barriers and facilitators.
CONCLUSION: Our review identified barriers and facilitators of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy and organised them using the social ecological framework. While some barriers and facilitators such as vaccine safety are universal, differentiated barriers might exist for different target groups, which need to be understood if they are to be addressed to maximize vaccine acceptance.

Introduction

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that has resulted in significant impact on the health of the world’s population, with over 500 million confirmed cases and over 6.2 million deaths worldwide as of 3rd June 2022 [1]. Other consequences include causing high levels of psychological distress as well as financial challenges for countries and their healthcare systems [2, 3]. Hence, measures such as lockdowns, social distancing, and travel restrictions were imposed by many countries in an attempt to reduce the spread of infections. While such measures can help [4], they are not long-term solutions.

Vaccinations can have an integral role in restoring normalcy [5]. While several viable candidates have been developed, approved, and distributed, uptake of these vaccines can be hindered by vaccine hesitancy. A systematic review on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate found varying rates among the public and health care professionals in different countries [6]. The updated review also found variation of acceptance rates in different regions, with the Middle East/North Africa, Europe and central Asia, and Western/Central Africa having more COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy [7]. Common reasons cited for vaccine hesitancies are concerns with the safety or effectiveness of the vaccines [8-13].

On the other hand, a study using large-scale retrospective data around the world found that confidence in the importance of vaccines promoted vaccine uptake acceptance, whereas those in minority religious groups were more likely to be hesitant [14]. An individual’s political affiliation is also among the contributing factors to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy [15, 16]. Clearly, there is a need to consider the human factor to ensure widespread acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines [5]. Recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) centered around the need to improve knowledge regarding vaccine safety and long-term effectiveness, ensure accessibility, and employing targeted interventions to address the concerns of specific populations [17].

To better understand the factors that posed as barriers or facilitated acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in the general public adult population, we conducted a scoping review using the social ecological framework to segment the level of influences: Intrapersonal factors, interpersonal processes, institutional factors, community factors, and public policy [18, 19]. As vaccine hesitancy is a complex issue that entails much more than one’s attitude or behaviour [20, 21], using the social ecological model could enhance understanding of external factors such as access to the vaccines that involve wider system-related factors. The identified factors would also be organized into barriers and facilitators to clarify if their influences on the acceptance or hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination are mutually exclusive or are more complexly intertwined.

While there have been other scoping reviews conducted on the determinants to vaccine acceptance or hesitancy [11–13, 22], our review focused on studies conducted on the general adult population that took place after the release of major COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial results to account for possible shifting reasons for vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. This review contributes by taking time sensitivity of the evolving barriers and facilitators into consideration [23].

Methods

We adopted the five-stage methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley [24] with advancements to the framework proposed by Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien [25] to guide this scoping review. In order to capture a variety of study types, the scoping review methodology was used. Quality assessments on the studies were not performed to allow for inclusion of more studies, as our purpose was to scope factors that could pose as barriers or facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance [24].

The research question

The research question was refined through reviewing the literature on acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines: What are the barriers and facilitators that affect the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines among adults in the general public?

Identifying relevant studies

The authors developed a search strategy with a medical librarian guided by the following key terms: COVID-19 or nCoV* or 2019nCoV or 19nCoV or COVID19* or COVID or SARS-COV-2 or SARSCOV-2 or SARSCOV2 or “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2” or “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2” [26] and Vaccination Refusal or Anti-Vaccination Movement or Mass Vaccination or Vaccination Coverage (hesitancy or acceptance or preference or rejection or anti-vaccination or attitude or barrier or facilitator or intention). The search strategy was adapted for PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL and conducted on April 14, 2021. S1 Table shows the full search strategy in the respective databases. Reference lists of review papers found were also searched.

Study selection

Selection criteria was based on the PICo (Population, Phenomenon of interest and Context) framework [27]. Table 1 presents details of the criteria. Time frame on the data collection (study) period rather than publication date was imposed for two reasons. Firstly, a recent scoping review reported on attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination using the social-ecological model had included studies conducted before September 2020 [22]. Secondly, as people might change their minds with new information, we wanted to capture factors and perspectives that were more aligned with the actual COVID-19 vaccine situation after publication of the Pfizer and Moderna phase I/II trials data in the summer of 2020.

Table 1

Selection criteria.

	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Population	• General Population• Adults (15 and above)	• Population <15yrs old• Specific segments of population (e.g., patients with certain diagnoses, health care professionals, specific professions)
Phenomenon of Interest	• Identified factors or barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance/hesitancy• Identified factors or facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance/hesitancy	• No factors identified or described on acceptance or hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines.
Context	• Regarding COVID-19 vaccines	• Regarding other vaccines/ outside of the COVID-19 pandemic context (e.g., influenza vaccine)
Time frame	• Data collection period from September 2020 onwards• Data collection that started before September but continued in September 2020 and beyond	• Data collection that started and completed before September 2020
Filter: Study & publication types	• Primary studies (All types including preprints of non-randomized interventions and RCTs)• Publication in English	• Review papers• Position statements• Comments, Editorial, Opinions• Grey literature

The title/abstract screening were conducted by three reviewers (BT, PL, JG) independently, with one main reviewer (BT) going through all titles and abstracts, while PL and JG shared the task as second reviewers. Any disagreements between two reviewers were discussed and resolved by the third reviewer (BT, PL, JG). During the full text review, each full text was again screened by two reviewers (combination of BT/PL, BT/JG, PL/JG) and disagreements were resolved by the third. As reported by Levac and colleagues [25], the screening process was iterative in order to refine the inclusion criteria. To calibrate our understanding during the screening process, disagreements were reviewed on a regular basis.

Charting the data

The data extraction form was developed and pilot-tested before the start of the extraction phase. The extraction fields included publication details, study design and population, rates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance/hesitancy, and reported factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. Similar to studies that examined such factors using barriers and facilitators [28, 29], we defined factors associated with acceptance as facilitators and factors that deterred acceptance of the vaccination as barriers. These factors were then categorized using the social ecological framework [19] into intrapersonal factors, interpersonal processes, institutional/organizational factors, community factors, and public policy.

Intrapersonal factors include one’s knowledge, attitudes, behavior, self-concepts, and skills, whereas interpersonal factors are the influences from formal and informal social networks [19]. Institutional factors describe “social institutions and organization characteristics, and formal (and informal) rules and regulations for operations” [19] that impact people’s acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination. Community factors refer to relationships among organizations and groups with boundaries defined by geographical and political terms, whereas public policy refers to policies or programs that promote or deter certain behaviors [19]. To better conceptualize each level in the social ecological model, sub-categories defined in other vaccine studies using the framework were adapted to guide allocation of the extracted factors [30, 31]. To ensure objectivity, data from each included article was extracted by one reviewer independently (BT, JG, or PL) and 20% of the extracted data were cross-checked by a second reviewer (BT, JG, or PL). The screening and data extraction were conducted in Covidence systematic review software [32]. S3 and S4 Tables show the data extracted and the excluded full text with reasons respectively.

Collation, summarizing, and reporting the results

The results were collated and summarized descriptively by the three reviewers (BT, JG, PL). The factors and themes (when necessary) identified were classified under barriers or facilitators in the social ecological framework. These were shared and discussed with the remaining research team before finalization. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review (PRISMAScR) was used to report this scoping review (see S5 Table) [33].

Results

A total of 1066 unique citations were found using our search strategy. After the title/abstract screening, 233 citations were included for full text screening, of which 51 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria for synthesis. Most of these articles were published in 2021(n = 46, 90%), whereas the rest were published in 2020. Fig 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram of the screening process for the review [34].

Fig 1

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flow diagram of study selection process.

Study characteristics

A Majority of the studies were cross-sectional studies (n = 32, 63%), with data collected via surveys (n = 45, 88%). Most of the studies had sample sizes over 1000 (n = 32, 63%) and included participants from Europe (n = 15, 29%), North America (n = 15, 29%), Asia (n = 9, 18%), and the Middle East (n = 5, 10%). In addition, a majority of the studies included adults from 18 years and above, while 6 studies included participants from 15–16 years [35-40]. One study was conducted solely on older adults [41]. Nineteen studies reported the mean age of their overall study participants, which were mostly in the 40s. Table 2 shows study characteristics (S2 Table provides study characteristics details).

Table 2

Study characteristics.

Study Characteristics	Category	Numbers of studies n (%)
Study design	Cross-sectional	32 (63)
	Experiment (e.g. RCT)	5 (10)
	Longitudinal/Cohort	5 (10)
	Qualitative	1 (2)
	Others (e.g.social media analysis, multi-methods, discrete choice experiment)	8 (16)
Data collection method	Survey (online, phone)	45 (88)
	Interview (phone)	1 (2)
	Focus Group	1 (2)
	Use of public data (social media)	4 (8)
Sample size	<1000	11 (21)
	1000–4999	21 (41)
	5000–10000	5 (10)
	>10000	6 (12)
	Multiple samples*	4 (8)
	Unknown**	4 (8)
Study region	Europe (Italy, Spain, UK, Portugal, Germany, Greece, Slovenia)	15 (29)
	North America (USA, Canada)	15 (29)
	Asia (China, India, Japan, Hong Kong)	9 (18)
	Middle East (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Kuwait)	5 (10)
	Others (Brazil, Congo, Russia)	3 (6)
	Multi-countries	4 (8)

*Studies with more than one sample due to >1 time-point measurements or >1 study embedded

**Social media data without population sample size

Acceptance/Hesitancy rate

Thirty-seven of the 51 studies reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and/or hesitancy rates. Most of these studies assessed one’s willingness or intentions to take the COVID-19 vaccines when available, using Likert-type scales, instead of validated scales such as the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) Scale [42, 43]. One study measured trust in the vaccines [44]. For the purpose of our study, the hesitancy rates included those who: (a) reported unwillingness to accept the vaccination, (b) were strongly hesitant, or (c) reported being very unlikely to accept COVID-19 vaccination.

Global acceptance rates ranged from 13.1–91%, and hesitancy rates ranged from 7–86.6%. Studies from Spain (77.6%), Germany (78.2%), China (81.3–88.6%), and India (83.6%) reported acceptance rates over 70%. Some studies in Italy [45], UK [35, 40, 46], and USA [47] also reported acceptance rates over 70%. On the other hand, studies from Hong Kong [48] and several middle Eastern countries [36] reported acceptance rates of below 30%. Acceptance and/or hesitancy rates could not be determined in 13 studies, as they were experimental studies or social media studies that measured positive and negative sentiments towards the vaccines, or were studies that presented only stratified results (e.g., gender, ethnic). Table 3 summarizes the acceptance and hesitancy rates by country.

Table 3

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy rates by country.

Country (n)	Acceptance Rate (%)	Hesitancy Rate (%)
Italy (3)*	53.7–91	46.2–59.1
Spain (1)	77.6	22.4
Portugal (1)	35.3	65
Slovenia (1)	59	NA
Germany (1)	78.2 (including those already vaccinated)	21.8
UK (6)*	54–82	7–46
USA, UK (1)**	48.6(UK)39.8(US)	42.4 (UK)42.7 (US)
USA (7)*	39.4–81.5	18.5–60.6
China (2)*	81.3–88.6	11.4–18.7
Japan (2)*	62.1–65.7	34.3–37.9
Hong Kong (1)	13.1 (Soonest)	86.6
India (1)	83.6	16.4
Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, others (1)	Overall:29.4 Jordan-28.4, Kuwait-23.6, Saudi Arabia-31.8, Others-41.5	Jordan-71.6, Kuwait-76.4, Saudi Arabia-68.2, Others-58.5
Jordan (1)	36.8	63.2
Saudi Arabia (1)	48.4 (If free)	51.6
Qatar (1)	60.5	39.5
Kuwait (1)	53.1	46.9
Brazil (1)	88	12
Russia (1)	41.763.2 (if proven safe and effective)	NA
Congo (1)	55.9	N/A
Malta and International (1)	51	48.2

*Countries with more than 1 study display only the range of the proportions of acceptance and hesitancy

(if available), the figures are not meant to add up.

**Results of acceptance following RCT on exposure to misinformation

Barriers and facilitators using social ecological framework

Socio-demographic determinants

In general, most studies found that lower age, being female, having lower than college education, having a lower income level, and having or living with school age children were commonly cited determinants of vaccine hesitancy and rejection. A minority of the studies found opposite trends. For example, two studies found that males were more hesitant than females [49, 50], whereas one study found that higher education was a barrier [48] and another where having the least education was a facilitator [51]. With regards to age, a positive trend of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among older adults above 60 to 70 were reported in several studies [9, 10, 38, 48, 52–54]. However, one study conducted in Qatar found that being older than 65 was a significant factor in vaccine hesitancy, compared to the younger participants surveyed [43]. Interestingly, a discrete choice experiment study found that those aged 55 and above were significantly more likely to reject a vaccine with 50% protection, while being significantly more likely to accept a vaccine with 90% protection, when compared to the younger participants [40].

In addition, a few studies that identified ethnic minority as a determinant of vaccine hesitancy were conducted in the UK and USA [10, 35, 46, 47, 52, 55–57]. Although few studies measured political leanings, their results were consistent, where those identifying with conservative ideology tended to be more hesitant [44, 58], compared to those identifying with liberal/democratic political ideology [44, 52, 58, 59]. Having comorbidities could either be a barrier, when one has compromised immunity or conditions in which the vaccine was not recommended [44, 60], or a facilitator [10, 36, 41, 48–50, 53, 54, 61, 62] where one identifies as being vulnerable to the severe effects of COVID-19. Likewise, perceived fair or good health could be a barrier [9, 52] or perceived reasonable health as a facilitator [61] to one’s willingness to be vaccinated. Current smokers [65, 72], and those who have psychological distress, were less likely to accept the vaccine [56]. Table 4 shows a full list of the social demographic factors identified.

Table 4

Socio-demographic factors.

Factors	Associated with hesitancy	Associated with acceptance
Age	Younger age [9, 35, 42, 46, 48–50, 53–57, 63, 64].	Younger age [47, 65].Higher age (but not above 60) [10, 29, 37, 39, 50, 51, 61].
	Age 55+(when vaccine offers 50% protection) [40].Age 55–64 [65].Age 65 and above [43].	Age 55+ (when vaccine offers 90% protection [40].Age 60 and above [38, 52].Age 65 and above [9, 10, 48, 53, 54].
Gender	Being female [9, 10, 35, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 53, 55–57, 61, 63, 66].	Being female [45, 50].
	Being male [49, 50].	Being male [9, 36–38, 44, 48, 51–54, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67–69].
Race	Ethnic minority [35, 47, 56].Black and mixed ethnicities [46].Non-Hispanic Black (Black) [55]. African American [52].Black [10, 35].Non-white [57].Non-Hispanic White [49].Older female Arabs [63].	Other race (not White/Hispanic/Black) [10].Non-Hispanic Black [44].Non-Black [59].Asians [51].
Education	Lower education(lower than a degree) [10, 42, 46, 47, 49, 53, 55, 56, 61, 63].	Those with the least education [51].
	Higher education [48].Diploma degree [66].	Higher education (at least a degree) [35, 36, 49, 50–53, 57, 61, 62].
Income	Low Income [42, 46, 53, 55, 64].Lost income during pandemic [61].	Middle to High income [10, 52, 53, 57, 62, 69].Low income [67].
Socio-economic status	NA	Higher socio-economic status [29].
Home owner	Not a home owner [46].	Home owner [46].
Religion	Religious reasons (not specified) [50, 54].	Jewish [63].Jewish, Muslims, atheist, and others [70].Catholic, Protestant, Adventist, Pentecostal, Revival [62].
Political Leanings	Conservative [44, 58].	Liberal/Democratic political Ideology [44, 52, 58, 59].
Occupation	Workers [61].Not employed full time, not retired, a change in working [46].Health care workers [62].Non-medical staff, students [50]. Retiree [65].Key workers [42].First responders, construction, maintenance and landscape, homemakers, housekeeping, cleaning and janitorial, retail and food service workers [51].	Working full-time [46].Working in close contact with public [9].Studying/working in healthcare [37, 50, 51, 60, 65, 66].Essential worker [49].Office/professional/technical workers/educators [39, 51].Unemployed [51, 70].Retired [46, 48, 51, 61].Housewives [48].Students [51, 61, 66].
Marital Status	Single/not married [48, 53].Married [46, 66].	Single/Widowed/Divorced/not married [41, 46, 66].Married [53].
Residency status	Being a native [43].	Being a Foreigner [65].
living area	Living in non-metropolitan areas [55]. Central areas [54].	Living in metropolitan [52].Living in rural areas [54].
	Regions in a country [50, 62, 65].	Regions in a country [50, 62, 65, 69].
Have Children	have school age children/children below 18/living with children [42, 47, 48, 61, 66].	Not having a child at school [46].
Functioning	Lower cognitive scores [56].	Having a disability [51].
Comorbidity/chronic illness	Less likely to have chronic disease/at high risks for COVID-19 [49, 52, 53, 55, 56].Have chronic conditions/compromised immune that the vaccine was not recommended [44, 60].	With chronic condition, comorbidities [10, 36, 41, 48–50, 53, 54, 61, 62].
Health/Mental Health status	Perceived fair or good health [9, 52].Have psychological distress [56]Having fear [9].	Perceived health status as reasonable compared to good or very good [61].To achieve peace of mind [71].Lower self-rated overall health [65].Under/over-weight [65].Does not consume vitamin C [66].
Relating to COVID-19	Already had COVID-19 and hence immunity [9, 60].	Previous or current infection [69].
Smoker	Current Smoker [65, 72].	Former smoker [65].

Intrapersonal factors

As there were many identified factors in this category, they were further categorized into broader themes, namely: Individual characteristics and preferences, concerns with COVID-19 vaccines, history/experience of vaccination, and knowledge/perception of COVID-19 and health-related information. Fig 2 summarizes factors/themes identified in the social ecological framework.

Fig 2

Summary of factors/themes in the social ecological framework.

Individual characteristics and preferences. Those who have had COVID-19 infections and believed that they have acquired immunity [55, 60], and those who preferred to acquire immunity naturally, were less likely to accept the vaccination [37, 38, 42–44, 50, 65, 72]. Those who experienced negative emotions (felt agitated, sad, or anxious) or adhered less with health measures and guidelines, such as wearing a mask and safe distancing, or not having been quarantined, were also less likely to accept the vaccine [42, 46, 49, 61]. Having a strong perception of one’s autonomy [71] and not believing that being vaccinated was one’s civic duty as a citizen [47] were barriers to accepting the vaccines as well. On the other hand, the belief that getting vaccinated protected others or was one’s social responsibility was associated with acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccination [29, 35, 47, 50–53, 70, 73, 74]. The desire to return to normalcy also facilitated acceptance of the vaccines [35, 54, 74, 75]. Lastly, one study conducted in Saudi Arabia found that those believing in mandatory vaccinations were more likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccination [69].

Concerns with COVID-19 vaccines. Our findings identified that major barriers to acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines were doubts or mistrusts on their effectiveness and benefits [9, 29, 38, 42–44, 50, 51, 54, 55, 60, 62, 65, 66, 72, 74, 76, 77], including not having enough information or evidence [38, 65, 66, 74]. Perceived risk of the vaccines from their potential side effects or unforeseen longer-term effects were also identified as barriers in many studies [9, 10, 29, 35, 38, 42, 48–50, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 65, 72, 73, 76–78]. Other perceived barriers included concerns over the following: Requiring more than one dose or booster doses, convenience (e.g., timing of vaccination appointment), not being able to receive proof of vaccination, or the need to submit personal information etc. [29, 40, 49, 52, 78]. Conversely, perceiving higher benefits than risks, such as high vaccine efficacy, facilitated acceptance of the vaccines [29, 35, 38, 41, 48, 50, 52–54, 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, 78]. Accessibility influences acceptance/hesitancy as well, with studies suggesting that ease of access relates to higher acceptance [51, 53, 59, 68].

History/experience of vaccination. Those who had a history of rejecting vaccines, including flu vaccines and those who mistrusted vaccines in general, were less likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccines [9, 35, 38, 42, 44, 50, 54, 55, 60, 61, 66, 69, 72, 76, 78], whilst those who had a history of being vaccinated were more likely to accept them [9, 37, 38, 43, 48, 52, 59, 61, 65, 69, 73, 74]. Factors such as having had adverse reactions or bad experiences with previous vaccinations [9, 37, 38, 74], and being fearful of needles or injection [38, 50, 54, 55], contributed to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Knowledge/perception on COVID-19 and health-related information. Those who perceived a high risk of contracting COVID-19, and/or possible severe consequences from COVID-19, were more likely to accept the vaccination [41, 44, 46, 47, 51, 52, 54, 59, 61, 65, 66, 68, 69, 73, 78], whereas those who perceived a low or non-existing risk of infection, or believed that they were less likely to develop complications, were less likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccination [52, 54, 55, 57, 61, 65, 77]. The latter group included those who believed that the COVID-19 symptoms were mild or had been exaggerated. In addition, belief in conspiracy theories (e.g., COVID-19 is hoax, vaccines are used to control or kill people) was also found to be a barrier to COVID-19 vaccination acceptance [36, 37, 46, 57, 60, 62, 66]. Table 5 shows full list of the intrapersonal factors.

Table 5

Intrapersonal factors.

Themes	Factors	Barriers	Facilitator
Individual Characteristics/Preferences	Naturalness bias	Naturalness bias/prefers natural immune [37, 38, 42–44, 50, 65, 72].Already been immune as a result of being infected [55, 60].	Lower naturalness bias [59, 65, 67].Disagree that one does not have to vaccinate because of natural immunity [45].
	Perception of vaccination as a social responsibility or civic duty	Disagree that being vaccinated-civic duty [47].	Believe getting vaccinated is social responsibility/protect others/good prevention [29, 35, 47, 50–53, 70, 73, 74].
	Willing to take risk	Not willing to be among the first to take the vaccine [38]	Willing to take risk [68].
	Acquiring resources mindset	N.A.	Acquiring resources mindset [68].
	Preventive behaviours	Negative emotions towards/less adherence to health measures or guidelines [42, 46, 61].	Engage in preventive behavior [52, 66].
		Have not been quarantined [49].	Have been tested for COVID-19 [62].
		Other preventive measures were enough [54, 55].	No longer need preventive measures after vaccination [54].
	Autonomy Vs Discussion/Mandatory vaccination	Stronger Perception of autonomy [71].	Likely to discuss COVID-19 with healthcare provider [52].Support mandatory vaccination [69].
	Willing for others around them to be vaccinated	N.A.	Willing for others around them to be vaccinated [38].
		NA	Desire to return to normalcy (e.g. travel) [35, 54, 74, 75].
Concerns with COVID-19 vaccines	Perceived accessibility of vaccines	Perceived barriers (e.g. year booster shots, need to submit personal inform to get vaccination, vaccination convenience, vaccine availability) [29, 40, 52, 78].Not providing proof of vaccination [49].	Able to easily access vaccine [51, 53, 68].Perceived capacity to get to vaccination site [71].
	Perceived benefits of vaccination	Doubt/mistrust on vaccines-effectiveness/ risk-benefits/not reliable due to being new/wait and see [9, 29, 38, 42–44, 50, 51, 54, 55, 60, 62, 65, 66, 72, 74, 76, 77].Lack of vaccine information/want more evidence [38, 65, 66, 74].	Perceived benefits of vaccination [29, 35, 38, 41, 48, 50, 52–54, 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, 78].Sufficient data is available about the vaccine [29].
		Lower than 50% efficacy [40].	Having high vaccine efficacy of at least 71% or 90% [40, 48, 78].
	Perceived risk of vaccination	Concerns with side effects/serious adverse reactions/ unforeseen future effects/long term impact on health [9, 10, 29, 35, 38, 41, 42, 48, 50, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 65, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78].	Low perceived risk of vaccination [29, 45, 51–53, 58, 65, 67].
		Vaccine could give me COVID [44, 55, 74, 79].	NA
	Type of Vaccine	NA	Inactivated vaccines [80]. Innovative technology used in developing vaccine [47].Open to novel vaccine [50].
History/experience of vaccination	History of vaccination	Not vaccinated against flu /anti vax attitude/mistrust in vaccines/history of rejecting vaccines [9, 35, 38, 42, 44, 50, 54, 55, 60, 61, 66, 69, 72, 76, 78].Previous vaccine adverse reaction/bad experiences [9, 37, 38, 74].	Previous vaccination [9, 37, 38, 43, 48, 52, 59, 61, 65, 69, 73, 74].Positive general attitude to vaccines [57].
		Fear of needles and injections [38, 50, 54, 55].	NA
Knowledge/perception on COVID-19 and health-related information	Perceived risk of COVID-19	Perceiving a low/ non-existing risk of infection/ developing complications/effects are mild, exaggerated [52, 54, 55, 57, 61, 65, 77].Perceived high risk of infection [48].	Perceived moderate to high risk of COVID-19 infection/severity of infection [41, 44, 46, 47, 51, 52, 54, 59, 61, 65, 66, 68, 69, 73, 78].Believe COVID-19 exists [62].
	Ability to understand information	Deficit in medical and epidemiologic literacy [76].	Able to understand COVID-19 relevant information [61, 43].
	Lack of knowledge/uninformed	Poor knowledge on COVID-19 [9, 42].	N.A.
	Facts Vs fake news	Exposure to misinformation [70].	Exposure to facts [70].
	Conspiracy theory	Believe in conspiracy theory (e.g. COVID-19 is hoax, vaccines used to control or kill people) [36, 37, 46, 57, 60, 62, 66].	N.A.

Interpersonal factors

Influence from those who were vaccinated, influence from those infected with COVID-19, and normative influences from family and friends were three factors found that impact one’s perception and attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. Knowing someone with a serious vaccine reaction [52] or not knowing anyone close who was affected by COVID-19 [64] were barriers to one’s acceptance, whilst knowing someone who was infected [66], or knowing people who had been or intended to get vaccinated [29, 48, 54], facilitated acceptance. In addition, trusting information or valuing opinions of family, friends, and acquaintances could either be a barrier [37] or a facilitator [38, 71], depending on their own views on hesitancy or acceptance. For example, one study found that the opinion of family and friends was significantly correlated with participants’ willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine [38].

Institutional/Organizational factors

Four institutional/organizational factors were found to influence one’s acceptance of the vaccine: (a) Trust/confidence in governments/authorities, (b) trust/confidence in science, and/or healthcare/healthcare personnel, (c) development of COVID-19 vaccines, and (d) impact of social media vs. legacy media (e.g., newspapers, radio, television). Studies that measured social media responses were included in this category.

Low trust or mistrust toward the government and health authorities, such as WHO and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), could pose as a barrier to one’s acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination [37, 40, 43, 44, 47, 52, 55, 61, 63, 66, 74], whereas high trust and confidence in the government and health authorities promoted acceptance of the vaccines [10, 37, 44, 48, 52]. Similarly, low trust or mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare providers would make one less likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccines [44, 46, 47, 52, 61, 66, 76, 77], including those who were concerned with profiteering by the pharmaceutical companies [29, 42, 72]. A lack of recommendation by a doctor has been cited as a reason for not intending to take the COVID-19 vaccine [55], whereas having a recommendation from a doctor influenced vaccine acceptance [67, 78].

In addition, the speedy development of the vaccines [29, 55, 60, 76, 77], the manufacturing country [48, 77, 81], and the perceived lack of information or clear data (e.g., inconsistent/ contradictory/delays and trial pauses) contributed to people’s hesitancy [9, 60, 61, 79]. While trusting alternative sources of information, and exposure to coverage on WhatsApp, blogs, and social media were more likely to increase one’s hesitancy toward the vaccines [37, 40, 57], one study found that frequent exposure to positive social media messages facilitated one’s acceptance [48]. As expected, those who trusted official sources of information and legacy media were less likely to be hesitant toward the vaccines [37, 44, 57, 75, 79]. A point to note is that those who thought that the media over-reported on the side effects of the vaccines facilitated their acceptance of the vaccines [41].

Community factor and public policy

Low magnitude of community spread (e.g., number of confirmed or suspected cases in the county) could pose as a barrier to vaccine acceptance [78]. In addition, rate of community vaccination could either result in low perceived risk, which would be a barrier [50] or a facilitator, if that nudged one into getting vaccinated [67]. Meanwhile, the choice of the vaccination venue could either be a barrier [40, 49] or a facilitator [40] to one’s willingness to be vaccinated, depending on if their preferences were met. Cost of the vaccine [39, 78] or associated cost with the vaccines [55] could also be a barrier to some, especially for those without health insurance [55].

The effects of politics have spilled over to influence people on their hesitancy or acceptance of the vaccines. Those who believed that political pressure had influenced the development speed of the vaccine were more likely to be hesitant toward accepting the vaccines, and depending on endorsement of one’s political/public figure of choice, this could either be a barrier [58, 66, 76, 79, 81, 82] or facilitator [58, 82] to accepting COVID-19 vaccination. Table 6 presents a full list of other factors (interpersonal, institutional, community, public policy).

Table 6

Other factors (interpersonal, institutional, community, public policy).

Interpersonal
Factors	Barriers	Facilitators
Influence from those who were vaccinated	Knowing someone with a serious vaccine reaction [52].	People around me (including role models) have been vaccinated or intend to get vaccinated [29, 48, 54].
Influence from those infected with COVID-19	Not having anyone close who had been affected by COVID-19 [64].	Knowing someone infected with COVID-19 [66].
Normative influences: Families and friends	Trusting information from friends and acquaintances (non-Healthcare profession) [37].	Valuing opinions of family/friends or those in this group who share the same views/beliefs [38, 71].
	N.A.	Descriptive norms (i.e. believing people similar or important to you would get COVID-19 vaccine)/ Social norms on COVID-19 prevention [44, 73].
	NA	Frequency of socializing prior to the pandemic [63].
Institutional Factors
Factors	Barriers	Facilitators
Trust/ confidence in governments/authorities	Mistrust/low trust/dissatisfactions towards government/authority or their handling of the pandemic situation [37, 40, 43, 44, 52, 55, 61, 63, 66, 74].	High trust/confidence/satisfactions towards government and authorities (e.g. WHO, CDC) [10, 37, 44, 48, 52].
Trust/Confidence in science and healthcare	Mistrust/low trust /concerns towards pharmaceutical industry, healthcare providers, science [44, 46, 47, 52, 61, 66, 76, 77].Concerns with profiteering by pharmaceutical companies [29, 42, 72].	Having high confidence and trust in the healthcare system (effectiveness and positive experiences) [37, 38, 44, 46, 47, 57, 61, 67].
	No recommendations from doctors/health authorities [50, 55].	Recommended by trusted doctors [67, 78].
Development of COVID-19 Vaccines	Development speed was rushed [29, 55, 60, 76, 77].	N.A.
	Manufacturer/Country [48, 77, 81].	Manufacturer and type [48, 80].
	Lack of information or clear data (e.g. inconsistent/ contradictory/delays and trial pauses) that concerned people [9, 60, 61, 79].	If vaccine is demonstrated/proven to be safe [35, 67, 79].
Impact of social media Vs legacy media	Coverage on WhatsApp, blogs and social media; Trust alternative sources of information [37, 40, 57].	Frequency of exposure to positive social media messages [48].
	N.A.	Trust in official sources of information, legacy media (e.g. TV, radio, newspapers, magazines) [37, 44, 57, 75, 79].Thinks media over report vaccine side effects [41].
Community and Public Policy
Factors	Barriers	Facilitators
Magnitude of community spread	Number of confirmed or suspected cases in the community [78].	N.A.
Rate of community vaccination	Perceived low risk to self when others had been vaccinated [50].	Acknowledged that vaccines were taken by many of the population [67].
Choice of vaccination venue	Mobile vaccination unit [40].	Local GPs [40].
	Expectations of vaccination venue not met [49].	N.A.
Cost of vaccine	High cost/Price [48, 78].Concerned with cost associated with vaccines [55].	If vaccines were free [47, 48].
	Those without health insurance [55].
Effects of politics	Political context of the vaccine approval; political skepticism, endorsement by political figures [58, 66, 76, 79, 81, 82].	Endorsement by public/political figure [58, 82].

Discussion

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake are important factors that could help curb the spread and severity of the disease. Our review distils the factors reported around the world into various levels in the social ecological model revealing the environmental influencing factors at play [19, 83], upon which targeted interventions or policies could be considered. By organizing the factors into barriers and facilitators, the comparison highlighted that the same factor could either promote or deter vaccine acceptance.

In consensus with other reviews, demographic factors such as being female, being younger, having lower education, or having a low income contributed to COVID 19 vaccine hesitancy [11–13, 22, 84]. Similar to the findings by Al-Jayyousi et al [22], our results show that most factors identified are related to intrapersonal level on one’s knowledge, attitudes, behavior, self-concepts, and skills. These factors are a culmination of one’s experiences and interactions with the environment, which would be difficult to influence quickly. For example, pre-existing factors that impact vaccine acceptance or hesitancy include history and perception of general vaccinations, knowledge of COVID-19 and health-related information, belief in conspiracy theories, as well as personal characteristics and preferences [22].

A major intrapersonal factor that is unique to COVID-19 vaccines is the concern regarding their effectiveness and potential side effects, including their long-term safety, which were also identified in other reviews [11, 12, 22, 76]. These are valid concerns given the accelerated rate of the COVID-19 vaccine development and the lack of long-term safety data [85, 86]. Although many benefitted, and are still benefitting from this unprecedented speed in the history of vaccine development, others cited it as a concern that led to their hesitancy [29, 55, 60, 76, 77]. A recent multi-country survey that tested acceptance of four hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines with varying efficacy and safety profiles found that higher efficacy and lower risks increased the acceptance level among study participants [87]. An interesting point to note from this study was that those believing that new vaccines are riskier than older vaccines were less likely to accept any of the new hypothetical vaccines [87].

Besides intrapersonal factors, common factors found in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance or hesitancy can be broadly summarized into trust in authorities (government/health care including pharmaceutical) and trust in legacy media versus social media [11, 12, 22, 76]. In our review, such factors were categorised under institutional factors. Citing concerns on effectiveness and safety of a vaccine imply some level of doubt in the authorities [88]. Trust and confidence in any authorities stem from historic and existing systems that could not be addressed instantly but would affect people’s attitude towards the current recommended vaccines [21, 88, 89]. Understanding weaknesses in the system and investing in better healthcare structure would be longer-range goals that could ultimately address people’s trust issues [21]. For more immediate results, communicating consistent information on efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines could impact people’s acceptance of the vaccines [87], which might help combat misinformation in the media and social media.

While influence from family and friends was briefly mentioned in the other reviews, our findings suggested that interpersonal level of influence could play a substantial role in swaying one toward or away from acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines. One would be more hesitant if they knew someone who had a serious adverse reaction from the vaccine [52] or did not know someone close that was affected by the disease [64], whereas knowing people who were vaccinated, especially one’s role model [29, 48, 54], or knowing someone infected with COVID-19 [66], would facilitate vaccine acceptance. However, it could also be the case that individuals tend to socialise with others like them (i.e., someone pro-vaccination would likely socialise with other pro-vaccination individuals). Two studies found that valuing opinions of family or friends who share the same views/beliefs facilitated COVID-19 vaccine acceptance [38, 71]. Hence, the exact nature of the role played by family and friends in vaccination decisions should be explored further in future research so that policies or programs that target those who are hesitant could consider extending beyond that individual.

As demonstrated in the above example, our findings highlighted that even though some factors seemed to present a clearer direction for intervention or policy, others were more context-dependent and not clearly a barrier or facilitator. For instance, having comorbidities or belonging to a high-risk group could be a positive factor that motivates people to be vaccinated [10, 36, 41, 48–50, 53, 54, 61, 62]. Conversely, the same factor presented as a barrier for others who were likely concerned with how the vaccine would impact their medical conditions or health [44, 60]. However, this could be due to an earlier advisory which cautioned against vaccination for those with certain medical conditions, which has since changed [90, 91]. Perceived good health could also pose either as a barrier [9, 52] or a facilitator [61] to one’s willingness to be vaccinated. In short, having contextual information on the target population will be crucial to understand factors that pose as barriers and facilitators.

Implications

Although organizing the factors by respective levels of influence in the social ecological framework provided some distinctions that could inform areas for potential interventions or policies, they are still very much intertwined and pose more questions, such as the exact nature of the role played by family and friends in vaccination decisions. Further research on this relationship might make identifying effective strategies to overcome barriers easier.

Consequently, the need to understand the context, especially of the barriers, should be emphasized, since the same factor could be a facilitator to some while a barrier to others. Structural barriers [92] such as the community and public policy factors affect access and could impact people’s acceptance to be vaccinated. Attitudinal barriers [92] such as the factors identified in the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional/organizational levels played a major role in influencing one’s acceptance or hesitancy but are more complex to address. Some of these attitudinal barriers could stem from institutional or policy level gaps that would only be known if time and effort were taken to understand them [21]. This could be achieved through engaging targeted sub-groups, groups, or communities through partnership [92], such as through dialogues.

In addition, COVID-19 is the first pandemic in the 21st century with unprecedented world-wide aftermath, as well as having on-going impacts on population health and economics [93]. As parts of the world are beginning to recover from the aftermath of the initial COVID-19 infection, COVID-19 has been shown to be a moving target that would continue to influence people’s views and acceptance of the vaccines. With scientists warning of more of such infectious diseases in the future [94, 95], it might be important to study the current dynamic response of people’s acceptance and hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines during different periods of the pandemic. For example, the findings from this review provide some insights into the general population’s views on accepting a newly developed vaccine after results of the trials confirmed they were effective and safe. Insights gathered could serve as a guide to future response plans for new infectious disease outbreaks (e.g., by pre-emptively addressing concerns before commencing a nationwide vaccination effort).

Lastly, COVID-19 vaccine rollout prioritized those most at risk, such as healthcare workers and older adults; the latter are the most vulnerable to severe infection and death. As people’s needs and situations are heterogeneous, a customized approach to different segments of the population has proven to be both pragmatic and essential. Seeking to understand which factors pose as barriers or facilitators, and for which populations, could help inform context-relevant policies or programs.

Limitations

Our findings have several limitations. It is possible that some studies have been missed by our search strategy, due to adopting a more general search strategy. Summarizing the heterogeneous studies was challenging, especially on what vaccine hesitancy entails, which was not explored in depth due to the complexity of the ongoing discussion surrounding the term vaccine hesitancy; thus, we determined it to be beyond the scope of our study. For instance, most studies developed their own surveys to measure vaccine acceptance or hesitancy and the lack of methodological equivalence could cause differences in findings. In addition, we have several inherent limitations when using the social-ecological framework, as classifying factors into the five categories were subjective. Although we minimised the subjectivity through defining sub-categories of each factor in the framework a priori, and performed cross checks to calibrate our understanding and agreement, we acknowledge that subjectivity may not have been completely eliminated.

While there are limitations in using barriers and facilitators, due to the overlapping of factors (as well as not clearly addressing the interrelatedness of those factors) [23], the social- ecological framework has helped to frame those realms, which provided some clarity and insights. The above limitations notwithstanding, our review has identified important barriers and facilitators of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy.

Conclusion

Our review has identified barriers and facilitators of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy and organised them using the social ecological framework. These factors are context-, population-, and even sub-population-dependent, which could present either as barriers or facilitators. It also shows that factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy could stem from different levels of influence that are intertwined. Our findings present a general scope of barriers or facilitators that should be considered when developing programs or policies to promote acceptance and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines, while highlighting the need to also consider the varying contexts experienced by different population.

Databases search strategy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Study characteristics details.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Data extraction sheet.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Excluded studies from full text screening.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

4 Apr 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Abstract and Introduction: Please define the COVID-19 first.

2. Method: Please be consistent in this part: "COVID-19 or nCoV* or 2019nCoV or 19nCoV or COVID19* or COVID or SARS-COV-2 or SARSCOV-2 or SARSCOV2 or "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2" [20] or "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2" and Vaccination Refusal/ or Anti-Vaccination Movement/ or Mass Vaccination/ or Vaccination Coverage/ (hesitan* or acceptance or preference or rejection or anti-vaccin* or attitude? or barrier? or facilitator? or intent*)."

3. Discussion: Please include the finding of these references briefly and cite: https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v1i3.55 AND https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v1i3.57

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks a lot for the opportunity to review this interesting and timely manuscript

In the current scoping review, the authors aimed to identify the factors affecting COVID19 vaccine hesitancy, using the social ecological model. This model has wide applications including those in the field of public health and is considered as a suitable framework for disease prevention.

Overall, the manuscript is well-written, the background can benefit from further elaboration on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy worldwide (please see comments below). The results were clear, as well as the implications of this review. The limitations were addressed clearly, and the conclusions were supported by the results.

I have the following minor points that hopefully can help the authors to improve the final manuscript:

1. Please try to rephrase the following statement in the Abstract: “Vaccine hesitancy is at its highest following the introduction of any new vaccine” since it was found the following paper with the same wording: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8030992/

2. In the Abstract please use “younger age” instead of “lower age”

3. In the Introduction, the paragraph starting with “Like most countries, one of the first segments of population targeted for COVID-19 vaccination in Singapore…” seems out of context. Please revise by providing a general overview of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy citing the following relevant references:

A. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8760993/

B. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7920465/

4. I was not able to access Supporting information (S1 – S5 Tables). Hopefully you can provide this valuable data.

5. In the results, “Majority of the studies were cross-sectional studies (n=32, 62%)” I think that 32/51 will be 63% rather than 62%. Please revise

6. In the results “Most of the studies had sample sizes of over 1000 (n=32, 63%), and included participants from Europe (n=15, 29%) and North America (n=15, 29%), followed by Asia (n=19, 18%), the Middle East (n=5, 10%)” The sum of these studies exceeds 51. Please revise

7. In Table 2, please correct the percentage of cross-sectional studies (63% instead of 62%). Actually, the majority of percentages need checking since for the same number (5) two different percentages were reported 10 vs 12%. Please revise.

8.

Reviewer #2: - Summary

o The article presents a scoping review of factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance using a social ecological framework. The topic is very timely, and the results are interesting to read and could have important implications for policy and practice if the points below are addressed.

o The term ‘hesitancy’ is used to imply barriers and acceptance to imply facilitators, but this is not how these terms are used in literature. Also, viewing these factors as either barriers or facilitators downplays the complex interplay of factors influencing vaccine decision-making, particularly in the context of ‘new’ vaccines like the COVID-19 vaccines with widespread media attention and dis- and misinformation, and so on.

o There is a lack of critical engagement with current literature. The term ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is used in this article yet prominent researchers in this space (e.g., Eve Dube, Julie Leask) are not referenced. Moreover, there is much debate in literature about the term ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and this requires a reflection in the review of how the term is used and the implications of this. The authors may wish to read these articles for example:

�  Attwell et al., 2022 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00495-8

�  Bedford et al., 2018 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28830694/

o The authors briefly note that a focus on factors for different age groups (older and younger adults); however, this is not woven in throughout the review. If this is indeed the focus of the review, then the authors are recommended to focus on older adults (and this appears appropriate given the authors’ expertise) from the outset. That being said, considering only one article from their search focused on older adults, this may not be possible.

o As much of the information presented in the review is known, there is an area of opportunity to clarify how this review advances our knowledge and implications for policy, practice and future research.

- Abstract

o Background

�  Please change “significant” to “substantial”

�  The pandemic has not only impacted healthcare systems. Please consider noting that the pandemic has had widespread social, economic and health impacts.

�  “One of the biggest obstacles to implementing successful vaccination programmes is vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is at its highest following the introduction of any new vaccine”

• This sentence really depends on how vaccine hesitancy is being used. As above, there is much debate about how this term overlooks systemic and logistical aspects that present important barriers to vaccination. Also, most literature discusses how vaccine hesitancy is influenced by concerns of vaccine safety.

o Methods

�  Please include brief details about the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

o Results

�  Please include some specific findings related to the interpersonal, institution, community and public policy levels.

o Conclusion

�  These comments can be improved to better highlight how this review advances our knowledge and implications to policy and practice.

- Introduction

o “COVID-19 has caused significant impact on the health of the world’s population, with over 356 million confirmed cases and 5.6 million deaths worldwide as of 27th January 2022 [1].”

�  Please update figures.

o “to stem the flow of infections”

�  Perhaps change to “reduce the spread”

o “safety/effectiveness”

�  Safety and effectiveness refers to two separate points, please re-consider using a hyphen in this context.

o “one of the first segments of the population”

o “Despite the current high vaccination rate,”

�  Is this referring to the national rates in Singapore? If yes, please be specific.

�  This paragraph should be expanded upon with more global literature, particularly if the focus will be on older adults.

o End of p.4 –

�  As above, this focus on older adults appears out of place unless the focus of the review will be on different age groups. However, if the review will focus on wider population groups, then referencing additional literature is warranted. It is noted that factors will differ according to context and population sub-group (e.g., parental vaccine hesitancy vs adult vaccine hesitancy).

o Considering the focus is on vaccine hesitancy, there must be more critical engagement with the literature and discussing factors already known to influence vaccine uptake. While we cannot necessarily infer that these factors will also be applicable to the COVID-19 vaccines, it is warranted to note factors that are already reported in literature regarding routine vaccines.

o “Hence, to better understand the factors that determine one’s willingness or intentions to accept the vaccines”

�  Suggest specifying that the authors are referring to COVID-19 vaccines.

�  Please clarify who “one’s willingness or intention to accept the vaccine” is referring to. For instance, is it older adults or another group or in general?

o The end of the Introduction would benefit from noting what other reviews have already been conducted in this space to support justification for conducting this review.

- Methods

o The authors have used an appropriate framework for conducting a scoping review (i.e., Arksey & O’Malley’s framework).

o The authors are encouraged to mention the purposes of doing a scoping review (as per Arksey & O’Malley) and justify why a scoping review was chosen as opposed to other review types (e.g., rapid review, systematic review).

o “with advancements proposed by…”

�  What is this specifically referring to?

o “Quality assessments were not performed to preserve the entirety of the studies found [18].”

�  What does “preserve the entirety of the studies found”? Kindly clarify.

�  As assessment for quality is an aspect that can set a scoping review apart from a systematic review, it is important to clarify this decision.

o The research question

�  “This scoping review aims to study the barriers and facilitators that influence COVID-19 vaccine worldwide and to ascertain if these factors differ between older (65 and above) and younger adults.”

• As above, this focus on age is not appropriately woven in at the outset. Thus, the authors are recommended to include supporting justification and references in the Abstract and Introduction.

�  “This review will also inform the design of a study to explore older adults’ attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination”

• What is this specifically referring to? Is this a follow-up study that the authors are involved in? Perhaps clarification could be included please.

o Identifying relevant studies

�  The search strategy is sound.

�  The end date was April 14, 2021.

• Given how much the literature space is evolving, the authors are recommended to run an updated search to include the most recent literature.

o Study selection

�  It appears that the time frame was Sept 2020 to April 2021; the time frame could be better clarified. As above, the authors are recommended to re-run their search for more recent literature.

�  The authors are encouraged to clarify if all study designs were included?

- Results

o Barriers and facilitators using socio-ecological framework

�  Socio-demographic determinants

• Did any studies report deprivation level or socio-economic status being a factor?

�  Interpersonal factors

• Did any references discuss the influence of friends and family? And also, any references discuss the influence of health providers’ recommendations?

�  Institutional/organisational factors

• Was there any studies that discussed access issues?

�  Community factors and public policy

• Did any studies discuss the influence of mandates and any other public health policies?

- Discussion

o As above, the Discussion section would benefit from a more critical engagement with literature.

�  The review mentions how “most of these studies assessed one’s willingness or intentions to take the COVID-19 vaccines when available, using Likert-type scales.” As there are many tools used to measure vaccine hesitancy and acceptance (and confidence, etc.), in addition to how these terms are used differently in literature, a discussion about what tools the included studies used and how these may or may not be able to be compared and why is warranted.

o As above, the implications and conclusions of the study can be strengthened.

Reviewer #3: One of the objectives of scoping review is to find the research gaps where more targeted work is needed to accomplish the programmatic goals. Under the discussion and implication section this could have been done with more clarity. Under policy, the vaccine availability issues have not been explored adequately. The cost of vaccine along with private sector engagement and people's willingness to pay are also not discussed. The older adults' physical access challenges along with its implications for non-covid vaccination could have been discussed further.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Arindam Ray

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

7 Jul 2022

Dear Dr Harapan,

We would like to express our sincere thanks to you and the reviewers for the invaluable comments that have helped to improve our manuscript. We have addressed the comments and made the necessary changes as much as possible in the manuscript. Please note that we have also made additional edits and changes (highlighted in the marked copy) where needed. In addition, we are sharing all the dataset for this study through the current updated supplementary materials (S1-S4) to adhere to PLOS Data Policy.

The point-to-point reply to you and the reviewers can be found below.

EDITOR

1. Abstract and Introduction: Please define the COVID-19 first.

Reply: COVID-19 has now been defined in both the abstract and the introduction section.

Amendments: Pg. 2 first line and pg. 4 first line

2. Method: Please be consistent in this part: "COVID-19 or nCoV* or 2019nCoV or 19nCoV or COVID19* or COVID or SARS-COV-2 or SARSCOV-2 or SARSCOV2 or "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2" [20] or "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2" and Vaccination Refusal/ or Anti-Vaccination Movement/ or Mass Vaccination/ or Vaccination Coverage/ (hesitan* or acceptance or preference or rejection or anti-vaccin* or attitude? or barrier? or facilitator? or intent*)."

Reply: We have reviewed and edited this section to clarify the key terms that guided the search strategy for the databases. The Covid-19 search terms were derived from CADTH COVID-19 search strings (see reference 20). In addition, we have provided the search strategy that was adopted in the databases in the current updated S1 Table.

Amendments: Paragraph in “Identifying relevant studies” under Methods section.

3. Discussion: Please include the finding of these references briefly and cite: https://imsva91-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fdoi.org%2f10.52225%2fnarra.v1i3.55&umid=3EB52A1C-DCA7-1205-89F5-1758E27F334C&auth=6e3fe59570831a389716849e93b5d483c90c3fe4-39466bce0dd84bcd2dca354b828e4cc6a2a74c6f AND https://imsva91-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fdoi.org%2f10.52225%2fnarra.v1i3.57&umid=3EB52A1C-DCA7-1205-89F5-1758E27F334C&auth=6e3fe59570831a389716849e93b5d483c90c3fe4-7966a15ce4a4590c70705dbacbd971aa047410a8

Reply: Thank you. We have included the article by Hassan et al. (2021) as a citation and have discussed the article by Rosiello et al. (2021) to help strengthen the discussion section.

Amendments: 2nd to 4th para. in discussion section.

REVIEWER #1:

Thanks a lot for the opportunity to review this interesting and timely manuscript

In the current scoping review, the authors aimed to identify the factors affecting COVID19 vaccine hesitancy, using the social ecological model. This model has wide applications including those in the field of public health and is considered as a suitable framework for disease prevention. Overall, the manuscript is well-written, the background can benefit from further elaboration on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy worldwide (please see comments below). The results were clear, as well as the implications of this review. The limitations were addressed clearly, and the conclusions were supported by the results.

I have the following minor points that hopefully can help the authors to improve the final manuscript:

Reply: We are grateful for your encouraging comments. Thank you.

1. Please try to rephrase the following statement in the Abstract: “Vaccine hesitancy is at its highest following the introduction of any new vaccine” since it was found the following paper with the same wording: https://imsva91-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2fpmc%2farticles%2fPMC8030992%2f&umid=3EB52A1C-DCA7-1205-89F5-1758E27F334C&auth=6e3fe59570831a389716849e93b5d483c90c3fe4-58baa76331b72c6b9db3da2f39d4de81497f506d

Reply: Thank you for highlighting this oversight. We decided to remove this statement because it did not contribute to abstract in a significant way.

2. In the Abstract please use “younger age” instead of “lower age”

Reply: We have amended this accordingly.

Amendment: Abstract “Results” section.

3. In the Introduction, the paragraph starting with “Like most countries, one of the first segments of population targeted for COVID-19 vaccination in Singapore…” seems out of context. Please revise by providing a general overview of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy citing the following relevant references:

https://imsva91-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2fpmc%2farticles%2fPMC8760993%2f&umid=3EB52A1C-DCA7-1205-89F5-1758E27F334C&auth=6e3fe59570831a389716849e93b5d483c90c3fe4-e54f517ecaa562ec9acf88d9bbe6b63ce85243d5

B. https://imsva91-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2fpmc%2farticles%2fPMC7920465%2f&umid=3EB52A1C-DCA7-1205-89F5-1758E27F334C&auth=6e3fe59570831a389716849e93b5d483c90c3fe4-d6b8462702582c3fe0f267439280afc85b9517ea

Reply: Thank you for suggesting these articles. As part of the revision of the manuscript, this paragraph has been revised to be more general with inclusion of these recommended systematic reviews.

Amendments: Para. 2 in the introduction section.

4. I was not able to access Supporting information (S1 – S5 Tables). Hopefully you can provide this valuable data.

Reply:

We’re sorry that you could not access the supplementary materials, as they were uploaded during the submission. As part of the revision, we have moved the former S3-S5 tables that contained the result to the main manuscript for easier access to the information; they have been renamed Tables 4 to 6 respectively. In addition, the revised S1 Table contained our search strategy in all the databases now and S3 and S4 Tables are new supplementary materials that contained data to our study (data extraction sheet and excluded references after the full text screening process. Only S2 Table remained unchanged from the initial submission.

5. In the results, “Majority of the studies were cross-sectional studies (n=32, 62%)” I think that 32/51 will be 63% rather than 62%. Please revise

6. In the results “Most of the studies had sample sizes of over 1000 (n=32, 63%), and included participants from Europe (n=15, 29%) and North America (n=15, 29%), followed by Asia (n=19, 18%), the Middle East (n=5, 10%)” The sum of these studies exceeds 51. Please revise

7. In Table 2, please correct the percentage of cross-sectional studies (63% instead of 62%). Actually, the majority of percentages need checking since for the same number (5) two different percentages were reported 10 vs 12%. Please revise.

Reply: Thank you for highlighting these points. We have amended the above points respectively; the discrepancies are due to uneven rounding off of the decimal points.

Amendments: Table 2

REVIEWER #2:

o The article presents a scoping review of factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance using a social ecological framework. The topic is very timely, and the results are interesting to read and could have important implications for policy and practice if the points below are addressed.

Reply: We are grateful for your encouraging comments. Thank you.

o The term ‘hesitancy’ is used to imply barriers and acceptance to imply facilitators, but this is not how these terms are used in literature. Also, viewing these factors as either barriers or facilitators downplays the complex interplay of factors influencing vaccine decision-making, particularly in the context of ‘new’ vaccines like the COVID-19 vaccines with widespread media attention and dis- and misinformation, and so on

Reply: We agree that the studies on attitudes towards vaccine acceptance/hesitancy are complex and complicated with varying definitions. We have added this point on the complexity in the introduction, as well as acknowledged the limitations of using barriers and facilitators in the “Limitations” section. In addition, we have amended to define barriers and facilitators in our study and referenced 2 studies that had approached vaccine acceptance using the barriers and facilitators concept.

Amendments: Introduction para. 3 (Pg 5), “Charting the data” para. 1 under the “Methods” section (pg 8), “Limitations” section para. 1 (pg 29).

o There is a lack of critical engagement with current literature. The term ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is used in this article yet prominent researchers in this space (e.g., Eve Dube, Julie Leask) are not referenced. Moreover, there is much debate in literature about the term ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and this requires a reflection in the review of how the term is used and the implications of this. The authors may wish to read these articles for example:

�  Attwell et al., 2022 https://imsva91-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nature.com%2farticles%2fd41586%2d022%2d00495%2d8&umid=3EB52A1C-DCA7-1205-89F5-1758E27F334C&auth=6e3fe59570831a389716849e93b5d483c90c3fe4-6aedcfddab62fad68ffaf29236658acb1b008e8d

�  Bedford et al., 2018 https://imsva91-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2f28830694%2f&umid=3EB52A1C-DCA7-1205-89F5-1758E27F334C&auth=6e3fe59570831a389716849e93b5d483c90c3fe4-3f51f62b722a9ffe49e6f1264ff823edcf9b531e

Reply:

Thank you for bringing our attention to these relevant articles that helped us to reflect on the debate on vaccine hesitancy. Again, we agree that vaccine hesitancy is a very complex topic and the authors of both articles have indicated the need to distill the term “hesitancy” further which could include wider system-related factors. We believe that the social-ecological model has helped teased out such factors under interpersonal, institutional, community and public policy level related barriers that both Attwell et al, 2022 and Bedford et al., 2018 have highlighted. As such, we have integrated both articles into various sections in the manuscript to better reflect the complexity and its implications more, although also acknowledging that there are limitations on not having gone in-depth due to the scope of our study. In addition, we have also clarified on what was included in the hesitancy rate that was presented in the “Results-Acceptance/Hesitancy Rate” section.

Amendment: Introduction section para. 3 (pg 5), Discussion section para. 4 (pg 26) Implication section para. 2 (pg 21), “Limitations” section para. 1 (pg 27-28). “Acceptance/Hesitancy Rate” in “Results” section para. 1 (pg 10-11).

o The authors briefly note that a focus on factors for different age groups (older and younger adults); however, this is not woven in throughout the review. If this is indeed the focus of the review, then the authors are recommended to focus on older adults (and this appears appropriate given the authors’ expertise) from the outset. That being said, considering only one article from their search focused on older adults, this may not be possible.

Reply:

Thank you for helping us to further difine our direction. We were initially interested to focus on older adults, but as we reviewed the articles, this was not possible. Hence we ended up focusing on adults in the general public, which also included older adult participants in the surveys. We have revised the narrative of the manuscript to reflect this focus on general adult population better. As a results previous focus on older adults was removed and the manuscript has been aligned to focusing on adults (including older adults) overall. The research question has been amended to correctly reflect this alignment, as well as the inclusion criteria.

Amendment: “The research question” under “Methods” section. Inclusion criteria Table 1 from “adults and older adults” to “adults (15 and above)”, as several surveys included participants from 15 and 16 onwards.

o As much of the information presented in the review is known, there is an area of opportunity to clarify how this review advances our knowledge and implications for policy, practice and future research.

Reply: We concede that in the original manuscript, we had missed the opportunity to clarify on the advancement of the knowledge from our review and its implications clearly. As such, we have revised and added to the introduction and discussion section to highlight the contributions of our review, in terms of the scope and focus, in order to take time sensitivity of barriers and facilitators into consideration.

Amendment: Last 2 para. in the “Introduction” section (pg), first para. in Discussion section (pg 25), Limitations section para. 2.

Abstract

o Background

�  Please change “significant” to “substantial”

�  The pandemic has not only impacted healthcare systems. Please consider noting that the pandemic has had widespread social, economic and health impacts.

Reply: We have amended both points in this section according to your suggestions.

Amendment: Abstract “Background” (pg 2)

�  “One of the biggest obstacles to implementing successful vaccination programmes is vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is at its highest following the introduction of any new vaccine”

• This sentence really depends on how vaccine hesitancy is being used. As above, there is much debate about how this term overlooks systemic and logistical aspects that present important barriers to vaccination. Also, most literature discusses how vaccine hesitancy is influenced by concerns of vaccine safety.

Reply: We have revised the first statement to indicate that vaccine hesitancy stems from concerns with the effectiveness and safety. The second sentence has been removed as it was flagged by reviewer #1 and did not contribute to the abstract in a significant way.

Amendment: Abstract “Background” (pg. 2).

o Methods Abstract “Background”

�  Please include brief details about the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Reply: We have included a statement on the selection criteria framework of PICo, but were unable to expand further due to word limitations.

Amendment: Abstract “Methods” section (pg. 2)

o Results

�  Please include some specific findings related to the interpersonal, institution, community and public policy levels.

Reply: Due to the word count limitation, we could only highlight the specifics under intrapersonal level, which contained the major part of the results.

o Conclusion

�  These comments can be improved to better highlight how this review advances our knowledge and implications to policy and practice.

Reply: We agree that the conclusion could be improved to highlight contributions of this review and have revised the conclusion to highlight the implication on policy.

Amendment: Abstract “Conclusion” section.

Introduction:

o “COVID-19 has caused significant impact on the health of the world’s population, with over 356 million confirmed cases and 5.6 million deaths worldwide as of 27th January 2022 [1].”

�  Please update figures.

o “to stem the flow of infections”

�  Perhaps change to “reduce the spread”

Reply: We have amended the above as suggested.

Amendment: Introduction section para. 1 (pg. 4).

o “safety/effectiveness”

�  Safety and effectiveness refers to two separate points, please re-consider using a hyphen in this context.

Reply: This statement has been revised due to revision made in the introduction section.

Amendment: Introduction para. 2 (pg. 4).

o “one of the first segments of the population”

o “Despite the current high vaccination rate,”

�  Is this referring to the national rates in Singapore? If yes, please be specific.

�  This paragraph should be expanded upon with more global literature, particularly if the focus will be on older adults.

Reply: We agree that this paragraph should be more global and not focusing on Singapore. It has been revised accordingly with additional general literature to present a more global view.

Amendment: Introduction section para. 2 & 3 (pg. 4-5)

�  As above, this focus on older adults appears out of place unless the focus of the review will be on different age groups. However, if the review will focus on wider population groups, then referencing additional literature is warranted. It is noted that factors will differ according to context and population sub-group (e.g., parental vaccine hesitancy vs adult vaccine hesitancy).

Reply: As indicated under the summary comments, we have removed the focus on older adults to focus on overall adults including older adults. In addition, we agree that the results might differ among subgroup and hence had only included studies with participants from the general public from the beginning.

o Considering the focus is on vaccine hesitancy, there must be more critical engagement with the literature and discussing factors already known to influence vaccine uptake. While we cannot necessarily infer that these factors will also be applicable to the COVID-19 vaccines, it is warranted to note factors that are already reported in literature regarding routine vaccines.

Reply: We have revised the introduction to include more literature on COVID-19 vaccine acceptances and hesitancy as well as including a review on general vaccine confidence and barriers to uptake. As COVID-19 vaccines entailed certain unique factors different from other vaccines, we did not focus on literature that explored general vaccine uptake.

Amendment: Introduction para. 2 & 3 (pg 4-5).

o “Hence, to better understand the factors that determine one’s willingness or intentions to accept the vaccines”

�  Suggest specifying that the authors are referring to COVID-19 vaccines.

�  Please clarify who “one’s willingness or intention to accept the vaccine” is referring to. For instance, is it older adults or another group or in general?

Reply: We have edited this sentence to specify COVID-19 vaccines and clarify the focus on general public adult population.

Amendment: Introduction para. 4 (pg. 5).

o The end of the Introduction would benefit from noting what other reviews have already been conducted in this space to support justification for conducting this review.

Reply: We have addressed this point in the last paragraph by referencing other scoping reviews and justification for this review.

Amendment: Introduction last para. (pg. 5).

Methods

o The authors have used an appropriate framework for conducting a scoping review (i.e., Arksey & O’Malley’s framework).

o The authors are encouraged to mention the purposes of doing a scoping review (as per Arksey & O’Malley) and justify why a scoping review was chosen as opposed to other review types (e.g., rapid review, systematic review).

o “with advancements proposed by…”

�  What is this specifically referring to?

Reply: We have included a statement to explain the use of scoping review, which also tie in with the next point on quality assessment. The advancement refers to improvements in the framework which has been added. One example of this improvement was provided in the “study selection” under Methods.

Amendment: Methods section para. 1 (pg. 5-6).

o “Quality assessments were not performed to preserve the entirety of the studies found [18].”

�  What does “preserve the entirety of the studies found”? Kindly clarify.

�  As assessment for quality is an aspect that can set a scoping review apart from a systematic review, it is important to clarify this decision.

Reply: Please refer to the point above, the statement has been amended to make it clearer.

Amendment: Methods section para. 1 (pg. 5-6).

o The research question

�  “This scoping review aims to study the barriers and facilitators that influence COVID-19 vaccine worldwide and to ascertain if these factors differ between older (65 and above) and younger adults.”

• As above, this focus on age is not appropriately woven in at the outset. Thus, the authors are recommended to include supporting justification and references in the Abstract and Introduction.

Reply: As indicated under the summary and introduction sections comments, we have removed the focus on older adults. The manuscript is now aligned to focusing on the general adults.

�  “This review will also inform the design of a study to explore older adults’ attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination”

• What is this specifically referring to? Is this a follow-up study that the authors are involved in? Perhaps clarification could be included please.

Reply: Although the intention initially was to use the information for a follow up study in Singapore, this has since been revised as we did not find enough information on older adults from this scoping review. We have hence removed this statement.

o Identifying relevant studies

�  The search strategy is sound.

�  The end date was April 14, 2021.

• Given how much the literature space is evolving, the authors are recommended to run an updated search to include the most recent literature.

Reply: While we agree that the literature is evolving in the topic, the suggestion to conduct an update search was not considered, because of the following reasons:

1) The included studies focused on the initial few months following publication of clinical trial results and identification of the first COVID-19 variant. As the pandemic situation has evolved and will continue to evolve, studies on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy will likely continue, it is hence difficult to chase a moving target. In addition, as the barriers and facilitators are time sensitive and changing, including more recent studies might change the current narrative, which we would like to preserve, for possible future comparison.

2) Our search was comprehensive including several databases, updating them would also require additional time/resources.

3) An update study would be considered at a later date, as the dynamic situation rendered need for repeat studies.

o Study selection

�  It appears that the time frame was Sept 2020 to April 2021; the time frame could be better clarified. As above, the authors are recommended to re-run their search for more recent literature.

�  The authors are encouraged to clarify if all study designs were included?

Reply: Kindly refer to our reply in the previous comment regarding your recommendation to re-run the search. We have edited this section on the time frame and Table 1 to clarify our rationale for the study selection, which was based on data collection date and not publication date. In addition, we have included “all types” in the study inclusion criteria in Table 1.

Amendment: “Study selection” under Methods section para. 1 and Table 1 (pg. 6-7).

Results

o Barriers and facilitators using socio-ecological framework

�  Socio-demographic determinants

• Did any studies report deprivation level or socio-economic status being a factor?

Reply: Higher socio-economic status was a facilitator identified in only one study, while the others focus on education level and income level as separate factors. These are documented in Table 4 in this revised version, but not described in the text.

�  Interpersonal factors

• Did any references discuss the influence of friends and family? And also, any references discuss the influence of health providers’ recommendations?

Reply: Yes. Some aspects were described in text under “Interpersonal factors” section, while the full list is documented in Table 6 in the revised manuscript. In addition, we have added a line in this section to emphasize the influence from family and friends. In addition, we have also added a paragraph in the discussion section on the influence from family and friends.

On the point of influence of healthcare providers, we have added a line to institutional factors (which we have categorized under this) to explain that this could be a barrier or facilitator.

Amendment: Results section under “Interpersonal factors” end of the para. (pg 21) and under “Institutional/organizational factors” para. 2 (pg 21) respectively, and in Table 6 (pg. 23-25). Discussion section para. 5 (pg 27).

�  Institutional/organisational factors

• Was there any studies that discussed access issues?

Reply: Yes. Accessibility is documented in Table 5 in this revised version under “Intrapersonal factors’ and we have added a line in the Results section to highlight this point. We have accessibility under Intrapersonal instead of Institutional/Organisational due to the way accessibility was framed in these studies. However, the concern with cost of the vaccines was categorised under public policy section and we have added a line to highlight cost in this section.

Amendment: Results section under “Intrapersonal section” para. 3 (pg. 17) and Table 5 (pg. 18-20). Results section under “Community factor and public policy” para. 1 (pg. 22) and Table 6 (pg. 23-25)

�  Community factors and public policy

• Did any studies discuss the influence of mandates and any other public health policies?

Reply: Only one study reported that those believing in mandatory vaccinations were more likely to accept the vaccine. This is documented in Table 5 under intrapersonal factors due to the way it was framed. We have added a line in this section to highlight this point. With regards to other public health policies such as preventive measures, those factors were reported more from a personal practice/preference angle and were hence captured under intrapersonal section under “Personal characteristics/preferences” in the same Table 5.

Amendment: Results section under “intrapersonal factors” para. 2 (pg. 16) and Table 5 (pg. 18-20).

Discussion

o As above, the Discussion section would benefit from a more critical engagement with literature.

�  The review mentions how “most of these studies assessed one’s willingness or intentions to take the COVID-19 vaccines when available, using Likert-type scales.” As there are many tools used to measure vaccine hesitancy and acceptance (and confidence, etc.), in addition to how these terms are used differently in literature, a discussion about what tools the included studies used and how these may or may not be able to be compared and why is warranted.

Reply: We agree that our discussion section could be strengthened with better engagement with the literature and have improved this section overall. However, as most of the studies did not use a standardized scale, we did not explore nor go in depth on the use of tools. As such, we have added a line in the results section “Acceptance/Hesitancy rate” to clarify that most studies did not use validated scales for the measurement on vaccine hesitancy and have reported this as a limitation.

Amendment: Results section under “Acceptance/Hesitancy Rate” para. 1 (pg. 11) and Limitations section para. 1 (pg 29).

o As above, the implications and conclusions of the study can be strengthened.

Reply: We agree that our implications and conclusion section could be strengthened. Hence, along the revision in the discussion section, we have made significant amendment to the implication section and amended conclusion to reflect these changes.

Amendment: Implications, limitations and conclusion section (pg. 25-30).

REVIEWER #3:

One of the objectives of scoping review is to find the research gaps where more targeted work is needed to accomplish the programmatic goals. Under the discussion and implication section this could have been done with more clarity.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We agree that our manuscript could be improved to indicate clearer implications. As such, we have made significant changes to the discussion and implication sections to highlight the factors clearer.

Amendment: Implications, limitations and conclusion section (pg. 25-30).

Under policy, the vaccine availability issues have not been explored adequately. The cost of vaccine along with private sector engagement and people's willingness to pay are also not discussed. The older adults' physical access challenges along with its implications for non-COVID-19 vaccination could have been discussed further.

Reply: Thank you for this feedback. The cost of the vaccines was only mentioned in a few studies and were documented in Table 6. We have now added a sentence in the results section under Public Policy to present this. However, due to the limitation on the information provided within the studies, we did not expand the information beyond this. We did not include studies that focused solely on the willingness to pay and hence, do not have information on this. With regards to the point on older adults, we have now aligned our focus to adults for the review and hence, our discussion is focused on the general results we have found.

The manuscript has been revised and checked through for readability, with a marked copy highlighting where the changes were made. Thank you.

Regards,

Regards,

Pradeep Paul George

Submitted filename: Reply to reviewer_050622.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Jul 2022

A social ecological approach to identify the barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination acceptance: A scoping review

PONE-D-22-04837R1

Dear Dr. George,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for addressing all the previous comments properly. I have no further comments or remarks to this manuscript

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing the comments, the revised manuscript reads well and will make an important contribution to knowledge as we continue to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. One final comment is that the authors may wish to contextualise the last sentence of the Abstract to focus on COVID-19 or new vaccines.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

23 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-04837R1

A social ecological approach to identify the barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination acceptance: A scoping review

Dear Dr. Lun:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Harapan Harapan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE