Abstract
Widespread COVID-19 vaccination is essential to maintaining pandemic control. However, low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to face challenges to care due to unequal access and vaccine fear despite the introduction of safe and effective immunizations. This study aimed to collect information on Nigeria’s COVID-19 vaccine uptake rates and determinants. Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, African Journal Online, Springer, and Hinari were all systematically searched through and completed in May 2022. Quality assessments of the listed studies were performed using the eight-item Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for cross-sectional studies. In addition, we undertook a meta-analysis to calculate pooled acceptance rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Forty-two studies in total satisfied the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. A total of 24,533 respondents were studied. The total sample size of states in the Northern, Western and Southern parts of Nigeria are 3,206, 4,527 and 5,059, respectively, while 11,741 is the cumulative sample size of all the Nigeria-wide studies. The total COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rate among all the study groups was 52.4% (95% CI: 46.9-57.9%, I2 = 100%), while the total estimated COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy rates was 47.81% (95% CI: 42.2 – 53.4% I2 = 100%). In Nigeria-regions sub-group analyses, the Western region (58.90%, 95% CI: 47.12–70.27%) and Northern region (54.9%, 95% CI: 40.11%–69.4%) showed the highest rates of vaccine acceptance and vaccine hesitancy respectively. The COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate was highest in 2020, with a pooled rate of 59.56% (46.34, 57.32%, I2 = 98.7%). The acceptance rate in 2021 was only 48.48 (40.78%, 56.22%), while for the studies in 2022, it increased to 52.04% (95% CI: 35.7%, 68.15 %). The sensitization of local authorities and the dissemination of more detailed information about the COVID-19 vaccine and its safety, could significantly increase the country’s vaccination rate.
1. Introduction
The factors causing vaccine hesitation or acceptance are widely recognized as a complex phenomenon with various predictors beyond safety concerns (Patwary et al., 2022). Vaccine-hesitant individuals have been described as a heterogeneous population amid a spectrum that runs from complete acceptors to complete refusers (Dubé et al., 2016). These “hesitant” individuals may refuse some vaccines but agree to others, reject vaccines, or are unsure of accepting vaccines (Larson et al., 2014). The Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) identified three major factors that affect the attitude towards vaccination acceptance. This includes complacency, convenience and confidence (MacDonald & SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy, 2015). Complacency shows a low impression of the disease risk, leading to the perception that vaccination is unnecessary (Larson et al., 2011). Confidence refers to the trust in vaccination safety, effectiveness, and the healthcare systems’ competence. Convenience entails the availability, affordability and delivery of vaccines in a comfortable context (Durbach, 2000). Moreover, the complex motives behind vaccine hesitancy can be analyzed using the epidemiologic triad of environment, agent and host factors (Larson et al., 2011; Porter & Porter, 1988). Environmental factors include public health policies, social factors and the messages spread by media (Dempsey et al., 2011; Gust et al., 2008; Robison et al., 2012). The agent (vaccine and disease) factors involve the perception of vaccine safety and effectiveness besides the perceived susceptibility to the disease (Gust et al., 2008; Luthy et al., 2009; Opel et al., 2012). Host factors depend on knowledge, previous experience, education, and income levels (Opel et al., 2012).
Whereas much information is known regarding vaccine acceptance in developed countries, little is known about COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Sub-Saharan Africa (Ditekemena et al., 2021). Disturbingly, Nigeria once experienced a striking example of widespread vaccine refusal. This incident occurred in 2003–2004 when northern Nigeria boycotted the polio immunization program, which caused the disease to reemerge in the nation and beyond (Adebisi et al., 2021; Ike et al., 2018; Kabamba Nzaji et al., 2020; Tobin et al., 2021). LMIC residents may not be aware of the risks associated with the disease; hence, they may be less eager to undergo vaccinations as a result, given that COVID-19 mortality rates in LMICs have consistently been lower than those in higher-income nations (Brown et al., 2011).
A study in Nigeria found that partial immunization may be influenced by factors such as parental disapproval, maternal availability, poor knowledge, inadequate allocation of efficient vaccines, negative historical experiences involving foreign factors, cultural and religious beliefs, and mistrust of government (Danis et al., 2010). We do not, however, know the exhaustive classifications and confirmations of these parameters and their consequences. Earlier surveys in Nigeria have estimated vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among subgroups and the general population in different states and geopolitical zones in Nigeria. For example, studies from (Adejumo et al., 2021; Allagoa et al., 2021) estimated a vaccine acceptance of 24.60% and 53.50% among 1000 hospital patients and 1767 HCWs, respectively, in southern Nigeria states. Other studies have focused on qualitatively summarizing Nigeria’s vaccine hesitancy and acceptance rate and scoping vaccine acceptance rates in higher or lower-income countries (Aw et al., 2021). It has not yet been investigated whether vaccine acceptance and hesitation rates and their associated determinants exist in Nigeria using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
To determine the acceptance and reluctance rates of the COVID-19 vaccine among Nigerians, we conducted a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis. Additionally, we aimed to identify potential factors associated with vaccine acceptability in Nigeria. This study could provide the first steps for facilitating the planning of ongoing vaccination programs and enhancing vaccine uptake in developing countries as global vaccination efforts continue.
2. Materials and Methods
We used an expedited procedure to summarize the evidence using a rapid systematic review approach (Haby et al., 2016). Accordingly, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA) guidelines were followed when conducting the methodology (Page et al., 2021).
2.1. Search Strategy
A systematic search was conducted in Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, African Journal Online, Springer and Hinari. Keywords in various parenthesis permutations such as “COVID-19″, “VACCINE”, “ACCEPTANCE”, and “NIGERIA”, “COVID-19 VACCINE”, “ACCEPTANCE” “NIGERIA″ “COVID-19″ “VACCINE ACCEPTANCE”, “NIGERIA″ “COVID-19 VACCINE ACCEPTANCE” “NIGERIA” “VACCINE HESITANCY” “NIGERIA WEST AFRICA” were used. Boolean operators such as (AND, NOT, OR) were also used. Finally, all the identified articles were downloaded into Zotero bibliographic management software for further processing. The last search for the studies was conducted on May 31, 2022. Further details on the search methods are described in the supplementary material.
2.2 Eligibility criteria for the studies
The following criteria were used to determine which studies would be included in the meta-analysis: studies containing at least one vaccine acceptance or hesitancy-related question; restricted to states and regions in Nigeria; articles published in English between January 2020 to May 2022; observational and descriptive studies with a cross-sectional, experimental, and longitudinal design. Excluded articles included those that did not attempt to assess the acceptance or hesitation of the COVID-19 vaccine, unpublished data, books, conference papers, systematic reviews, literature reviews, commentaries, editor letters, and case reports. In addition, publications without access to the full text were also excluded.
2.3 Study selection
After the importation of studies into the Zotero Bibliographic Software, duplications were sifted out; after that, the studies were further selected based on their titles and abstract suitability. Finally, the full text of the studies was perused to check for those that met the inclusion criteria. Publications were assessed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies. Each condition was awarded: 1 for yes and 0 for No/unclear/Not Available. Two independent reviewers (A.I and O.O) also reviewed the studies based on the criteria, and discrepancies in selection were resolved by discussion.
2.4 Data Extraction
Two reviewers extracted data. Author name, publication year, study nation, study design, survey period, target population, sampling technique, sample size, vaccine acceptance measuring scale, and factors linked to vaccine acceptance, reluctance, or refusal were all retrieved. Table 1 contains all the extracted data. Disparities were then resolved by consensus following independent data extraction.
2.5 Data Analysis
The Meta Prop command was installed in STATA 16 to generate forest plots for vaccine acceptance and hesitancy for the pooled effects. MedCalc was used to create funnel plots for publication bias estimation. Using random-effects models with a 95 % CI, the pooled effects of vaccine acceptance and hesitance were calculated. Begg’s test and Egger weighted regression methods were employed to determine the presence and effect of publication bias.
2.6 Assessment of Study Quality
The included papers’ quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical evaluation tool (Critical Appraisal Tools | JBI, n.d.) Eight questions about the study design and data analysis were included in the checklist (for instance, sample size, sample selection, and reliable and valid measurements). First, all of the scores from each study were added up, and then, based on the results of other studies, they were categorized (Nehal et al., 2021; Patwary et al., 2022), as shown in Table 1.
2.7 Search Results
A total of 432 articles were identified in preliminary searches. The Zotero software was used to remove 111 duplications. After eligibility had been assessed based on the title and abstract or the complete text, 71 articles were included in the final selection. Of these, 18 articles were found to lack a precise determination of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. Ten articles were found inappropriate to include, as 5 were systematic reviews while the other 5 had a qualitative study design. Of the total, 42 studies were included in the meta-analysis (Figure 1).
PRISM flow chart
2.8 Characteristics of the Included Studies
A brief overview of the included studies and factors affecting vaccine acceptance is shown in Table 1. Most studies used online survey tools and manual questionnaires to collect data for their cross-sectional designs. Few studies used the convenience sampling technique, random sampling, or snowball sampling via email or social media. All surveys were conducted across the board between March 2020 and March 2022. The total sample of included studies was 24,533 ranging from 115 to 1,767 participants in individual studies. The sample size of states in the Northern, Western and Southern parts of Nigeria are 3,206, 4,527 and 5,059, respectively, while 11,741 is the cumulative sample size of all the Nigeria-wide studies.
General populations comprised most of the targeted samples, followed by healthcare professionals and students. The most frequent predictors of vaccine acceptance were older ages, males, marital status, higher education levels, city dwellers, healthcare workers, the presence of chronic diseases, knowledge of COVID-19, perceptions of vaccine risks and benefits, beliefs about the efficacy and safety of vaccines, previous vaccination history, and confidence in healthcare systems.
3.0. Prevalence of Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy
The total COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rate among all the study groups was 52.4% (95% CI: 46.9-57.9%, I2 = 100%) (Figure 2). In contrast, the total estimated COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy rates were 47.81% (95% CI: 42.2 – 53.4% I2 = 100%) (Figure 3). Ilori et al., 2021 observed the highest acceptance rate (80.26% CI: 75.46%, 84.3%) in a cross-sectional Nigeria-wide study among Health Care Workers (Ilori et al., 2021). Adigwe, 2021 also conducted a similar survey among the general population and reported the lowest vaccination acceptance rate of 22.67% (95%CI 22.80%-24.70%) (Adigwe, 2021).
Forest plot of cumulative vaccine acceptance in Nigeria
Forest plot of cumulative vaccine hesitancy in Nigeria
3.1. Sub-Group Analysis
Figure 4 and Figure 5 present Western, Northern and Southern regional-specific COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates and vaccine hesitancy in Nigeria, respectively. The pooled prevalence of the highest acceptance rate was observed in the Western region (58.90%, 95% CI: 47.12– 70.27%), followed by the southern part (47.38%. 95% CI: 31.50–63.55%, I2 = 99.25%) and Northern region (46.3%, 95% CI: 32.75%–60.18%, I2 = 98.39%%). Nigeria-wide studies that were randomly sampled, irrespective of regions, were also pooled with a cumulative effect size of vaccine acceptance (55.06%, 95% CI: 47.41%–62.59%).
Forest plot of vaccine acceptance in Nigeria across regions
Forest plot of vaccine hesitancy across regions in Nigeria
3.2. Time Trends
The COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate was highest in 2020, with a pooled rate of 59.56% (52.61, 66.32%, I2 = 97.4%). However, the acceptance rate in 2021 was only 48.48 (40.78%, 56.22%), while in 2022, it spiked to 52.04% (95% CI: 35.7%, 68.15 %) (Figure 6).
Forest plot of vaccine acceptance across time
3.3. Risk of Bias
All 42 studies were assessed to be of the highest possible quality based on the JBI technique (Table 1). Studies that used ineffective recruitment methods like convenience and snowball sampling via social media were not removed, but their results may not have been representative of the population. We observed no risk of publication bias. Egger’s tests among studies on vaccine acceptance (p-value = 0.4075) and vaccine hesitancy (p-value = 0.4437) were not significant (Tables S1 and S2).
4. Discussion
4.1. The Main Findings in Brief
Several surveys have been conducted since the announcement of efforts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine to measure public perception and acceptance of the vaccine (Pogue et al., 2020; Shekhar et al., 2021). However, most surveys in Nigeria have concentrated on different states and sub-groups. Therefore, assessing these studies and pooling them together is pertinent to give a representative picture of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in Nigeria from March 2020 to May 2022. This will assist institutions and policy experts in allocating resources to maximize COVID-19 uptake.
We identified 42 studies of 24,533 participants from various states and geopolitical zones in the country. Pooled estimates showed that more than half (52.4%) of these participants were willing to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, the Southwestern region and Northern Nigeria reported the highest vaccine acceptance and hesitancy rates of 58.9% and 54.9%, respectively, in the sub-group analysis for regions.
The pooled vaccine acceptance in our study is similar to the pooled estimate (58.5%) (Ackah et al., 2022; Patwary et al., 2022), with 49% on amenability to COVID-19 vaccination in West African countries and low and lower-middle-income countries, respectively. However, higher vaccination acceptance rates in African nations like Nigeria may have been impacted by lower COVID-19 death rates 65. Additionally, there is a history of vaccination scepticism in Africa, which may have affected Nigeria’s poor acceptance rates (Kabamba Nzaji et al., 2020).
The relatively higher vaccine acceptance in southwestern Nigeria relative to other parts of Nigeria could be due to the higher risk perception of the pandemic as Lagos state, one of the western states, is the epicenter of the pandemic in Nigeria (Hassan et al.,2022). Many studies have demonstrated that increased risk perception of the virus is a decisive predictor variable for COVID-19 Vaccine acceptance (Guidry et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2021; Shektar et al., 2021; Dzieciolowska et al., 2021). On the other hand, the high vaccine hesitancy in Northern Nigeria may be related to cultural and religious patterns, which was demonstrated in the past with cases of mass refusal and boycott of the polio vaccination program that led to the resurgence in the diseases and beyond (Ike et al., 2018; Nzaji et al., 2020; Tobin et al., 2021; Adebisi et al., 2021). Moreover, the relatively lower figures for the burden of the pandemic in the Northern states of Nigeria could explain the high hesitancy (Hassan et al., 2020).
Finally, our study discovered that vaccine acceptability is sinusoidal, declining from 59.56% in 2020 to 48.48 in 2021 before increasing to 52.04% in 2022. The acceptability of vaccines varies throughout time, according to earlier studies (Nehal et al., 2021). For instance, a systematic global evaluation of vaccine acceptancy rates found that they had decreased from 79% in March-May to 60% in June–October 2020 (Bono et al., 2021). The outcome of our findings may be explained by the fact that Nigerians were more motivated to be vaccinated to prevent infection during the early stages of the epidemic due to their increased level of anxiety. However, according to recent polls (Paul et al., n.d.; Roozenbeek et al., 2020), the inconsistent trend in vaccination acceptability may be caused by erroneous information and safety worries.
4.1. Implications and Future Research
Due to the limited access to healthcare and its dense population, Nigeria is particularly susceptible to COVID-19. Therefore, the Nigerian government should concentrate heavily on achieving high vaccination rates to stop the virus’s spread. In addition, understanding how the general public feels about vaccination is essential for adhering to immunization laws.
This current systematic review and meta-analysis may provide recommendations for subsequent initiatives, given our reported regional and national vaccine uptake and resistance estimations. We advise using state-or region-specific initiatives to increase acceptance rates in Nigeria. The governor of each state should encourage vaccine trust locally in this regard. Governments should be aware of anti-vaccination movements in their states that may be sparked by misunderstanding and disinformation found on social media or from other sources, as these could result in a decline in vaccine acceptance (Danis et al., 2010). A better understanding of factors like perceived COVID-19 risk and gender influencing vaccination intentions may also make immunization programs more effective. Given the waves of outbreaks currently occurring in many countries and the fluidity of vaccination acceptance, future research should focus on longitudinal changes in COVID-19 vaccine resistance in Nigeria. In this case, our analysis offers initial insights for interpreting trends in adopting COVID-19 immunization over time. Most of the researched populations in the included studies were drawn from the general community. Future studies should focus on assessing vaccination acceptance rates and determining why some populations, such as healthcare workers, expecting moms, children, and people with chronic conditions, are resistant to immunizations.
4.2. Strengths and Limitations
Data collection for our study’s restriction would undoubtedly impact the pooled estimate because COVID-19 vaccination adoption has been observed to fluctuate over time, from March 2020 to May 2022. Additionally, we incorporated a few preprint publications that have not been peer-reviewed. Lastly, we could not assess the predicted drivers for COVID-19 acceptability in Nigeria due to data limitations.
This study has several advantages. It is the first thorough meta-analysis on vaccination acceptability in Nigeria that we are aware of. To provide a typical vaccine acceptability result in Nigeria, we also collected a wide range of research for subgroups and the general population.
5.0. Conclusions
In an analysis of 44 papers, we discovered that more than half of Nigerians were receptive to the COVID-19 vaccination. Nigeria’s Western and Northern regions had the highest vaccine acceptance and reluctance levels. Since the pandemic began, 2020 has had the highest level of vaccination acceptance. More studies from the pooled studies revealed that being male and risk perception are frequently linked to vaccine uptake; thus, policymakers at the federal and state levels should consider these factors when developing vaccination policies. The sensitization of local authorities and the dissemination of more detailed information about the COVID-19 vaccine, particularly in the northern, southeastern, and south-central states, could significantly increase the country’s vaccination rate.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ja5dX1wM8lBVTfRMxofwEa5LGdZHZ17q/view?usp=share_link.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ja5dX1wM8lBVTfRMxofwEa5LGdZHZ17q/view?usp=share_link.
Table 2: Characteristics of included studies,
Table 2: Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical evaluation table
Figure 2: Forest plot of cumulative vaccine acceptance in Nigeria,
Figure 3: Forest plot of cumulative vaccine hesitancy in Nigeria,
Figure 4: Forest plot of vaccine acceptance in Nigeria across regions,
Figure 5: Forest plot of vaccine hesitancy across regions in Nigeria,
Figure 6: Forest plot of vaccine acceptance across time,
Figure S1: Funnel Plot of Vaccine Acceptance,
Figure S2: Funnel Plot of Vaccine Hesitancy,
Table S3: Eggers Test on Vaccine Acceptance for publication bias
Table S4: Eggers Test on Vaccine Hesitancy for publication bias
Table S5: Eggers Test on Vaccine Hesitancy for publication bias
Footnotes
ncv22{at}ic.ac.uk (V.C.N.); nnenna.okafor.pg04212{at}unn.edu.ng (NAO); reuben.onwe.199114{at}unn.edu.ng (R.O.O.);nneka.uzochukwu{at}unn.edu.ng.
Oluwatosinorababa{at}gmail.com (OO)
↵7 info{at}uath.gov.ng
nnwokoye{at}kncvnigeria.org