Defining drivers of under-immunisation and vaccine hesitancy in refugee and migrant populations globally to support strategies to strengthen vaccine uptake for COVID-19: a rapid review

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We collected global published literature pertaining to drivers of under-immunisation and vaccine hesitancy in refugees and migrants for all vaccines including low-skilled labour migrants, asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, migrant health-care workers and others, residing in all low-middle- and high-income countries, and including humanitarian settings.

We defined vaccine hesitancy, as ‘the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services’ (14) (38). Refugees are defined in the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees as “persons outside their countries of origin who are in need of international protection because of feared persecution, or a serious threat to their life, physical integrity or freedom in their country of origin as a result of persecution, armed conflict, violence or serious public disorder.” (see https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10 and https://www.unhcr.org/master-glossary.html). We defined a migrant as an individual born outside of their current country of residence (see https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iml_34_glossary.pdf); however, where this information was not available in the literature, first language, nationality or the paper’s own definition of a migrant were used as a proxy, in order to avoid excluding relevant literature. Articles published between January 1, 2010 and April 5, 2022 were eligible for inclusion, with no restrictions on language. Articles focusing on drivers of under-immunisation and vaccine hesitancy in the wider population with results not disaggregated by legal status were excluded. Papers were not excluded based on study type, and opinion pieces, commentaries, guidelines, policy briefs, and review articles were eligible for inclusion where they met our inclusion criteria.

Search strategy

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health PsycINFO and the WHO’s Global research on COVID-19 database (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov) for literature pertaining to drivers of under-immunisation and vaccine hesitancy in migrant populations globally. The search strategy used keywords relating to migrant populations, vaccine hesitancy, and barriers to vaccination (Table 1). Subsequently, grey literature sources were searched for, including through the following websites: World Health Organization (WHO), International Organization for Migration (IOM), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Doctors of the World, Médecins sans Frontières (MSF), a variety of humanitarian and wider resources and websites (including the British Red Cross Community Engagement Hub, IFRC, IOM, Reliefweb.org, UNICEF), as well as Google and Google Scholar. Experts from key countries and relevant organisations were engaged to gather further literature.

Data extraction, synthesis and analysis

Data were extracted by AD, with SH duplicating data extraction in 50% of included papers. Qualitative data were first analysed thematically to identify drivers of under-immunisation and vaccine hesitancy, then categorised using the WHO’s Increasing Vaccination Model (21, 22). Using Microsoft Excel, a standardised form was developed to extract data on the following: Author and year of publication of study, study setting and location, study design, vaccine(s) studied (if concerned with a specific vaccine), number of participants (where relevant), refugee and migrant demographics (country of origin, legal status), age group [e.g., children, adolescents, adults], gender), drivers of vaccine hesitancy, and recommended strategies, solutions, and best practices to strengthen uptake of vaccines.

Personal Factors: What people think and feel about vaccines

Personal confidence in vaccines, such as concerns about safety and side effects are often cited as key drivers of vaccine hesitancy among refugees and migrants (39–45), for example, a study of 1,037 Syrian refugees in Lebanon found that COVID-19 vaccine refusal was significantly associated with negative perceptions about vaccine safety (42). A Canadian study showed that among those who were vaccine-hesitant, a significantly higher percentage of migrants reported concerns about vaccine safety (71.3% vs. 49.5% Canadian-born), side effects (66.4% vs 47.3%) and mistrust in vaccinations (12.5% vs 6.6%) as reasons for vaccine refusal (45). Risk perception has been shown to be important among migrant communities when making vaccination decisions (46), with the perceived dangers of vaccination weighed against complacency around either the need for vaccination (47) or perceptions of danger relating to the specific vaccine-preventable disease (48). In some communities, preferences exist for ‘more natural’ options such as herbal remedies, avoiding human contact, reliance on our immune system (40, 44). A study looking at influenza vaccine attitudes among Polish migrants in the UK found that participant complacency about flu risk was often weighed against trust in the healthcare system and trust in the vaccine (in terms of side effects) when making vaccination decisions (48). One study among refugees and migrants in deprived areas in Greece found that many (111 of 447) did not know whether the vaccine was effective in ending the pandemic, and 91 of 447 respondents did not think it was(49), and despite having various concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine specifically (side-effects, low perception of risk etc) were generally supporting of vaccination more widely (314 of 447 believed vaccines were important for disease prevention).

Trust is major factor in opinions on vaccination (both trust in vaccination itself, and the wider governance and healthcare system of the host country) (31, 43, 48, 50–52). In one UK study among Romanian women around measles vaccines, the active decline in vaccination was linked to distrust in healthcare services, which were partly rooted in negative experiences of healthcare in Romania and the UK(53). Research suggests that low trust among some refugee and migrant populations towards vaccination itself or vaccination systems could be solved by engagement (46, 54–57) with community/religious leaders, relevant NGOs and community groups etc (58). In-depth research should be done in advance to identify and engage with relevant actors, who should be chosen dependent on context (11).

Data also suggest that an individual’s awareness and access to information, which are often dependant on their health and digital literacy, are important factors in vaccine hesitancy. For example, a systematic review on attitudes towards HPV vaccination in migrants found that attitudes often changed for the better once information was given (59), and low awareness about a vaccine or vaccine-preventable disease has been shown to be a key barrier to vaccination (60). Some refugee and migrant populations face specific barriers to information access, such as digital literacy or lack of technology (40, 61), language barriers (11, 32, 39, 40, 47, 51, 61–64), poor doctor-patient communication (41, 60, 64, 65), or a lack of information in an accessible and acceptable format (44, 47, 60, 61, 64), leading to low awareness. The evidence suggests that prior to a vaccination campaign, research should be done on what information is felt to be important among different groups (41, 42, 47, 61, 63, 66). For example, many groups consider safety and efficacy data essential (40, 67). Multiple formats should always be used to increase reach, and these should depend on the context (40). For example, a UK study reported that health visitors felt translated leaflets were not sufficient, as many refugees and migrants struggle with literacy (68). Kim et al noted that, contrary to other studies of vaccination knowledge among US-based immigrants, Korean immigrants in the US often did not receive or understand information disseminated through traditional media such as TV advertisements or radio (69). This shows the importance of information formats, distribution and languages being culturally appropriate and tailored to the target group (50, 66) based on local evidence and informed/co-designed by collaborations with local actors (11, 40, 41, 44, 47, 56, 58, 60). Language barriers are often a problem among refugee and migrant groups, despite increased efforts in some health systems to combat this. In five countries (Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, USA), which all ran translated campaigns on COVID-19 vaccination, a lack of details in translated campaigns, inadequacy in the diversity of languages covered and delays in producing translated campaigns were consistently criticized as major hurdles in vaccinating refugees and migrants (70). Multiple languages should be used to disseminate vaccination information, both in written and other formats e.g. interpreters present either virtually or in person to answer questions (11, 50, 63, 64, 70, 71). Six included papers suggest that education programmes should be created for refugee and migrant communities in collaboration with trusted, relevant actors to ensure cultural acceptability and reach (57, 64, 69, 71, 72).

Table 3 summarises factors contributing to low acceptability of vaccination, and some proposed solutions arising from the research.

Social processes: drivers or inhibitors of individual motivation to seek vaccination

Included research strongly suggests that the perceived acceptability of vaccines among refugee and migrant groups is highly dependent on context and social processes, including historical, economic, religious or political factors in different countries or regions (31). In some cases, migrant expectations may be built on knowledge and experience from their home countries (32). For example, a lack of trust in vaccines in a refugee and migrant’s country of origin, or the influence of factors from the home country or diaspora media can be an important factor in vaccine confidence in some groups (34, 39, 47, 73). However, distrust of vaccination can also originate or worsen after arrival in the host country; for example, a study in the USA showed that amongst Karen refugees, a longer time spent in USA was associated with lower levels of perception that vaccinations were safe (72). Another study from Norway found that children born to mothers residing in Norway for more than 6 years had lower measles coverage compared to those residing less than two years prior to their birth, with coverage overall declining between 2000 and 2016 (74). This could be due to social exclusion or alienation after arrival (31, 75) or precarity in resettlement (76), which have both been shown to negatively affect vaccine confidence in included papers. A study in the UK found that the more confused, distressed and mistrusting the participants felt during the COVID-19 pandemic, the more likely they were to be hesitant about uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine (39).

Political and economic processes can also be important factors affecting motivation to vaccinate, as shown in two studies from Qatar, which found that migrant status was associated with lower levels of vaccine hesitancy and reluctance to accept a vaccine compared with Qatari nationals. The authors noted that migrants’ residency status in Qatar is tied to employment contracts, suggesting they will be more accepting of government or employer policy(77, 78). Historical and structural racism in the host country can also influence motivation to vaccinate in migrant communities (39, 58, 61, 76), for example, fears that certain ethnic groups or communities may be used as ‘guinea pigs’ in the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out (39, 40, 48, 61), often originating from historical events (e.g, the Tuskegee study). In Africa, fears that there are hidden agendas of ’the West’ behind vaccination campaigns are reported to be circulating, including among refugee and migrant groups (58). Interestingly, the same concerns around vaccines based on distrust in ‘the West’ were brought up by African refugees and migrants living in the UK (79), supporting the theory that home country context and diaspora media remain important factors in the perceived acceptability of vaccination.

Misinformation on vaccines can spread rapidly through social media or word of mouth and may have a strong influence on individual and community vaccine confidence, particularly in communities, such as many refugee and migrant communities, where distrust already exists and/or who have more limited access to robust public health information (39, 40, 61, 80). Questionnaires of undocumented migrants in Paris, Rome, Baltimore and Milan have suggested that using social media or community networks as the preferred source of vaccination information was negatively associated with demand (81). A study in Bradford, UK, showed that rapid local and targeted responses to specific misinformation can be a solution and cited an example of a video produced by Bradford city council in Urdu and Punjabi which debunked a specific conspiracy story spreading in these local communities, which was reported to be effective (39).

Religious norms or expectations are another key social process that may influence migrants’ motivation to vaccinate and have been previously shown affect perceived acceptability of vaccines (41, 44, 82). A study in Italy found immigrant workers more likely than non-immigration workers to state religious belief as a reason to not vaccinate (82); another study of Lebanese immigrants in Australia found that religious values around health played a major part in vaccination decision making (66) and a lack of female vaccinators (with male HCWs vaccinating females seen as unacceptable due to Islamic principle of purdah) was seen as a barrier to vaccination among Rohingya refugees in camps in Bangladesh (44). Collaboration with religious and cultural leaders is important (44) and education, outreach activities, and tailored information campaigns should draw on specific religious values where appropriate for the target community (66). For example, Muslim communities may have concerns about whether vaccinations contain pork (46), which is a crucial factor to be addressed in communications.

Low knowledge of refugees and migrant health needs or of eligibility to healthcare among healthcare workers (HCWs) is another social process that may drive migrant motivation to vaccinate. HCWs were often considered the main expected source of information among refugees and migrants HCWs are often considered the main expected source of information among refugees (40, 64, 83, 84), yet Rubens-Augustson showed in a qualitative interview study in Canada that HCWs working with migrants often feel that communication barriers and inability to address cultural or religious concerns restricted them in informing refugee and migrant patients about HPV vaccines (64). Education programmes for HCWs on working with refugee and migrant populations (56, 85) and on refugee and migrant entitlement to healthcare and vaccination (40, 64, 83, 84) were widely recommended in the literature, with on study showing increased uptake of catch-up vaccination in a centre for unaccompanied asylum seeking children with increased awareness of migrant vaccination needs among HCWs (85).

Physical considerations: the ability of individuals to be reached by, reach or afford recommended vaccines

Included papers described the accessibility of vaccination as potential driver of vaccine hesitancy among refugee and migrant populations, with migrant entitlement to health and vaccination systems in the host country a critical factor (54). In the context of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out, it is as yet unclear in several countries the extent to which refugees and migrants will have access to vaccines based on migrant status, with particular concerns around undocumented migrants accessing health services and the vaccine at present in several European countries where coverage is relatively high (4).

Evidence suggests groups such as undocumented migrants residing in high-income countries may have fears about data sharing, immigration checks, lack of eligibility and other immigration-related concerns, highlighting that it is essential going forward for personal data collection associated with vaccination campaigns to be kept minimal and for undocumented migrants and for these groups to be offered access points where they feel safe from immigration enforcement (40, 43, 55, 61, 86). A study among migrants living in informal settlements in Italy showed that irregular migrants had the lowest COVID-19 vaccine coverage 15.7%) of all migrant groups (asylum seekers 28.9%, other residence permit 38.5%) (52). A need to create awareness among migrant population, as well as HCWs, about their entitlement was reported (40, 43, 56); perceived ineligibility for vaccination and/or free healthcare in the host country can contribute to hesitancy (40). Papers highlight several examples of good practice specifically around undocumented migrants and addressing barriers to vaccination: for example some governments have removed healthcare entitlement barriers to testing and vaccination for COVID-19 or stated that vaccines will be available irrespective of residence status, and can be acquired anonymously with no links to immigration enforcement and the Colombian government has provided a 10-year temporary protection status to Venezuelan migrants which will allow them to register for vaccination (4, 11, 87).

Convenience of access points is often a key factor in vaccination decision-making among refugees and migrants, particularly those for whom losing a day of work to visit a distant vaccination centre may entail significant financial loss. Specific access points should be created, advised by and in collaboration with local actors (55); for example, a US-based policy brief has recommended that legislation is passed to allow pharmacists to administer vaccines in underserved communities including migrant communities (88). Interventions which ‘take vaccination to migrants’ rather than expect migrants to present themselves for vaccines have historically had success: in Italy, migrant construction workers mostly received tetanus and diphtheria vaccines through occupational health as opposed to community-based primary care (82) and a door-to-door vaccination programme for refugees in Greece in collaboration with local non-governmental organisations saw >20,000 childhood vaccination doses delivered (89). Good vaccine uptake was noted during an intervention offering on-farm COVID-19 vaccine to migrant farmworkers in the USA (90) and vaccination uptake was observed to be much higher in a migrant reception centre in Italy when doctors came to centre and gave vaccines when migrants arrived (91). In a paper by Chauhan et al, proactive contacting of migrants for their vaccinations was suggested to maximise uptake (85) and Thomas et al suggest proactivity in bringing vaccination to migrants rather than expecting them to present at vaccination services improved uptake (50). One of six recommendations suggested in one paper to increase uptake in migrants was to create a reminder system for specific vaccines in primary care, so that patients can be reminded of and offered their missing vaccinations when presenting for other reasons (64). One study from Denmark found that migrant girls were more likely than Danish-born girls to have HPV after receiving a reminder (92); on the other hand a study around measles vaccination in Romanian migrants in the UK found that the blanket approach of sending text message reminders appeared to be not that effective, due to language and literacy barriers (53). The mobility of some migrant populations may need to be considered especially when multiple doses of vaccines are required (43, 93), which may be an important issue in COVID-19 vaccine roll out with most vaccines requiring two doses. A study among migrants living in informal settlements in Italy found that those who were in transit had significantly lower COVID-19 vaccine coverage (52). Population mobility in Greek refugee camps was overcome by door-to-door visits by staff from non-governmental organisations to actively record vaccination status within two weeks of each vaccination intervention (89).

Several papers suggest that economic barriers and affordability of vaccines are also important in decision making for some refugees and migrants (40, 47, 52, 53, 57, 62, 64, 67, 94). This can include direct costs; for example, Louka et al found that asylum seekers in Greece and the Netherlands became less likely to accept vaccination as the cost increased (57). In another report, discussing HPV vaccination in Canada, healthcare providers recommended publicly funding vaccination as a key facilitator to maximise uptake among refugees and migrants (64); in a qualitative study in the USA, the majority of refugees and migrants interviewed responded positively when asked about HPV vaccine intent provided the vaccine be affordable. In Italy foreign-born mothers were reported to be less likely to be willing or able to pay 100 Euros for their daughters to be vaccinated(62). In addition, a lack of clarity about charges for vaccination and/or healthcare may put migrant off seeking vaccination(53). Costs and other factors may influence where migrants choose to get vaccinated, with one UK study reporting Polish migrants returning home for cheaper vaccines (chicken pox) and/or after the birth of a child for routine vaccines, with numerous implications at a service provider level(32). Indirect costs, such as travel costs, and wages lost from time off work are also an important factor, particularly for groups with precarious status or working in low-skilled jobs. One paper on vaccination among Latinx immigrants in the US suggested that workers from this group may not be given permission or time off to attend a COVID-19 vaccination appointment, and be unable to pay for transportation to distant vaccination sites, recommending that vaccination campaigns should educate employers to give employees time off for vaccination as well as ensuring that vaccination sites are easily accessible to underserved communities (86).

Figure 2 summarises key behavioural and social drivers of vaccination, and solutions and strategies to tackling it in the context of COVID-19 roll-out, compiled from the included literature in this review.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Solutions and strategies for increasing COVID-19 vaccination uptake in refugee and migrant populations, based on the Increasing Vaccination Model (20–22)