A systematic review of psychological factors influencing attitudes and intentions toward, and uptake of, Covid-19 vaccines in adolescents
=========================================================================================================================================

* Angie Pitt
* Richard Amlôt
* Catherine Heffernan
* G. James Rubin
* Louise E. Smith

## ABSTRACT

Vaccination was a key measure to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic, however adolescents were less likely than adults to accept the vaccine. Low vaccine uptake reduces the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns and threatens global public health. Understanding why adolescents are hesitant to accept new vaccines is therefore crucial to support the development of novel vaccine uptake interventions. Prior reviews have included far fewer citations, excluded qualitative data, studies after 2022 and have not mapped adolescent Covid-19 vaccine behaviour onto psychological models. This systematic review investigated psychological factors influencing attitudes and intentions toward and uptake of Covid-19 vaccines in adolescents aged 10 to 19 years globally. It mapped results onto the COM-B framework to inform future interventions. Our search identified 25,354 citations, and included 77 in this review. The quality of studies was mixed, predominantly cross-sectional in design. According to our review, key influences on adolescent Covid-19 vaccine behaviour were: i) Reflective motivation (safety concerns, perceived susceptibility to/severity of Covid-19, perceived vaccine effectiveness, ii) Social opportunity (social norms, autonomy and prosocial attitudes), iii) Psychological capability (attitude and knowledge about vaccines). Our review provides new insights into psychological factors influencing adolescent Covid-19 vaccine behaviour, and maps factors to the COM-B model of behaviour change. To improve vaccine uptake, future vaccine interventions should support adolescents to think critically about the pros and cons of vaccines and consider external influences on their decisions.

Key words
*   vaccination
*   immunisation
*   immunization
*   vaccine uptake
*   vaccine acceptance
*   vaccine hesitancy
*   adolescents
*   youth
*   COVID-19
*   Sars-COV-2

## 1. Introduction

The Covid-19 pandemic killed over 7 million people worldwide as of spring 2024 1 and led to substantial psychological, social and economic disruption. For children and adolescents, school closures and physical distancing measures led to a decline in physical and mental health and broadened existing disparities between the richest and poorest in society 2–4.

Vaccination was identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as key to ending the crisis 5. Cross-population uptake of vaccinations was required to protect the public and mitigate the spread of the virus preventing further social and economic disruption (Zimet et al., 2020). The first Covid-19 vaccines were approved for use in adults in 2020, and in adolescents in 2021, e.g., May 2021 in the USA 6. However, the effectiveness of these programmes was threatened by vaccine hesitancy 7, defined as a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite the availability of vaccinations 8.

Covid-19 vaccine uptake in adolescents lags behind that in adults. In the USA, for example, 17.4% of adults are unvaccinated, compared to 26.4% of 12-15 year-olds and 19% of 16-17 year-olds 9. Adolescence is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) 10 as ages 10 to 19 years. During this life stage, adolescents define their social identity 11, 12, gain autonomy 13 and experience intense neurodevelopmental changes. While the adolescent neurological reward system becomes hyperresponsive, leading to increased reward-seeking behaviour, the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed, limiting adolescents’ ability to regulate this behaviour 14. As a result, adolescents often prioritize short-term rewards over long-term benefits, influenced by emotions and peer interactions.

Studies investigating Covid-19 vaccine behaviour in adolescents have implicated multiple psychological factors. Two prior systematic reviews 15, 16 found concerns over vaccine safety, efficacy and side effects, low perceived necessity and needle phobia were all barriers to adolescent Covid-19 vaccination acceptance. However, these reviews’ searches were limited, and so included only 15 and seven studies respectively, and did not include qualitative data, grey literature, or studies post-2022. Further, no studies to date have examined how behaviour theory maps onto adolescent Covid-19 vaccine behaviour: a necessary step in the development of behaviour-change interventions. Previous adolescent-facing vaccine interventions have aimed to increase knowledge, with mixed results 17. We will map our findings onto COM-B 18 given this framework allows the consideration of both internal and external factors. COM-B classifies these factors as capability, opportunity, and motivation.

Capability is defined as an individual’s physical (e.g., ability or strength) and psychological (e.g., knowledge, memory) capacity to engage in the behaviour. Opportunity is defined as external factors that enable or prompt the behaviour, i.e., an individual’s physical and social environment. Motivation covers reflective and automatic brain processes that direct behaviour. COM-B has previously been used to explain health behaviours including vaccine behaviour in adults 19, health behaviours in adolescents 20, 21 and medication adherence in the general population 22. In this review we will synthesise psychological factors influencing Covid-19 vaccine-related attitudes, intentions, and behaviours in adolescents. We will then examine how these factors map to components of COM-B, drawing implications for future adolescent vaccination interventions.

## 2. Methods

### 2.1 Identification of studies

The protocol was registered with Prospero (CRD42023406768). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 23.

Searches of PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus were carried out on 31 March 2023. We conducted reference and forward citation screening of included studies, and a grey literature search including screening the first 100 results of a Google search on 15 September 2023. The search was repeated on 9 April 2024, and we screened reference and forward citations of newly included studies on 16 April 2024. Search terms combined subject headings and free text searches for: Covid-19 terms (SARS-CoV-2 or coronavirus); vaccines (immunisation, inoculation); adolescents (e.g., teen, youth); and attitudes (e.g., beliefs, views) with publication from 1 January 2020 (Appendix A).

### 2.2 Selection criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if participants were aged 10 to 19 years, (including 10- to 19-year-olds included in a study as a subgroup); gave self-reported reasons for vaccine intention or uptake and/or provided statistical analyses of self-reported psychological factors relating to vaccine attitude, intention, or uptake; and if a full text English version was available. Any study design was eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies where the sample were higher education students, pregnant or parents.

### 2.3 Data extraction

We extracted information about study design and methods, location, date of data collection, outcome measures, and results of studies relating to psychological factors influencing attitudes and intention toward, and uptake of the Covid-19 vaccine.

### 2.4 Quality assessment

We used the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies 24 to assess cross-sectional studies, and the NIH Before-After Studies with No Control Group tool for interventions 24. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) 25 tool to assess qualitative studies. Where studies employed mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative sections were assessed separately using the above tools. AP and LES independently quality assessed 10% of studies to check consistency, resolving disagreements through discussion. AP assessed the remaining studies with LES supporting.

### 2.5 Procedure

We investigated: 

*   Self-reported reasons for vaccination acceptance or hesitancy (intended or completed uptake; quantitative data)

*   Psychological factors associated with vaccine attitudes, intention, and uptake (quantitative data).

*   Barriers and facilitators to vaccine intention and uptake (qualitative data).

AP conducted all searches, with guidance from LES. LES independently screened the first 100 citations with consistent results. Where participant age was unclear, we contacted study authors for clarification. Where authors did not reply, citations were excluded. Remaining screening and data extraction were carried out by AP with LES supporting. Where multiple papers and conference abstracts reported the same study, all reported data were considered together. We synthesised quantitative results according to Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines 26. Results have been included in the synthesis if the factor was investigated in at least two studies. Quantitative results were synthesised narratively. Qualitative results were synthesised following Noblit and Hare’s 27 seven stages of meta- ethnography, with themes coded in NVivo and new overarching themes generated. We then conducted a secondary analysis, mapping factors relating to intention or uptake of the vaccine onto components of COM-B 18 and combining quantitative and qualitative results. Where factors did not map on to the COM-B model, for example because they could impact capability, motivation, or opportunity, we synthesised these separately. Willingness to accept a vaccine was defined as intention to accept a vaccine 28. In our review, we used ***vaccine hesitancy*** to encompass reluctance, doubts, and refusal to accept or intend to accept a vaccine. We defined ***vaccine acceptance*** as the willingness to accept or intend to accept a vaccine 29. If studies differentiated between vaccine hesitancy and vaccine reluctance, we clarified in the results. Definitions of vaccine attitude were based on individual study definitions, however where attitude was measured as **willingness to be vaccinated**, these studies were categorized with the outcome as **intention**.

## 3. Results

Searches of Embase, PsycINFO, Medline and Scopus yielded 25,354 citations. Following screening, 77 citations were included in the review, describing 73 studies (Figure 1).

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/09/17/2024.09.17.24313392/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/17/2024.09.17.24313392/F1)

Figure 1. 
PRISMA Flow Chart.

### 3.1 Study characteristics

Table 1 provides an overview of key characteristics of all included studies. Included studies were from Africa (n = 7), Asia (n = 26), Europe (n = 10), the Middle East (n = 3), North America (n = 24) and South America (n = 2). Three studies compared data from different countries 30–32. The number of relevant participants ranged from 6 to 272 914. Study designs were cross-sectional (n = 59) qualitative (n = 10), mixed methods (n = 5), retrospective cohort (n = 2) before-after design with no control group (n = 1).

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/17/2024.09.17.24313392/T1)

Table 1. 
Characteristics of included studies.

### 3.2 Quality assessment

Overall, the quality of the included studies was mixed (Appendix B). Only five quantitative 33–37 and three qualitative studies 38–40 were assessed as high quality. Twenty-three quantitative 41–63 and four qualitative studies 54, 64–66 were assessed as low quality, although three of those assessed as low quality were conference abstracts and therefore lacked detailed data. The remainder of studies were assessed as medium quality. Two studies were not peer-reviewed 31, 32. Scores on the amended NIH cohort and cross-sectional tool 24 ranged between two and 12. Notably, only nine studies used validated, reliable measures for all predictors, and seven for outcomes. The assessed quality of each study is included in Table 1, and the full quality assessment is included at Appendix B. Qualitative study scores using CASP 25 ranged from four to 12. All studies were included in this review regardless of quality, but we have incorporated quality assessments when considering the strength of evidence for each predictor.

### 3.3 Psychological factors related to attitudes, intention or uptake of Covid-19 vaccines

#### 3.3.1 Vaccine attitudes

Data on the predictors of vaccine attitudes was limited: of the included studies, only five reported on vaccine attitudes as an outcome, investigating different attitudes. One low-quality study found that vaccine cost and accessibility was significantly positively associated with a positive attitude toward the vaccine 43, defining a positive attitude as the likelihood of recommending the Covid-19 vaccine to others.

#### 3.3.2 Vaccine uptake and intention

Table 2 provides a summary of psychological factors associated with intention or uptake, and corresponding qualitative data, categorized against COM-B components 18. Table 3 provides a summary of top three reasons for vaccine acceptance and vaccine hesitancy reported by cross-sectional studies. A summary of results is narratively reported. For full results, see appendix C.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/17/2024.09.17.24313392/T2)

Table 2. 
Factors associated with vaccine intention or uptake and qualitative results classified by COM-B model components. [To be printed in colour]

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/17/2024.09.17.24313392/T3)

Table 3. 
Summary of studies reporting quantitative data on reasons for/against Covid-19 vaccination, top three reasons.

##### Capability

###### i) Physical

One high- 37 and one medium-quality study 67 reported that higher self-efficacy was significantly associated with higher vaccine acceptance. No qualitative studies reported themes pertaining to physical capability.

###### **ii)** Psychological

We found strong evidence that a positive attitude toward vaccines was a reason to be vaccinated, reported in 12 quantitative studies 39, 43, 45, 46, 50, 58, 68–73. Furthermore, eight studies found those with a positive vaccine attitude were significantly more likely to accept it 34, 55, 56, 59, 65, 67, 74, 75. However, vaccine attitude measures were heterogenous. Evidence relating to vaccine knowledge was mixed. Three high-quality 34, 36, 75, one medium- 65 and one low- quality quantitative study 44, and one medium-quality intervention study reported higher vaccine knowledge was associated with higher vaccine acceptance. However, five studies 59, 76–79 of medium or low quality reported no significant association.

##### Opportunity

###### i) Physical

There was moderate evidence that physical opportunity impacted vaccine behaviour. Low vaccine cost was a reason to accept the vaccine in four studies and higher vaccine or travel cost a reason not to accept the vaccine in two studies (Table 2). Increased time, accessibility, and convenience were reasons to accept a vaccine in eight studies and inconvenience, or lack of time were reasons not to accept a vaccine in two studies 63, 80 . One high- 36 and one low- quality 43 study found that lower cost and increased accessibility increased acceptance in those who were vaccine hesitant (undecided), but not for those who were vaccine resistant (unwilling). On the other hand, one medium-quality study found no association between increased convenience and vaccine acceptance 80.

###### **ii)** Social

There was strong evidence that family and/or friend norms influenced participants’ vaccine behaviour, reported in quantitative and mixed methods studies (n=22, Table 2). Five qualitative studies supported this finding, with adolescents tending to have the same vaccination status as their in-group (family or friends) and reassuring peers on their vaccine experience 31, 38, 64, 81, 82. Seven studies of medium 39, 73, 74, 83, 84 or low-quality 49, 55 found friend or family vaccine acceptance were significantly associated with adolescent vaccine acceptance. However, one medium-quality study reported no significant association between friend and family norms and vaccine acceptance 80. No high-quality studies investigated associations between family or friend norms and vaccine behaviour.

Advice from healthcare workers was a further influence, reported in eight quantitative or mixed methods studies as a reason to vaccinate (Table 2). In one medium and one high- quality study, receiving advice and information from healthcare workers was associated with increased vaccine acceptance 36, 65 but a medium-quality study found no significant association 67. The state was less influential than family or friends. Two medium-quality studies 73, 85 reported that greater trust in government advice was associated with greater vaccine acceptance This was supported by two qualitative studies 64, 81 in which adolescents reported being vaccine hesitant due to lack of trust in the government and medical institutions. Religion or cultural advice or norms were reasons to accept or decline vaccines in six quantitative studies (Table 2). On the other hand, religious beliefs were not found to be significantly associated with vaccine acceptance in one medium-quality quantitative study 86.Two qualitative studies 32, 87 reported adolescents repeating the words or practices of cultural or religious leaders e.g., taking herbal remedies or believing the vaccine to be “ungodly”, but specifically in cultures in which religion was more dominant. Teacher influence was a reason to accept or decline a vaccine in three low-quality quantitative studies (Table 2) and one medium-quality qualitative study 88, but was not measured elsewhere. Qualitative reports showed that the mechanism of social influence was also important. While being influenced by others, adolescents were resistant to vaccine instructions or mandates from government, healthcare workers or parents/families 39 and also resisted instructing others 38.

Autonomy and choice were important aspects of social influence. One quantitative study reported that making one’s own decision was a reason to accept the vaccine, and four studies reported parent refusal on their behalf as a reason not to accept the vaccine (Table 2). Two medium- and one low-quality quantitative studies found more collaborative parent-adolescent decision making 55, 89 or increased perceived behavioural control 67 to be significantly associated with increased acceptance. Qualitative studies detailed a range of decision-making processes including false autonomy (e.g., “they were going to make me do it anyway” 38.

Adolescents were more confident in the vaccine than their hesitant parents 38 and saw benefits to adolescent peers being in control of vaccine decisions, 82, 90 e.g., “I know a few of my friends who really want to get vaccinated, but their parents are like totally anti-vax or like do not believe in science” 82.

Although a lack of credible information (n = 11) and belief in conspiracy theories (n = 10) were reasons not to be vaccinated (Table 2), social media was not a wholly negative influence on vaccine acceptance. A low-quality quantitative study reported that greater belief in some conspiracy theories were associated with decreased vaccine intention or uptake, whereby those who believed that Covid-19 did not exist, was developed to make money or leads to sterility were less likely to receive a vaccine 42 (Table 2). One high- and two medium-quality studies reported that greater use of social media 35, 65, 91 was associated with lower vaccine acceptance. On the other hand, one medium-quality study reported no association between belief in conspiracy theories and acceptance 86, two medium-quality quantitative studies reported greater use of Facebook and Instagram (but not other social media platforms) 89 and greater use of overall media 72 to be significantly associated with increased vaccine acceptance. Furthermore, in two qualitative studies 32, 81 participants saw older relatives as those more likely to believe in and share conspiracy theories, and took on the role of “debunkers” of the misinformation to which their older relatives were exposed.

Finally, overall social connection and prosocial behaviour were reasons to accept a vaccine. While self-protection (n = 10) was a reason to accept the vaccine, a desire to protect others (n = 16) was more commonly stated as a reason to be vaccinated (Table 2). Quantitative studies (n = 12) reported a desire to end the crisis and resume normal life were reasons to be vaccinated, and in two studies this was specifically to support the economy, society and contribute to herd immunity (Table 2). Three high- or medium-quality quantitative studies found a greater desire to protect others was significantly associated with increased vaccine acceptance 39, 73, 92, although while one study reported no significant association between prosocial behaviour and vaccine behaviour 84. Qualitative results also showed vaccine acceptance was motivated by both the desire to return to a normal life 31, 81, 90 but also to alleviate their families’ suffering 81 and for the benefit of society 38, 66. Those who felt more a part of their school community were significantly more likely to accept the vaccine in one high quality study 35, although loneliness was not significantly associated with vaccine acceptance in either a high- or medium-quality study 35, 85.

##### Motivation

###### i) Reflective

Vaccine safety (n = 17) and side effects (n = 25) concerns were the most common reasons not to accept the vaccine in quantitative studies. Equally, confidence in the safety of the vaccines (n = 9) was a reason to accept the vaccine (Table 2). Those with greater safety or side effect concerns were significantly less likely to be vaccine acceptant in one high-, 11 medium- and two low-quality studies 34, 49, 56, 69, 72, 73, 76, 80, 83, 86, 89, 92–94, although as an exception one high quality study found no significant association between vaccine safety concerns and vaccine acceptance 36. These concerns related to the speed and perceived lack of rigour in vaccine development, reported in five quantitative studies (Table 2). Qualitative studies also reported vaccine safety 31 and side effect concerns 64, 66, 87, 90 often as part of a broader mistrust of state, pharmaceutical and medical authorities, especially among racially diverse and or more deprived communities.

Adolescents evaluated the necessity of the vaccines based on their perceptions of susceptibility to Covid-19, vaccine efficacy, and severity of Covid-19. There was strong evidence that adolescents did not consider themselves susceptible to Covid-19, and this was related to lower vaccine intention or uptake. Perceived lack of susceptibility was a reason not to accept the vaccine in quantitative (n = 19, Table 2) and qualitative (n = 1) 31 studies. Six quantitative studies found the more an adolescent perceived themselves susceptible to Covid- 19, the greater their vaccine acceptance 36, 80, 83, 95–97. However, one high- and one medium- quality study found no significant association between perceived susceptibility to Covid-19 and vaccine intention or uptake 37, 76.

Perception the vaccine was ineffective (n = 27) and preference for “natural immunity” (n = 7) were reasons not to accept the vaccine in quantitative studies (Table 2). In six studies, the more participants viewed the vaccine as effective the more likely they were to be vaccine acceptant 34, 67, 69, 73, 80, 86, although one medium-quality study found no significant association 74. In three medium-quality studies, the more participants viewed Covid-19 as severe, the more likely they were to be vaccine acceptant 67, 69, 93. However, one high- and two medium- quality studies found no evidence for an association between perceived severity and vaccine acceptance 37, 39, 95. Finally, there was moderate evidence in one high- and one low-quality study that those with a greater intention to vaccinate were more likely to receive a vaccination 34, 48.

###### **ii)** Automatic

While worry or fear of Covid-19 (n = 5) were reasons to accept the vaccine (Table 2), fear of needles/injections was conversely a reason *not* to accept the vaccine in both quantitative (n = 9, Table 2) and one qualitative study 66. Two medium-quality studies found increased fear of Covid-19 was associated with lower vaccine acceptance 71, 74. However, one high-quality and three medium-quality studies found no significant association between worry or fear of Covid-19 and vaccine acceptance 33, 80, 84, 89. One medium-quality study found that greater fear of needles was significantly associated with lower vaccine acceptance 80.

While having a negative prior vaccine experience was a reason not to accept a vaccine in quantitative studies (n = 3, Table 2), one high- 36, two medium- 86, 98 and one low-quality study 61 reported that those who had previously received a vaccine were significantly more likely to accept the Covid-19 vaccine.

Finally, there was moderate evidence that trust influences vaccine behaviour. Trust in vaccines (n = 3) and in following government advice (n = 4) were reasons to accept vaccines (Table 2). Likewise, distrust in vaccines, governments, and/or pharmaceutical organisations (n = 15) were reasons *not* to accept vaccines. Two medium-quality studies investigated associations between trust and vaccine behaviour: while one 85 found that the greater the trust in government, the more likely participants were to accept the vaccine, the other 86 found no evidence for an association.

##### Other

There was mixed evidence relating to the impact of mental health conditions on vaccine acceptance, with heterogenous mental health conditions investigated. Two medium-quality studies found no significant association between poorer mental health and vaccine acceptance. Higher rates of depression, anxiety and /or stress were significantly associated with vaccine acceptance in one high-quality 35 and three medium-quality quantitative studies 66, 83, 84, but a further two medium-quality studies 77, 89 found no association. One nigh-quality study found that while increased traumatic stress was associated with vaccine acceptance, general stress or anxiety was not 33.

## 4. Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to synthesise quantitative and qualitative evidence on psychological factors influencing adolescent Covid-19 vaccine-related attitudes, intentions, and behaviours and to map the results to COM-B 18. While other systematic reviews investigating factors associated with adolescent Covid-19 vaccination exist 15, 16, they included 15 and 7 studies respectively, as compared to the 73 included in this study. Further, they did not categorise findings according to the COM-B model. Overall, COM-B was a useful framework for categorising factors related to adolescent vaccine acceptance and hesitancy, although in line with prior literature we found that mental health sat across components 22. Reflective motivation and social opportunity were the COM-B components most frequently associated with adolescent vaccination. Consistent with wider literature 29, 99–101 vaccine safety and side effect concerns and negative perceptions that the vaccine was neither effective nor necessary were critical barriers to vaccination. Therefore, interventions supporting adolescents’ assessment of the risks and benefits of vaccines should be considered.

Furthermore, this review shows that vaccination decisions have a social dimension, supporting prior vaccine 15, 102, 103 and health behaviour research 104. Our results suggest autonomy was an important component of social influence, with adolescents involved in vaccine decision-making more likely to accept vaccines. This differentiates the adolescent vaccine experience from that of younger children (with no autonomy) or adults (with full autonomy). Autonomy is also related to sociodemographic factors such as age (younger adolescents more likely to follow parental advice), deprivation (adolescents in areas of deprivation less likely to be exposed to parental recommendations of vaccinates or positive vaccination stories in their community) 31 and support networks: while some adolescents have stable family structures and rely on familial guidance, others e.g., those in care, may not.

Evidence as to how autonomy impacts vaccine acceptance, as well as how unsupported adolescents make effective vaccine decisions, should be another area for future research.

In this review, social media was not a major influence on adolescent vaccine behaviour, contrary to prior suggestions 102, 105. During the Covid-19 pandemic, social media became important for social connection given the removal of in-person social opportunities under restrictions 106. However, this review suggests this did not necessarily have a negative impact on vaccine acceptance. Both positive and negative vaccine messaging was shared on social media with vaccine-positive messaging more likely to come from younger users 105. It has been suggested that belief in conspiracy theories peaks during adolescence 107, but evidence that belief in conspiracy theories influenced vaccine decision-making was limited in this review. Furthermore, in one study the opposite effect was shown, with some adolescents acting as ‘debunkers’ of vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories for their parents and families 81.

Many adolescent-facing vaccine interventions focus on increasing knowledge 17, 108. This review found mixed evidence on the role of knowledge in vaccine intention or uptake. While knowledge has been shown to be a predictor of adolescent preventive behaviours during Covid-19 109, the impact of knowledge-based interventions on either adolescent health behaviours 110 or uptake of vaccines 111, 112 is limited. Therefore, while education could form one arm of vaccine interventions, adolescents should also be supported to critically assess the pros and cons of vaccines and understand how social norms impact their decisions.

Finally, this review underscores prior research 8, 113, 114 that vaccine acceptance or refusal are not binary concepts. Instead they span a spectrum, encompassing attitudes, questions, doubts, concerns and philosophical positions that evolve with life stages and events 113. In this review, for example, improving physical opportunities to receive vaccines (e.g., making vaccines more accessible, lowering their cost) and receiving information from trusted healthcare workers helped to persuade adolescents who were vaccine hesitant (defined as undecided) to accept vaccines, but did not change the minds of those with more entrenched vaccine resistant views. Therefore, a range of measures to address individual drivers to vaccine acceptance are necessary.

## 5. Limitations of included studies

Few studies included in this review were high quality. Most were cross-sectional, providing a snapshot of adolescent vaccine perspectives at one timepoint, but failing to prove causality or show how vaccine acceptance shifted over time or in response to events. Furthermore, vaccine hesitancy and acceptance were defined inconsistently across studies: some using validated, reliable vaccine hesitancy scales and others self-authoring scales or measuring vaccine intentions as binary concepts. Most studies used non-probability-based sampling, with sampling frames potentially introducing bias. For example, school-based studies excluded adolescents not attending mainstream education: that is, potentially those disengaged with society and less trusting of established authority and medicine and with lower vaccine uptake 115. Furthermore, some studies relied on technology-based data collection e.g., mobile phones or apps, excluding those without access to technology or digital literacy skills (again potentially affecting the least affluent or trusting communities).

Such communities are typically underserved by Covid-19 research 116, yet their engagement in vaccination programmes is crucial for public health. Future research methods should be inclusive of those communities. Finally, with few exceptions, participants were not involved in the design of studies. As such, factors investigated could be subject to the biases of (adult) researchers.

## 6. Limitations of this study

There is currently no consistent definition of adolescence in the literature. While we used WHO’s definition of aged 10 to 19 years, this encompasses broad developmental changes from primary education and parental decision-making to adulthood. In this context, it is hard to view adolescents as an homogenous group. Age and other sociodemographic predictors of vaccination were not included, and existing literature suggests associations between age, socioeconomic status (SES) and vaccine uptake 117–119. Further research should investigate to what extent age, SES and other sociodemographic variables mediate psychological factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.

## 7. Conclusion

Vaccine hesitancy is a major threat to public health. During the Covid-19 pandemic, vaccine uptake was particularly low amongst adolescents. This systematic review synthesised factors influencing adolescent Covid-19 vaccine attitudes, intention, and uptake. Mapping these factors to COM-B highlights that adolescent-facing vaccine interventions must move beyond increasing vaccine-related knowledge and should help adolescents to critically weigh vaccine pros and cons and consider external influences on their decisions.

## Declaration of interests

LES and RA are employees of UK Health Security Agency. GJR and LES receive consultancy fees from the Sanofi group of companies and other life sciences companies. LES, RA, and GJR were participants in the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies or its subgroups in responding to COVID-19. CH is Director of Health Improvement at Director of Health Improvement at Southwest London Integrated Care Board.

## Supporting information

Supplementary files A, B, C1, C2 [[supplements/313392_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

No novel data were collected as part of this study. All data are already publicly available.

## Funding

AP’s PhD is funded by the UK Health Security Agency. This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between the UK Health Security Agency, King’s College London and the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, UKHSA or the Department of Health and Social Care. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.

## Ethics statement

All data used were in the public domain, therefore ethical approval was not required.

## Data availability

No novel data were collected as part of this study. All data are already publicly available.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Angie Pitt:** Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft.

**G. James Rubin:** Supervision, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.

**Richard Amlȏt:** Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

**Catherine Heffernan:** Supervision, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.

**Louise E. Smith:** Supervision, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Visualisation, Writing – review & editing.

**List of abbreviations:** World Health Organization (WHO); Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NIH); Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP); Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM)

## Footnotes

*   4 South West London Integrated Care Board

*   Received September 17, 2024.
*   Revision received September 17, 2024.
*   Accepted September 17, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.1. Organisation WH. World Health Organization 2023 data.who.int, WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard > Deaths [Dashboard] Available: [https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths](https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths). Accessed February 28, 2024.
    
    

2.  2.Mazrekaj D, De Witte K. The Impact of School Closures on Learning and Mental Health of Children: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2023:17456916231181108.
    
    

3.  3.Russell V, Simon R, Rosella S, et al. Impacts of school closures on physical and mental health of children and young people: a systematic review. medRxiv. 2021:2021.2002.2010.21251526.
    
    

4.  4.Chaabane S, Doraiswamy S, Chaabna K, Mamtani R. The Impact of COVID-19 School Closure on Child and Adolescent Health: A Rapid Systematic Review. Children. 2021;8(5):415.
    
    

5.  5.5. World Health Organisation. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19 Available: [https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19](https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19). Accessed February 28, 2024.
    
    

6.  6.Wallace M WK, Gargano JW, et al. . The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents Aged 12–15 Years — United States, May 2021 Available: [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7020e1.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7020e1.htm). Accessed February 28, 2024.
    
    

7.  7.Wiysonge CS, Ndwandwe D, Ryan J, et al. Vaccine hesitancy in the era of COVID- 19: could lessons from the past help in divining the future? Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics. 2022;18(1):1–3.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/21645515.2021.1983389&link_type=DOI) 

8.  8.MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4161–4164.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25896383&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F17%2F2024.09.17.24313392.atom) 

9.  9.Prevention. CfDCa. COVIDVaxView.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2024.
    
    

10. 10.World Health Organisation. Adolescent health Available: [https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health#tab=tab\_1](https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health#tab=tab_1). Accessed 10 May 2023.
    
    

11. 11.Benuto LT. Issues of Diversity in Adolescent Health Psychology: Exploring Sociocultural Influences on Adolescent Health. Handbook of Adolescent Health Psychology 2013:31–42.
    
    

12. 12.Richter LM. Studying adolescence. Science. 2006;312(5782):1902-1905.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMTIvNTc4Mi8xOTAyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDkvMTcvMjAyNC4wOS4xNy4yNDMxMzM5Mi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

13. 13.Noom MJ, Deković M, Meeus W. Conceptual Analysis and Measurement of Adolescent Autonomy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2001;30(5):577–595.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1023/A:1010400721676&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000171454400004&link_type=ISI) 

14. 14.van Duijvenvoorde ACK, Peters S, Braams BR, Crone EA. What motivates adolescents? Neural responses to rewards and their influence on adolescents’ risk taking, learning, and cognitive control. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. 2016;70:135–147.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.037&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27353570&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F17%2F2024.09.17.24313392.atom) 

15. 15.Tan SY, Oka P, Tan NC. Intention to Vaccinate against COVID-19 in Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Vaccines-Basel 2023.
    
    

16. 16.Dhamayanti M, Andriyani R, Moenardi S, Karina PP. Vaccine hesitancy in adolescents regarding COVID-19 vaccination: A literature review. Vaccine: X. 2024;18:100477.
    
    

17. 17.Malik AA, Ahmed,  N., Shafiq,  M., Elharake,  J. A., James,  E., Nyhan,  K., Paintsil,  E., Melchinger,  H. C., Team,  Y. B. I., Malik,  F. A., & Omer,  S. B. . Behavioral interventions for vaccination uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2023.
    
    

18. 18.Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science. 2011;6(1):42.
    
    

19. 19.Habersaat KB, Jackson C. Understanding vaccine acceptance and demand-and ways to increase them. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2020;63(1):32–39.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F17%2F2024.09.17.24313392.atom) 

20. 20.Creaser A, Clemes, S., Bingham, D., Costa, S., . Applying the COM-B model to understand wearable activity tracker use in children and adolescents. Loughborough University Institutional Repository 2022.
    
    

21. 21.Newby K, French, D., Brown, K., Lecky, D. Increasing young adults’ condom use intentions and action through increasing chlamydia risk and coping appraisals. BMC Public Health. 2013;13.
    
    

22. 22.Jackson C, Eliasson,  L., Barber.  N., Wein, J.,. Applying COM-B to medication adherence. The European Health Psychologist. 2014;16.
    
    

23. 23.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
    
    

24. 24.National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Study quality assessment tools Available: [https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools](https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools). Accessed 28 November 2023.
    
    

25. 25.Critical skills appraisal programme. Critical skills appraisal programme qualitative studies checklist Available: [https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/](https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/). Accessed 29 November 2023.
    
    

26. 26.Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890.
    
    

27. 27.Noblit GW, & Hare, R. D. . Meta-ethnography : synthesizing qualitative studies: Sage. 1988.
    
    

28. 28.Nehal KR, Steendam LM, Campos Ponce M, et al. Worldwide Vaccination Willingness for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(10):1071–1019.
    
    

29. 29.Romate J, Rajkumar E, Gopi A, et al. What Contributes to COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy? A Systematic Review of the Psychological Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(11).
    
    

30. 30.Inaba H, Rziankina MF, Hoshino F, et al. Self-Assessment of Health Status and Willingness to Be Vaccinated in Adolescents from the Niigata Prefecture and the Khabarovsk Region during COVID-19. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(2):184.
    
    

31. 31.Academy B. The COVID-19 YPAR Project: Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) to explore the context of ethnic minority youth responses to Covid-19 vaccines in the United States and United Kingdom. British Academy 2022.
    
    

32. 32.Ramaiya A, Kristin M, Ana Luiza B, et al. Family, community, institutional and policy factors on COVID-19 vaccine perceptions among urban poor adolescents in seven countries: qualitative cross-site analysis. medRxiv. 2023:2023.2011.2003.23298048.
    
    

33. 33.Adjaottor ES, Addo FM, Ahorsu FA, et al. Predictors of COVID-19 Stress and COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance among Adolescents in Ghana. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2022;19(13):7871.
    
    

34. 34.Efendi D, Rifani SR, Milanti A, et al. The Role of Knowledge, Attitude, Confidence, and Sociodemographic Factors in COVID-19 Vaccination Adherence among Adolescents in Indonesia: A Nationwide Survey. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(9):1489.
    
    

35. 35.Fazel M, Puntis S, White SR, et al. Willingness of children and adolescents to have a COVID-19 vaccination: Results of a large whole schools survey in England. Eclinicalmedicine. 2021;40.
    
    

36. 36.Rehati P, Amaerjiang N, Yang L, et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Adolescents: Cross-Sectional School Survey in Four Chinese Cities Prior to Vaccine Availability. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(3):452.
    
    

37. 37.Unger JB, Herzig E, Rodriguez V, et al. Application of Protection Motivation Theory to COVID-19 vaccination among a predominantly Hispanic sample of adolescents. Preventive medicine reports. 2023;34:102245–102245.
    
    

38. 38.Mansfield LN, Choi K, Delgado JR, et al. Decision-Making about COVID-19 Vaccines among Health Care Workers and Their Adolescent Children. Western journal of nursing research. 2023;45(7):665–673.
    
    

39. 39.Mckinnon B, Abalovi K, Fortin G, et al. Perspectives on COVID-19 Vaccination and Vaccine Passports in a Diverse Urban Adolescent Population: A Youth Participatory Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2023;73(3):527–535.
    
    

40. 40.Groenewald C, Isaacs D, Maluleka M. “It Doesn’t Cure, but It Protects”: COVID-19 Vaccines through the Eyes of Children and Their Parents. Vaccines (Basel). 2023;11(8):1305.
    
    

41. 41.Akhtar N, Dash GC, Kumawat A, et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among school children aged 12-14 years: A cross-sectional study from Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India. Journal of infection in developing countries. 2023;17(5):583–587.
    
    

42. 42.Balaguera C, Osorio, M., Echavarría, M., Garzón, M. Disposition of adolescents toward receiving Covid-19 vaccinations in Villavicencio: Myths and Beliefs 2023;11(4).
    
    

43. 43.Bhowmick S, Dhankher R, Mukhopadhyay A, et al. An exploratory study to assess the acceptance and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination among school-going adolescents aged 15-17 years in selected schools of Nadia district. International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health. 2022;9(6):2701.
    
    

44. 44.Bracko M, Simon UK. Virus-related Knowledge in Covid-19 Times - Results from two Cross-sectional Studies in Austria and Implications for School. International journal of biological sciences. 2022;18(4):1627–1650.
    
    

45. 45.Choi SH, Jo YH, Jo KJ, Park SE. Pediatric and Parents’ Attitudes Towards COVID-19 Vaccines and Intention to Vaccinate for Children. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(31):e227.
    
    

46. 46.Hopfer S, Fields EJ, Ramirez M, et al. Adolescent COVID-19 Vaccine Decision- Making among Parents in Southern California. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(7).
    
    

47. 47.Kajiwara S, Akiyama N, Ohta M. Intentions Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination in Females Aged 15-49 Years. Vaccines-Basel. 2022;10(2).
    
    

48. 48.Li T, Qi R, Chen B, et al. COVID-19 vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 12–17 years in three provinces of eastern China: A cross-sectional survey, 2021. Frontiers in public health. 2022;10:919190–919190.
    
    

49. 49.Li T, Qi R, Zhou Y-H, et al. Attitudes and Factors Associated With Intention to the Third Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine Among Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Survey in 3 Provinces of China. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness. 2022;17:e201–e201.
    
    

50. 50.Meraya AM, Salami RM, Alqahtani SS, et al. COVID-19 Vaccines and Restrictions: Concerns and Opinions among Individuals in Saudi Arabia. Healthcare-Basel. 2022;10(5).
    
    

51. 51.Klein JK, Middleman AB, Quinn JR. COVID-19 IMPACT ON PARENT/YOUNG ADULT ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS TOWARD VACCINES FOR ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS. Journal of adolescent health. 2021;68(2S):S6.
    
    

52. 52.Middleman AB, Klein J, Quinn J. Vaccines for Teens: Attitudes across the Pandemic on Routine and Covid-19 Vaccines. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2022;70(4):S12–S13.
    
    

53. 53.Oka P, Thia BWQ, Gunalan SZ, et al. Awareness, Barriers and Concerns of Adolescents Toward the COVID-19 Vaccine: A Cross-Sectional Study in Singapore. Frontiers in public health. 2022;10:903152–903152.
    
    

54. 54.Persaud Y, Mandrell BN, Sharma A, et al. Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine among pediatric patients with sickle cell disease and their caregivers. Pediatric blood & cancer. 2023;70(5):e30274-n/a.
    
    

55. 55.Qian D. A., Parental Influence on Adolescent Covid-19 Vaccination Opinions. Open Journal of Social Sciences,. 2023(11):225–238.
    
    

56. 56.Rosen BL, Meisman A, Sun Q, et al. 31. Factors Associated with Adolescents and Young Adults’ Intention to Receive a COVID-19 Vaccine. Journal of adolescent health. 2022;70(4):S17–S17.
    
    

57. 57.Scherer AM, Gedlinske AM, Parker AM, et al. Acceptability of Adolescent COVID- 19 Vaccination Among Adolescents and Parents of Adolescents - United States, April 15-23, 2021. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2021;70(28):997-1003.
    
    

58. 58.Tirawi P, Kumar,  A., Kumar,  S., Saxena,  A., Kaur,  A., Kriplani,  A., Nath,  R. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) Towards COVID-19 Vaccination among 15–17 Year Old Beneficiaries of COVID Vaccination Centre (CVC) of a Tertiary Hospital in New Delhi. Indian Journal of Youth and Adolescent Health. 2022;9(2):4–8.
    
    

59. 59.Wirunpan M. Knowledge, attitudes, and willingness of adolescents towards coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine in Bangkok, Thailand. International journal of medical science and public health. 2021;10(2):1.
    
    

60. 60.Das P, Raychaudhuri D, Marak M, Das P. A study on knowledge, perception and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines among adolescents attending Medical College, Kolkata. National journal of physiology, pharmacy and pharmacology. 2024;14(3):1–5.
    
    

61. 61.Garg M, Nagrecha AA, Gupta R, Williams M. COVID-19 Vaccine Perspective From Adolescents’ Lens in the US. Curēus (Palo Alto, CA). 2024;16(2):e53566–e53566.
    
    

62. 62.Güneysu ST, Güleryüz OD, Karakaş NM, et al. What do children aged 12–18 think about COVID-19 vaccines? Archives de pédiatrie : organe officiel de la Société française de pédiatrie. 2023;30(8):586–590.
    
    

63. 63.Moore CM, Wakim PG, Taylor HA. Factors Affecting COVID-19 Vaccine Decision- Making and Satisfaction: A Survey of US High School Students. Journal of adolescent health. 2024.
    
    

64. 64.Budhwani H, Maycock T, Murrell W, Simpson T. COVID-19 Vaccine Sentiments Among African American or Black Adolescents in Rural Alabama. Journal of adolescent health. 2021;69(6):1041–1043.
    
    

65. 65.Alemu D, Diribsa T, Debelew GT. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Its Associated Factors Among Adolescents. Patient Prefer Adher. 2023;17:1271–1280.
    
    

66. 66.Nilsson S, Mattson J, Berghammer M, et al. To be or not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 – The adolescents’ perspective – A mixed-methods study in Sweden. Vaccine: X. 2021;9:100117–100117.
    
    

67. 67.Zilhadia Z, Ariyanti F, Nurmansyah MI, et al. Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Among Muslim High School Students in Jakarta Metropolitan Area, Indonesia. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare. 2022;15:2341.
    
    

68. 68.Dhankher R, Mukhopadhyay A, Bhowmick S, et al. Perception regarding COVID-19 vaccine and COVID appropriate behavior among adolescents at a tertiary hospital, West Bengal: A longitudinal survey. Clinical epidemiology and global health. 2023;21:101277–101277.
    
    

69. 69.Lee H, Choe YJ, Kim S, et al. Attitude and Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccine in Parents and Adolescents: A Nationwide Survey. Journal of adolescent health. 2022;71(2):164–171.
    
    

70. 70.Middleman AB, Klein J, Quinn J. Vaccine Hesitancy in the Time of COVID-19: Attitudes and Intentions of Teens and Parents Regarding the COVID-19 Vaccine. Vaccines- Basel. 2022;10(1).
    
    

71. 71.71. Can RK, S. Reflection of vaccine and COVID-19 fear in young groups in the COVID- 19 pandemic. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (1992). 2021.
    
    

72. 72.Dvorsky MR, Breaux R, Langberg JM, Becker SP. Adolescents with ADHD are at increased risk for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Journal of psychiatric research. 2022;152:25–30.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.06.005&link_type=DOI) 

73. 73.Euser S, Kroese FM, Derks M, de Bruin M. Understanding COVID-19 vaccination willingness among youth: A survey study in the Netherlands. 2022.
    
    

74. 74.Assad HC, Rizij FA, Hussien AA, Hadi Z. ACCEPTANCE OF THE COVID-19 VACCINE AND ITS RELATED FACTORS AMONG IRAQI ADOLESCENTS: A CROSS- SECTIONAL STUDY. Wiad Lek. 2023;76(6):1363–1370.
    
    

75. 75.Efendi D, Kurniasari MD, Tsai HT, et al. Path analysis of COVID-19 vaccine adherence among adolescents across Indonesia, in the Maluku-Papua Islands (Eastern Indonesia), and on Java Island. Journal of pediatric nursing. 2023;73:e43–e53.
    
    

76. 76.Wang D, Chukwu A, Mwanyika-Sando M, et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its determinants among sub-Saharan African adolescents. PLOS global public health. 2022;2(10):e0000611–e0000611.
    
    

77. 77.Zhang P, Li Y, Wang H, et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Older Adolescents and Young Adults: A National Cross-Sectional Study in China. Frontiers in public health. 2022;10:877668–877668.
    
    

78. 78.Pimentel SM, Avila MAGd, Prata RA, et al. Association of health literacy, COVID- 19 threat, and vaccination intention among Brazilian adolescents. Revista latino-americana de enfermagem. 2022;30(spe):e3759–e3759.
    
    

79. 79.Hasanatuludhhiyah N, Visuddho V, Purba AKR, et al. An Important Strategy to Improve Adolescent Health Literacy: COVID-19 Modules in High School in Indonesia. Journal of preventive medicine and public health. 2023;56(6):523–532.
    
    

80. 80.Bergh K, Jonas K, Duby Z, et al. Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Schoolgoing Adolescent Girls and Young Women in South Africa. Vaccines (Basel). 2023;11(10):1581.
    
    

81. 81.Garcia J, Vargas N, de la Torre C, et al. Engaging Latino Families About COVID-19 Vaccines: A Qualitative Study Conducted in Oregon, USA. Health education & behavior. 2021;48(6):747–757.
    
    

82. 82.Delgado JR, Szilagyi PG, Peralta JB, et al. Influence of Perceived Adolescent Vaccination Desire on Parent Decision for Adolescent COVID-19 Vaccination. Journal of adolescent health. 2022;70(4):567–570.
    
    

83. 83.Rogers AA, Cook RE, Button JA. Parent and Peer Norms are Unique Correlates of COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions in a Diverse Sample of U.S. Adolescents. Journal of adolescent health. 2021;69(6):910–916.
    
    

84. 84.Ateş BÖ, Özyavuz G, Cöngöloğlu MA. Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy of adolescents with psychiatric disorders and their parents: Data from a child psychiatry outpatient clinic. Turkish journal of pediatrics. 2023;65(2):205–217.
    
    

85. 85.Chung GK-K, Chan Y-H, Chan S-M, et al. The impact of trust in government on pandemic management on the compliance with voluntary COVID-19 vaccination policy among adolescents after social unrest in Hong Kong. Frontiers in public health. 2022;10:992895–992895.
    
    

86. 86.Roy DN, Islam E, Hossen MM, et al. Sociopsychological determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among the students’ of higher secondary schools in rural Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study. Psychology in the schools. 2024;61(2):568–581.
    
    

87. 87.Kenworthy T, Harmon SL, Delouche A, et al. Community voices on factors influencing COVID-19 concerns and health decisions among racial and ethnic minorities in the school setting. Frontiers in Public Health. 2022;10.
    
    

88. 88.Uroko FC, Nche GC. Myths and misunderstandings: how religious Education contributed to vaccine hesitancy among Nigerian Christian students. British journal of religious education. 2023:1–14.
    
    

89. 89.Gewirtz-Meydan A, Mitchell K, Shlomo Y, et al. COVID-19 Among Youth in Israel: Correlates of Decisions to Vaccinate and Reasons for Refusal. Journal of adolescent health. 2022;70(3):396–402.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.11.016&link_type=DOI) 

90. 90.Fisher H, Lambert H, Hickman M, et al. Experiences of the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic from the perspectives of young people: Rapid qualitative study. Public health in practice (Oxford, England). 2021;2:100162–100162.
    
    

91. 91.Parlak ME, Ener D. Anti-Vaccination and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Adolescents. Medical Records. 2022;4(3):258–265.
    
    

92. 92.Tu P, Kotarba M, Bier B, et al. Internal and External Motivations and Risk Perception toward COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents in the U.S. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(5):697.
    
    

93. 93.Ryan GW, Askelson NM, Woodworth KR, et al. Unvaccinated Adolescents’ COVID- 19 Vaccine Intentions: Implications for Public Health Messaging. Journal of adolescent health. 2023;73(4):679–685.
    
    

94. 94.Rosen BL, Meisman A, Sun Q, et al. Factors Associated With Racially and Ethnically Diverse Sample of Adolescents, Young Adults, and Parents’ Intention to Receive a COVID- 19 Vaccine. Am J Health Promot. 2024:8901171241233397.
    
    

95. 95.Ganem F, Folch C, Colom-Cadena A, et al. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among students and parents in Sentinel Schools Network of Catalonia, Spain. PloS one. 2023;18(3):e0282871–e0282871.
    
    

96. 96.Tu P, Kotarba M, Bier B, et al. Internal and External Motivations and Risk Perception toward COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents in the U.S. Vaccines. 2022;10(5).
    
    

97. 97.Zilhadia Z, Ariyanti F, Nurmansyah MI, et al. Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Among Muslim High School Students in Jakarta Metropolitan Area, Indonesia. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare. 2022;15:2341–2352.
    
    

98. 98.Coronado GD, Petrik AF, Slaughter M, et al. Adolescents Who Have Undergone Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Are More Likely to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine. Journal of adolescent health. 2023;72(6):985–988.
    
    

99. 99.Sherman SM, Smith LE, Sim J, et al. COVID-19 vaccination intention in the UK: results from the COVID-19 vaccination acceptability study (CoVAccS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. 2021;17(6):1612–1621.
    
    

100.100.Kafadar AH, Tekeli GG, Jones KA, et al. Determinants for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the general population: a systematic review of reviews. Journal of Public Health. 2023;31(11):1829–1845.
    
    

101.101.Brandt EJ, Rosenberg J, Waselewski ME, et al. National Study of Youth Opinions on Vaccination for COVID-19 in the U.S. Journal of adolescent health. 2021;68(5):869–872.
    
    

102.102.Mitchell H, Lim R, Gill PK, et al. What do adolescents think about vaccines? Systematic review of qualitative studies. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022;2(9):e0001109.
    
    

103.103.Mudenda S, Meyer JC, Fadare JO, et al. COVID-19 vaccine uptake and associated factors among adolescents and youths: Findings and implications for future vaccination programmes. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023;3(9):e0002385.
    
    

104.104.Wang Y, Chen M, Lee JH. Adolescents’ Social Norms across Family, Peer, and School Settings: Linking Social Norm Profiles to Adolescent Risky Health Behaviors. Journal of youth and adolescence. 2019;48(5):935–948.
    
    

105.105.Cascini F, Pantovic A, Al-Ajlouni YA, et al. Social media and attitudes towards a COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review of the literature. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;48:101454.
    
    

106.106.Fernandes B, Nanda Biswas U, Tan-Mansukhani R, et al. The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on internet use and escapism in adolescents. Revista de psicología clínica con niños y adolescentes. 2020;7(n° 3):59–65.
    
    

107.107.Jolley D, Douglas KM, Skipper Y, et al. Measuring adolescents’ beliefs in conspiracy theories: Development and validation of the Adolescent Conspiracy Beliefs Questionnaire (ACBQ). British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2021;39(3):499–520.
    
    

108.108.Excellence NIfHaC. Evidence review for education interventions to increase the uptake of routine vaccines: Vaccine uptake in the general population. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK581888/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK581888/): NICE 2022.
    
    

109.109.Li F, Liang W, Rhodes RE, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the preventive behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic among children and adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1201.
    
    

110.110.Xu T, Tomokawa S, Gregorio ER, Jr., et al. School-based interventions to promote adolescent health: A systematic review in low- and middle-income countries of WHO Western Pacific Region. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(3):e0230046.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F17%2F2024.09.17.24313392.atom) 

111.111.Flood T, Wilson IM, Prue G, et al. Impact of school-based educational interventions in middle adolescent populations (15-17yrs) on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake and perceptions/knowledge of HPV and its associated cancers: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2020;139:106168.
    
    

112.112.Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Eckersberger E, et al. Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: A systematic review of published literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine. 2014;32(19):2150–2159.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.081&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24598724&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F17%2F2024.09.17.24313392.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000335632200004&link_type=ISI) 

113.113.Larson H. Stuck : how vaccine rumors start - and why they don’t go away. New York, New York: Oxford University Press 2020.
    
    

114.114.Dubé E, Laberge C, Guay M, et al. Vaccine hesitancy. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. 2013;9(8):1763–1773.
    
    

115.115.Bedford H, Firman N, Waller J, et al. Which young women are not being vaccinated against HPV? Cross-sectional analysis of a UK national cohort study. Vaccine. 2021;39(40):5934–5939.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.07.094&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34419303&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F09%2F17%2F2024.09.17.24313392.atom) 

116.116.Witham MD AE, Carroll CB On behalf of the NIHR CRN INCLUDE Steering Group. Ensuring that COVID-19 research is inclusive: guidance from the NIHR INCLUDE project. BMJ Open. 2020;10.
    
    

117.117.Aiano F, Ireland G, Powell A, et al. Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in adolescents: a national cross-sectional study, August 2021–January 2022, England. BMJ Open. 2023;13(9):e071707.
    
    

118.118.Alphonso SR, Andrews MR, Regan SD, et al. Geospatially clustered low COVID-19 vaccine rates among adolescents in socially vulnerable US counties. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2024;37:102545.
    
    

119.119.Aldridge SJ, Agrawal U, Murphy S, et al. Uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations amongst 3,433,483 children and young people: meta-analysis of UK prospective cohorts. Nature Communications. 2024;15(1):2363.