Introduction Vaccine hesitancy, defined as the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services is responsible in part for suboptimal levels of vaccination coverage worldwide. The WHO recommends that countries incorporate plans to measure and address vaccine hesitancy into their immunisation programmes. This requires that governments and health institutions be able to detect concerns about vaccination in the population and monitor changes in vaccination behaviours. To do this effectively, tools to detect and measure vaccine hesitancy are required. The purpose of this scoping review is to give a broad overview of currently available vaccine hesitancy measuring tools and present a summary of their nature, similarities and differences. Methods and analysis The review will be conducted using the framework for scoping review proffered by Arksey and O’Malley. It will comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews’ guidelines. The broader research question of this review is: what vaccine hesitancy measuring tools are currently available? Search strategies will be developed using controlled vocabulary and selected keywords. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of relevant publications will be searched. Titles and abstracts will be independently screened by two authors and data from full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be extracted independently by two authors using a pretested data charting form. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Results will be presented using descriptive statistics such as percentages, tables, charts and flow diagrams as appropriate. Narrative analysis will be used to summarise the findings of the review. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for the review. It will be submitted as part of a doctoral thesis, presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number https://osf.io/x8fjk/

The challenge of vaccine hesitancy, a growing global concern in the last decade, has been aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The need for monitoring vaccine sentiments and early detection of vaccine hesitancy in a population recommended by the WHO calls for the availability of contextually relevant tools and measures. This scoping review covers a ten year-period from 2010–2019 which included the first nine years of the decade of vaccines and aims to give a broad overview of tools and measures, and present a summary of their nature, similarities, and differences. We conducted the review using the framework for scoping reviews by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and reported it following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews’ guidelines. Of the 26 studies included, only one was conducted in the WHO African Region. Measures for routine childhood vaccines were found to be the most preponderant in the reviewed literature. The need for validated, contextually relevant tools in the WHO Africa Region is essential, and made more so by the scourge of the ongoing pandemic in which vaccination is critical for curtailment.

Vaccination coverage remains suboptimal in many parts of the world, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), including South Africa. Vaccine hesitancy, a recognized factor contributing to low vaccination uptake in many parts of the world, is suspect in the suboptimal vaccination coverage level in South Africa, particularly in the Western Cape Province. We aimed to investigate vaccine hesitancy and to describe point-of-care vaccinators' perceptions of the drivers of vaccine hesitancy in the Cape Metropolitan District, South Africa (Cape Metro). We conducted in-depth interviews with 19 point-of-care vaccinators in 16 purposively selected healthcare facilities in the Cape Metro between September and November 2019. Participants were sampled purposively as 'rich cases' who had been delivering vaccination services for at least five years post-qualification. We organized the data thematically in ATLAS.ti and report findings thematically by the types of reasons participants reported for vaccine hesitancy amongst clients. Of the 19 interviewees, 11 (59%) reported having encountered vaccine-hesitant clients at some point in their careers. Reasons reported for vaccine hesitancy by clients included: (a) religion, (b) internet misinformation, (c) concern over causing the child pain, (d) natural immunity development, and (e) concern about possible adverse effect following immunization. Vaccine hesitancy in the Cape Metro cuts across all socio-economic classes. Also, some communities perceived to be vaccine-hesitant were mentioned by the participants in this study. Attitude towards vaccination are generally positive in the Cape Metro. However, vaccine hesitancy is present. The issues of vaccine hesitancy at the reported levels can still be mitigated by continuous health education in the clinics and communities, as well as stakeholder engagement as suggested by the point-of-care vaccinators in the Cape Metro.

Immunization programs worldwide have been facing challenges in keeping vaccination coverage high. Even though universally known for its robust National Immunization Program, Brazil has also faced significant challenges regarding vaccination coverage. One of the reasons for this is vaccine hesitancy, a complex, multi-causal, and context-specific phenomenon. This qualitative study aims to understand the factors associated with decision-making and the drivers of vaccine hesitancy in Florianopolis, Santa Catarina state capital, regarding caregivers' perceptions of routine childhood vaccination. In-depth interviews were conducted in the Capital city of Santa Catarina State. Families with children up to 6 years old were included. Data were analyzed based on thematic content analysis. Twenty-nine caregivers in 18 families were interviewed. These caregivers were mainly mothers and fathers. Three themes emerged: 1. Access to information and the decision-making process, where we discuss the role of social circles, healthcare workers, and the internet; 2. Individual-institutions power relationships: Perceptions about the State's role and the Health institutions: 3. Reasons and motivations: The senses and meanings behind non-vaccination, where we discuss the drivers of vaccine hesitancy related to risk perception, caregivers' opinions on the medical-pharmaceutical industry, vaccines' composition and their side effects, families' lifestyles and worldviews, and the childhood routine vaccination schedule. The results of this study reaffirm the complexity of the decision-making process in childhood vaccination and further enable a better contextual understanding of the complex and challenging phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy.

Healthcare workers were the first group scheduled to receive COVID-19 vaccines when they became available in South Africa. Therefore, estimating vaccine confidence levels and intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare workers ahead of the national vaccination roll-out was imperative. We conducted an online survey from 4 February to 7 March 2021, to assess vaccine sentiments and COVID-19 vaccine intentions among healthcare staff and students at a tertiary institution in South Africa. We enrolled 1015 participants (74.7% female). Among the participants, 89.5% (confidence interval (CI) 87.2–91.4) were willing to accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 95.4% (CI 93.9–96.6) agreed that vaccines are important for them, 95.4% (CI 93.8–96.6) that vaccines are safe, 97.4% (CI 96.2–98.3) that vaccines are effective, and 96.1% (CI 94.6–97.2) that vaccines are compatible with religion. Log binomial regression revealed statistically significant positive associations between COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and the belief that vaccines are safe (relative risk (RR) 32.2, CI 4.67–221.89), effective (RR 21.4, CI 3.16–145.82), important for children (RR 3.5, CI 1.78–6.99), important for self (RR 18.5, CI 4.78–71.12), or compatible with religion (RR 2.2, CI 1.46–3.78). The vaccine confidence levels of the study respondents were highly positive. Nevertheless, this could be further enhanced by targeted interventions.

Introduction The outbreak of novel COVID-19 caught the world off guard in the first quarter of 2020. To stem the tide of this pandemic, there was acceleration of the development, testing and prelicensure approval for emergency use of some COVID-19 vaccine candidates. This led to raised public concern about their safety and efficacy, compounding the challenges of vaccine hesitancy. The onus of managing and administering these vaccines to a sceptical populace when they do become available rests mostly on the shoulders of healthcare workers (HCWs). Therefore, the vaccine confidence levels of HCWs become critical to the success of vaccination endeavours. This proposed study aims to estimate the level of vaccine confidence and the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine among future HCWs and their trainers at a specific university in Cape Town, South Africa, and to identify any vaccination concerns early for targeted intervention. Methods and analysis This proposed study is a cross-sectional survey study. An online questionnaire will be distributed to all current staff and students of the Faculty of Medicine Health Sciences of Stellenbosch University in Cape Town, South Africa. No sampling strategy will be employed. The survey questionnaire will consist of demographic questions (consisting of six items) and vaccine confidence questions (comprising six items in Likert scale format). Log binomial models will be employed to identify factors associated with vaccine confidence and intention. The strength of association will be assessed using the OR and its 95% CI. Statistical significance will be defined at a p value <0.05. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been obtained for the study from Stellenbosch University (Human Research Ethics Committee reference number S19/01/014 (PhD)). The results will be shared with relevant health authorities, presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.