This cross-sectional study investigated the relationship between religious beliefs and vaccine perceptions in different contexts characterized by diverse religious landscapes at different points in time. Specifically, using approximately 28,000 samples collected across two surveys, we conducted a one-year period from mid-2021 to mid-2021 to determine the We investigated differences in religious compatibility and attitudes toward acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. 2022.
We found that atheists, who make up a sizable population in the Asia-Pacific region, expressed the strongest skepticism about the compatibility of religion and vaccines. However, the low approval rating is no exception, given that the majority of atheists are not religiously affiliated,24 and this religion-related statement does not apply to them. Outside of this particular group, Buddhists in the Asia-Pacific region were the least likely to think vaccines are compatible with their religious beliefs. Similar trends were observed among individuals with different demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and country of origin, at both stages of the study. These findings are consistent with previous research that reported significantly higher proportions of people question the religious suitability of vaccines in Southeast Asian and Western Pacific countries such as Thailand and Mongolia, where atheism and Buddhism predominate. 12.
We find that support for religious conformity has declined in both Africa and the Asia-Pacific region (albeit marginally for African Muslims) and that vaccine acceptance rates in Africa have declined during the second wave. As you can see, we observed a decline in vaccine acceptance among Muslims between the two survey waves. Among different religious groups in the Asia-Pacific region, Muslims showed the most modest increase in vaccination intentions (SI Table S11). Nevertheless, this increase was mainly driven by increased vaccination rates, as only two of the 24 unvaccinated respondents had a positive attitude towards the COVID-19 vaccine. (SI Table S5). This phenomenon may be explained by religious considerations regarding the acceptability of vaccines in Islam25. It is also worth mentioning that in the first wave, Muslims showed a higher willingness to vaccinate compared to Christians, which echoes previous findings of a negative association between Christianity and vaccination. 13. However, these patterns were not evident in the second wave, in part because willingness to vaccinate increased significantly among Christians in both regions (SI Table S11). Furthermore, we found that in Africa during both waves, the willingness to get vaccinated has decreased significantly. This is likely due to a combination of delays in the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and widespread vaccine hesitancy in the region26.
Our findings further demonstrated an interaction between faith and education. We found significantly improved support for COVID-19 vaccines among people with lower levels of education, as well as perceived compatibility between faith and vaccines. This may be due to mass vaccination campaigns that have expanded vaccine availability to this subpopulation, who were previously more likely to refuse vaccination due to limited awareness of registration procedures12 . Additionally, the rising prevalence of new, more contagious variants has heightened concerns about COVID-19, motivating people who were initially reluctant to get vaccinated to change their attitudes and get vaccinated. 27. While we observed that improved education has contributed to increased confidence in vaccines among some religious groups, concerns about compatibility issues are rising among animists and Buddhists at the tertiary level in the Asia-Pacific region. We have also noticed an increase in vaccine hesitancy. Information disseminated by mainstream media sources28. Although such a combined effect of education has also been confirmed in previous studies, the negative association between education and vaccine confidence is more pronounced in upper-middle-income or high-income countries. It is argued that this is more pronounced in countries29.
Furthermore, our study revealed that faith and perceived vaccine suitability had a positive impact on vaccine acceptance. This is consistent with previous analysis suggesting that people who support the religious suitability of vaccines are twice as likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine than those who don’t. . 30 people who did not support it. However, the robustness of this association declined during the second wave of the study. This variation may be due to improved vaccine availability, coupled with evolving social and political dynamics, leading to widespread increases in vaccine acceptance among different populations, as previously discussed. There is a gender.
It is also worth highlighting some of the innovative approaches taken in processing the survey data. This facilitated comparisons between groups and allowed for more meaningful analyses. These include incorporating sample weights into regression models and selecting composite measures that include willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine among unvaccinated people in addition to individual vaccination status. . While the former approach allowed for a better representation of the population of interest, the latter approach allowed for potential differences between intentions and actual behavior regarding vaccination,31 and in specific African countries. Limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines26,32 was taken into account and better expressed. Characterizing public support for COVID-19 vaccines.
Because certain Asia-Pacific countries have limited population sizes for certain religious groups, we pooled data from different countries to infer associations between religious beliefs and vaccine perceptions. This significantly expanded the sample size, reduced the effects of potential outliers and random variation, and better restored the underlying relationships in the general population33. However, potential differences in the distribution of people residing in different countries within each religious group across the two survey waves may introduce bias. This is because country-level factors such as disease transmission patterns, vaccine-related policies in place, and the prevalence of misinformation can also influence people’s attitudes toward vaccines. was not taken into account in our model. To address this, we differentiated between African and Asia-Pacific respondents, even if they shared the same religious beliefs. This allowed us to incorporate regional and racial effects into our models, taking into account the specific ethnic composition of these regions. Due to limited access to the data, we also did not consider the effects of employment and socio-economic status, two other potential factors contributing to vaccine intention and access, although including education level The impact of this restriction may have been reduced.
A further limitation of our study is the high acceptance rate among Asia-Pacific regions, particularly animists and Hindus, during the second wave of the survey, of whom only one and three respondents, respectively, refused the COVID-19 vaccine. That is to say. Such significant class imbalances posed major challenges in accurately assessing the effects of individual covariates. However, potential confounding factors, such as increased public awareness of infection risk, further complicate the issue. An alternative approach might be to consider acceptance of booster shots as a measure of vaccine acceptance, although hesitancy for booster shots may be different from hesitancy for initial vaccination series, 11 and vaccine sentiment across different years. variation becomes difficult to quantify.
A further limitation is the timing difference between the two surveys conducted in Africa and Asia-Pacific. This may have contributed to the small change in vaccine attitudes observed among Africans. This is because the two survey waves were shorter in Africa than in the Asia-Pacific region and may not have coincided with large-scale COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. People’s feelings about vaccines were most likely to evolve39. To address this limitation, the main analysis classifies people living in different regions into different religious groups despite common religious beliefs, while simultaneously replacing the original binary time variable with a continuous variable representing exact time. We also conducted another sensitivity analysis by replacing . Timing of the survey (Supplementary Data 3).
Despite its limitations, our study demonstrates the relationship between religious beliefs and vaccine sentiment, as well as the relationship between religious beliefs and vaccine sentiment in Africa and the Asia-Pacific region in the context of COVID-19 vaccination programs. It reveals how his education has been influenced. Our findings support a strong association between faith and vaccine acceptance, but disparities between different religious groups suggest that the influence of religious beliefs on vaccine attitudes varies across contexts. 12,18 Furthermore, the inconsistent patterns observed at different time points highlight the importance of monitoring vaccine sentiment among the population over time.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer classified as a global health emergency,40 it continues to pose a high risk to countries around the world as the virus continues to mutate. Masu. Given that neither infection nor vaccination can provide lifelong immunity, booster doses need to be administered in parallel to the initial vaccination to increase protection11. Therefore, further research should investigate the potential factors driving the evolution of vaccination willingness over time and how that influence varies by region, faith, educational background, or other sociodemographic characteristics. should be prioritized. Research should focus on understanding the dynamics of these potential influencers and utilize longitudinal data on vaccine reliability over longer timescales. Such a comprehensive analysis will provide deeper insight into the causes of vaccine hesitancy, including temporal fluctuations, and thereby inform religiously tailored strategies to increase immunization coverage and reduce disease burden. 26.
