Skip to main content
Download PDF

Correlation of geopolitics, education, democracy with COVID-19 vaccination rate

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 694 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Vaccine hesitancy is an ongoing problem and determining the factors that increase the vaccination rate in various countries of the world might be useful for further implementation of efficient public health policies and negating anti-vaccination campaigns.

Materials and methods

Human Development Index (HDI), Education Index (EI), Democracy Index (DI), COVID-19 vaccination rates, COVID-19 data were collected from public sources such as UNDP - Human Development Reports, UNESCO - Education Index, Economist Intelligence, WHO– COVID-19 Dashboard, Our World In Data, The Financial Times COVID-19 Dashboard. Statistical analysis such as Pearson correlation, and linear regression analyses were done to determine a relation between the above-mentioned indices and COVID-19 vaccination rates (1-dose, 2-dose, booster, and combined).

Results

HDI had the strongest positive correlation with the vaccination rates (1-dose– r (181) = 0.632, p < 0.001, 2-dose– r (181) = 0.671, p < 0.001, booster– r (181) = 0.718, p < 0.001, combined– 0.703, p < 0.001). EI (1-dose– r (177) = 0.560, p < 0.001, 2-dose– r (177) = 0.599, p < 0.001, booster– r (177) = 0.642, p < 0.001, combined– 0.626, p < 0.001), DI (1-dose– r (163) = 0.445, p < 0.001, 2-dose– r (163) = 0.479, p < 0.001, booster– r (163) = 0.534, p < 0.001, combined– 0.508, p < 0.001), as well as Geographic location (1-dose– η (Eta) = 0.610 p < 0.001, 2-dose– η (Eta) = 0.633 p < 0.001, booster– η (Eta) = 0.657, p < 0.001, combined– η (Eta) = 0.645, p < 0.001) had positive correlation with vaccination rates.

Conclusion

There is a strong positive correlation of COVID-19 vaccination rates with HDI and EI.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Vaccines are effective tools in controlling and preventing harmful or deadly infectious diseases, especially in people who are immunocompromised [1]. According to World Health Organization (WHO), between 2010 and 2015, vaccines prevented about 10 million deaths worldwide [1]. Evidence collected throughout the globe suggests that Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are effective in the reduction of infection rates and prevention of severe illness or death [2]. For the COVID-19 vaccine to achieve the highest efficacy (achieve herd immunity), it is of vital importance that the public vaccination rate is 70% and above [3].

Factors that contribute to the acceptance of vaccination rate may include availability, affordability, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines; or the necessity of vaccination and perception of the disease risk [4]. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been detected in low, middle, and high-income countries globally [5]. According to different data, vaccine refusal in general, including COVID-19 vaccines, is a common phenomenon worldwide and the main reasons for hesitancy involve– a lack of awareness and knowledge, certain religious beliefs, as well a lack of perception of risks or benefits [4]. Cultural, socio-demographic, cognitive, psychological factors, or even political orientations may also lead to vaccine hesitancy [2, 4].

To analyze the real reasons behind the refusal of vaccine acceptance, the epidemiologic triad of host, agent, and environmental factors may be used [4]. Host factors encompass education, income levels, knowledge, or previous experience; The agent factors depend on the perception of susceptibility to the disease, as well as vaccine effectiveness and safety; Environmental factors involve social factors, information spread via media, and public health policy [4]. Distrust of crisis management policy and dissatisfaction with the government policy can influence vaccine hesitancy [5]. On the other hand, strong trust in governments may be a crucial factor for higher rates of vaccine acceptance [6]. Trust in social media or other informal sources of information (friends, family) might negatively affect the vaccination status [7]. Individuals who believe in conspiracy theories, have a high susceptibility to misinformation and are more hesitant to get vaccinated [2]. The conspiracy theories range from COVID-19 being just another flu-like disease to governments reporting fake number of the infected and the dead [8]. In this article we are going to determine which of the factors (geographic location, education, democracy etc.) correlate with the COVID-19 vaccination rate and what is the strength of correlation. This data might be extremely useful for developing novel approaches in public health management.

Materials and methods

This research has a cross-sectional study design and we tried to detect whether democracy index, geographic location, and level of education are correlated with the COVID-19 vaccination rate, separately, all together or in a various combination. Data collection was performed between June, 2023 and August, 2023. Primary data sources included the United Nation Development Programme, The World Health Organization; Secondary sources included Our World in Data and Financial Times COVID-19 dashboard. No exclusion criteria were used for countries or territories. Healthcare logistics and infrastructure were not a subject data analysis in this study, although it might be the major contributing factor throughout in certain geographic locations.

Data collection

We collected the following values: Human Development Index (HDI) [9], Education Index (EI) [10], Democracy Index (DI) [11], COVID-19 vaccination rate (1-dose, 2-dose, booster doses) [12,13,14], COVID-19 death per 1 million (as of November of 2023) [12, 13] [Table 1]. We did not acquire the data from the primary sources, such as local public health authorities, but from secondary trusted sources that acquire and filter the information. The preferred source was the official WHO COVID-19 dashboard, which offers continuous data verification through the official channels to ensure accuracy, reliability, and up-to-date publication of the information. Although, if the data for certain country or territory (for example: Taiwan) was not available through this portal, we utilized Our World in Data or Financial Times COVID-19 dashboards. It should be noted that countries that had vaccination rates more than 100% of the population regarding first or second dose were included with 100%.

Table 1 This data depicts all the data that has been collected and analyzed through this study
Full size table

Countries and territories

The countries and territories were split into the following geographic groups: North America (NA), South America (SA), Western Europe (WE), Eastern Europe (EE), Asia, Middle East (ME), Africa, and Australia.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was done with SPSS 26 to determine the strength of correlation via Pearson’s correlation and linear regression analysis for scale variables, eta coefficient test for categorical and scale variables, mean, confidence interval (CI)– 95%, p values (< 0.05), etc.

Results

General Information

The worldwide mean for 1-dose, 2-dose, booster dose and combined vaccination rate were, respectively, 60.59% (57.11–64.08, CI– 95%), 55.58% (52.05–59.10, CI– 95%), 30.66% (26.76–34.57, CI– 95%), 146.84% (136.39-157.29, CI– 95%) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

This figure depicts worldwide results of 1-dose (A), 2-dose (B), booster (C) and combined (D) vaccination rates (in percentages)

Full size image

We also calculated mean HDI, EI and DI for separate geographic locations (Fig. 2) and they were as follows:

Fig. 2
figure 2

This figure depicts results of HDI (A), EI (B), and DI (C) vaccination rates in relation to the geographic location

Full size image

HDI for NA– 0.770 (0.664–0.876, CI– 95%), SA– 0.744 (0.712–0.776, CI– 95%), WE– 0.92 (0.911–0.942, CI– 95%), EE– 0.832 (0.811–0.852, CI– 95%), Asia– 0.702 (0.653–0.752, CI– 95%), ME– 0.770 (0.698–0.841, CI– 95%), Africa– 0.559 (0.530–0.589, CI– 95%), Australia– 0.806 (0.540–1.071, CI– 95%).

EI for NA − 0.701 (0.574–0.827, CI– 95%), SA– 0.679 (0.637–0.722, CI– 95%), WE– 0.864 (0.831–0.897, CI– 95%), EE– 0.806 (0.782–0.830, CI– 95%), Asia– 0.620 (0.559–0.680, CI– 95%), ME– 0.657 (0.581–0.734, CI– 95%), Africa– 0.470 (0.434–0.506, CI– 95%), Australia– 0.784 (0.470–1.097, CI– 95%);

DI for NA– 6.64 (5.06–8.22, CI– 95%), SA– 5.56 (4.55–6.57, CI– 95%), WE– 8.64 (8.29-9.00, CI– 95%), EE– 6.24 (5.56–6.91, CI– 95%), Asia– 4.47 (3.48–5.45, CI– 95%), ME– 3.30 (2.45–4.14, CI– 95%), Africa– 4.00 (3.51–4.48, CI– 95%), Australia– 7.73 (4.87–10.59, CI– 95%).

Either weak or very weak correlation was observed between Covid-19 death rate per 1-million population and 1-dose, 2-dose, booster, and combined vaccination rate– r (196) = 0.165, p < 0.001, r (196) = 0.200, p < 0.001, r (196) = 234, p < 0.001, and r(196) = 0.210, p < 0.001, respectively. This leads us to believe that higher death rates, unfortunately, in most of the countries, did not act as a stimuli to get a vaccine shot.

Education Index and COVID-19 vaccination rate

A Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis were computed to assess the linear relationship between EI and vaccination percentages of 1-dose, 2-dose, booster, as well as combined values (Fig. 3). There was a positive correlation between EI and 1-dose vaccination rate, r (177) = 0.560, r-squared– 0.313, F– 80.66, Beta– 80.19 (62.57–97.82, CI– 95%), p < 0.001, There was a positive correlation between EI and 2-dose vaccination rate, r (177) = 0.599, r-squared– 0.359, F– 99.22, Beta– 86.59 (69.43-103.74, CI– 95%), p < 0.001. There was a positive correlation between EI and booster dose rate, r (177) = 0.642, r-squared– 0.412, F– 123.91, Beta– 100.50 (82.68-118.31, CI– 95%), p < 0.001. There was a positive correlation between EI and combined vaccination rate, r (177) = 0.626, r-squared– 0.392, F– 114.02, Beta– 267.29 (217.89-316.68, CI– 95%), p < 0.001.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Figure 1 This figure depicts linear relationship between 1-dose (A), 2-dose (B), booster (C) and combined (D) vaccination rates (in percentages) and EI.

Full size image

Human Development insights and COVID-19 vaccination rate

A Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis were computed to assess the linear relationship between HDI and vaccination percentages of 1-dose, 2-dose, booster, as well as combined values (Fig. 4). There was a positive correlation between HDI and 1-dose vaccination rate, r (181) = 0.632, r-squared– 0.399, F– 120.10, Beta– 104.37 (85.57-123.16, CI– 95%), p < 0.001. There was a positive correlation between HDI and 2-dose vaccination rate, r (181) = 0.671, r-squared– 0.451, F– 120.10, Beta– 111.76 (93.66-129.86, CI– 95%), p < 0.001. There was a positive correlation between HDI and booster dose rate, r (181) = 0.718, r-squared– 0.516, F– 192.87, Beta– 130.10 (111.61-148.58, CI– 95%), p < 0.001. There was a positive correlation between HDI and combined vaccination rate, r (181) = 0.703, r-squared– 0.494, F– 176.92, Beta– 346.23 (294.87-397.59, CI– 95%), p < 0.001.

Fig. 4
figure 4

This figure depicts linear relationship between 1-dose (A), 2-dose (B), booster (C) and combined (D) vaccination rates (in percentages) and HDI.

Full size image

Democracy Index and COVID-19 vaccination rate

A Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis were computed to assess the linear relationship between DI and vaccination percentages of 1-dose, 2-dose, booster, as well as combined values (Fig. 5). There was a positive correlation between DI and 1-dose vaccination rate, r (163) = 0.445, r-squared– 0.198, F– 40.23, Beta– 4.70 (3.23–6.16, CI– 95%), p < 0.001. There was a positive correlation between DI and 2-dose vaccination rate, r (163) = 0.479, r-squared– 0.230, F– 48.62, Beta– 5.09 (3.651–6.53, CI– 95%), p < 0.001. There was a positive correlation between DI and booster dose rate, r (163) = 0.534, r-squared– 0.285, F– 65.12, Beta– 6.18 (4.67–7.69, CI– 95%), p < 0.001. There was a positive correlation between DI and combined vaccination rate, r (163) = 0.508, r-squared– 0.258, F– 56.64, Beta– 15.98 (11.78-20.173, CI– 95%), p < 0.001.

Fig. 5
figure 5

This figure depicts linear relationship between 1-dose (A), 2-dose (B), booster (C) and combined (D) vaccination rates (in percentages) and DI.

Full size image

Geographic location and Covid-19 vaccination rate

We tried to determine if there were different results regarding vaccination rate, COVID-19 related death results in various geographic location (Figs. 6 and 7).

Fig. 6
figure 6

This figure depicts results of 1-dose (A), 2-dose (B), booster (C) and combined (D) vaccination rates (in percentages) in relation to the geographic location

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

This figure depicts COVID-19 related death per 1-milion population distribution in various geographic locations

Full size image

The 1-dose vaccination rate mean for NA was 57.11% (41.80-72.42, CI– 95%), SA– 72.79% (65.68–79.91, CI– 95%), WE– 81.31% (77.9-84.73, CI– 95%), EE– 54.73% (48.90-60.55, CI– 95%), Asia– 72.71 (63.84–81.58, CI– 95%), ME– 57.91% (43.01–72.8, CI– 95%), Africa– 39.73 (33.73–45.72, CI– 95%), Australia– 77.00% (66.23–87.76, CI– 95%).

The 2-dose vaccination rate mean for NA was 51.9% (37.97–65.83, CI– 95%), SA– 65.99% (58.72–73.25, CI– 95%), WE– 78.12% (74.59–81.5, CI– 95%), EE– 52.24% (46.4-58.09, CI– 95%), Asia– 67.79% (59.08–76.50, CI– 95%), ME– 53.7% (38.54–68.85, CI– 95%), Africa– 33.04% (27.21–38.86, CI– 95%), Australia– 73.13 (60.61–85.66, CI– 95%).

The booster dose vaccination rate mean for NA was 23.52% (10.42–36.61), SA– 38.15% (27.59–48.71, CI– 95%), WE– 65.45 (56.17–74.74, CI– 95%), EE– 27.40 (19.65–35.16, CI– 95%), Asia– 41.95 (31.62–52.29, CI– 95%), ME– 27.85% (15.18–40.51, CI– 95%), Africa– 6.97% (3.50-10.44, CI– 95%), Australia– 42.68% (25.81–59.55, CI– 95%).

The combined vaccination rate mean for NA was 132.54% (91.80-173.28, CI– 95%), SA– 176.94% (153.38–200.50, CI– 95%), WE– 224.90% (210.63-239.17, CI– 95%), EE– 134.38% (115.51-153.26, CI– 95%), Asia– 182.46% (156.35-208.57, CI– 95%), ME– 139.46% (97.71-181.22, CI– 95%), Africa– 79.75% (65.26–94.23, CI– 95%), Australia– 192.81% (153.65-231.98, CI– 95%).

Eta coefficient was computed to assess the relationship between geographic location and different vaccination rates (vaccination rate was a dependent variable, while the geographic location was independent). 1-dose vaccination rate– η = 0.610 p < 0.001, 2-dose vaccination rate– η = 0.633 p < 0.001, booster dose– η = 0.657, p < 0.001, combined - η = 0.645, p < 0.001.

It caught our attention that Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries had good vaccination results, hence, we grouped Spain, Portugal, and Latin American countries together and ran the analysis. They were close to the WE mean vaccination values and much higher than EE results, whilst the HDI, EI and DI of EE were much closer to WE (Fig. 2). So, we took these countries and compared them to the rest of the world (Fig. 8). In these countries the mean 1-dose, 2-dose, booster, and combined vaccination rate was 78.21% (72.12–84.31, CI– 95%), 70.45% (63.58–77.32, CI– 95%), 43.69% (33.37–54.01, CI– 95%), and 192.3% (170.21-214.52, CI– 95%), respectively.

Fig. 8
figure 8

This figure compares the results from Latin America, Spain, and Portugal to the results from the rest of the world in regards to 1-dose (A), 2-dose (B), booster (C) and combined (D) vaccination rates (in percentages)

Full size image

The highest mean for reported COVID-19 related death per 1-million population was observed in EE– 3388.17 (2861.2-3915.15, CI– 95%) (Table 2; Fig. 7).

Table 2 The table demonstrates mean, minimum, and maximum values of Covid-19 related death rate in different geographic locations of the world
Full size table

Discussion

Out of the indicators HDI has the strongest correlation with the vaccination rate, especially the booster doses; Geographic location, EI and DI coming in with the respective order. WE showed the best results. Therefore, according to the findings of the study, if countries continue to progress and manage to increase HDI and EI locally, the vaccine coverage should go up. As the data suggests these indices are in statistically significant relation with higher vaccination rates throughout the world. However, according to the data, there were certain regions that did have lower vaccination rates in relation to their HDI, EI and DI values. The lower vaccination in the EE resulted in the highest reported COVID-19 death per 1-million population when compared to other regions (Table 2; Fig. 7). Therefore, in the discussion we are going to try and isolate all the possible causes for this disparity and elaborate on them, so that we identify possible areas for further investigation.

For example, if we take a closer look at countries in EE, we should sense that there is some other factor that is contributing to the lower vaccination rate, as it showed higher HDI, EI, however, the vaccination rate was lower than in Asia, SA, Latin American Countries, Portugal, and Spain (Figs. 2, 6 and 7). We tried to collect more information on Portuguese/Spanish speaking countries and Asian countries to identify the circumstances that led to better vaccination results than Eastern European countries despite the latter having higher HDI, EI, indices (Figs. 2, 6 and 7).

The low vaccination rate in most countries of Africa can be attributed to logistical issues, which are caused by military conflicts, lack of finances, low accessibility, lack of energy infrastructure, etc. [15, 16].

In certain countries, such as the Russian Federation we do not even know if their official statistics about the vaccination rate can be trusted since there are a lot of reports about fake COVID-19 vaccine certificates [17,18,19].

The anti-scientific and anti-vaccination campaigns might be the cause for the above, as well as rampant AIDS dissident community, which is built upon the AIDS denialism narratives and they deny the link between HIV and AIDS, promote treatment with natural remedies and lead people to succumb to this terrible disease [20,21,22].

There is a stark disparity between average indices and vaccination rates in some of the countries in Eastern Europe. Even though there is a general correlation between these indices and COVID-19 vaccination rate, still these countries fell short of hitting the average vaccination milestones.

According to a paper Georgia had delayed immunization campaign, insufficient coordination, little evidence-informed policymaking, no effective measures were taken to tackle disinformation (disinformation mainly was spread by far-right groups having ties with Russian federation), and including politically driven management of the pandemic ended in Georgia having one of the worst vaccination rates and one of the highest death rates per 1-million population [Table 1] [23]. Apart from the low vaccine coverage, the latter can also be attributed to bad patient management, which was mainly caused by bad remote management, due to failure of governmental hot-line, and overload of the healthcare system; The hospitalization rate was up to 15.1%– out of 1 660 249 laboratory-confirmed cases, 250 113 patients had been hospitalized, while a private telehealth clinic managed to maintain significantly lower numbers in regards to hospitalization (0.89% during omicron variant domination and 2.48% during delta variant domination) [24].

Eastern Europe is not the only region where the Russian soft power has been noticed. There have been multiple media reports and scientific studies conducted that has exposed anti-vaccination campaigns conducted and backed by The Russian Federation and China; The main purpose of Russian Federation seems to be undermining western science, spreading misinformation about the pandemic and COVID-19, exacerbating tensions among western society; Although, China and Russia have similarities, the main difference is that China stays consistent with a narrative while Russia is revamping the approach through its firehose of falsehoods strategy [25, 26]. Russian State media– Russia Today, which is followed by many on social platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, was working on amplifying tensions regarding vaccine hesitancy and propagating their country as a global humanitarian and scientific leader, especially galvanizing far right and other fringe groups, such as Proud Boys in the United States or neo-Nazis throughout Europe [26,27,28], one such case of online bullying and threatening is believed to have ended in suicide of an Austrian doctor [27]. After Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) published the study about the Russian and Chinese disinformation, that was a signal to the western countries to increase their efforts to vigorously tackle the disinformation through social media [29]. There have been numerous reports that social media accounts that had previously been spreading vaccine and COVID-19 disinformation shifted their focus and started to spread Russian narrative about the invasion/war in Ukraine, however, another CEPA report shows that this time around the propaganda was not as successful, because various strategies to deter such disinformation were implemented (such as, disinformation and misinformation policy implementation throughout various social media platforms, flagging and taking down misleading information etc.) [28,29,30,31,32,33]. The information warfare that Russian Federation is waging in the west is not a newly discovered thing and they are engaged not only in undermining medical progress, but electoral campaigns as well [34]; For example, back in 2018 researchers published a paper that studied how Russian Twitter bots and trolls amplified vaccine hesitancy during measles outbreak and, when they did a retrospective review of those accounts, the same trolls and bots were engaged in disseminating divisive topics during 2016 elections, misinformation about 5G wireless technology, in short, they were using everything to create a discord and further polarize the society [34]. All of the above, though, acts as a double-edged sword, since a study from Russia shows that the main reason from vaccine hesitancy are fake news, which creates fear and doubts around the vaccine [33].

Portugal faced a healthcare crisis with overflowing hospitals and soaring COVID-19 deaths, triggering an urgent need to revamp its faltering vaccine program. In response, Vice Adm. Henrique Gouveia e Melo, a former submarine squadron commander, was called upon to lead the charge. Just eight months later, Portugal stands among global vaccination leaders. Portugal’s vaccination success story defied usual challenges. The nation grappled with vaccine misinformation on social media, political divisions, and initial vaccine hesitancy. Admiral Gouveia e Melo, leveraging his military background, instilled a warlike mindset in his team of experts, which comprised military personnel, mathematicians, doctors, and strategists. His key advice for other nations: to select non-political leaders for similar roles. Portugal’s robust national vaccination program, rooted in its experience combating polio, played a pivotal role in its success. The task force, led by Admiral Gouveia e Melo, efficiently designed a system to facilitate mass vaccinations while bolstering public trust by having soldiers and healthcare professionals visibly receive vaccines. Consistency in messaging, emphasizing vaccine safety through diverse personnel, was a crucial element that set Portugal’s vaccination campaign apart from others worldwide [35].

Spain’s decentralization enables customized healthcare solutions, fosters innovation, and enhances responsiveness to regional needs, with the national government playing a facilitating role in coordination rather than imposing centralization. Interestingly, when assessing transparency in COVID-19 health management, Castilla y León, the Basque Country, and the Balearic Islands emerge as the most transparent regions, with rates of 62.5%, 50%, and 50%, respectively. However, it is noteworthy that Asturias, the region with the highest vaccination rates, records a transparency rate of only 40% [36].

According to a study, participants highlighted that belonging to a low-risk group drove vaccine refusal, irrespective of vaccine safety and efficacy. However, higher the risk-group meant higher chance for getting vaccinated [37]. Another crucial factor for vaccine refusal was being religious [37]. Our findings might suggest that since the Pope, Bishops were urging for COVID-19 vaccination in a video message, and were praising scientists for vaccines, calling it an act of love, fostering hope, and stressing the need for widespread availability to end the pandemic, it should have affected the vaccination rates in catholic countries [37, 38].

There are several reasons why COVID-19 vaccination rates were so high in Latin America. One reason is that many Latin American countries have strong public health systems [39, 40]. These public health systems were able to distribute COVID-19 vaccines quickly and efficiently to the population. Another reason is that many Latin Americans have a high level of trust in their governments [41]. This trust was important in ensuring that people were willing to get vaccinated. Finally, many Latin Americans were personally affected by COVID-19. This personal experience made them more likely to get vaccinated [42]. Catholic church being a strong proponent of vaccination must also have been a factor [37, 38].

The most of Asian countries (China, India, Nepal, Thailand etc.) also have higher vaccination rates, relative to their HDI, EI and DI, when compared with EE. Strong public health system, trust of the authorities (highest is China) and cohesive messages from the politicians could have been the reason [43,44,45,46].

This study, while insightful, possesses certain constraints that warrant careful consideration for a more comprehensive interpretation of its findings. One noteworthy limitation is the omission of critical factors such as the diverse infrastructural landscapes, logistical capabilities, and varied resource availabilities across the countries and territories. The multifaceted nature of these elements can significantly influence the outcomes and may not be adequately captured within the scope of the study. In addition to these contextual limitations, the study’s reliance on a cross-sectional design introduces inherent challenges. The utilization of non-randomized data, and the inherent difficulty in establishing the directionality of variables in cross-sectional studies poses a substantial challenge to drawing causal inferences. Without a temporal sequence of events, discerning whether certain factors precede or succeed others becomes challenging, limiting the study’s ability to establish causation. Considering these limitations, it is crucial for researchers and policymakers alike to interpret the study’s findings with a nuanced understanding of the contextual intricacies and methodological constraints. Addressing these limitations in future research endeavors will not only enhance the robustness of the conclusions but also contribute to the development of more effective and contextually relevant interventions and policies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the data suggests there is a strong positive correlation of COVID-19 vaccination rates with HDI and EI. Vaccine hesitancy is a complex issue, and it goes beyond just considering HDI and EI. The data indicates that factors influencing vaccination rates are diverse and need comprehensive exploration. Thoroughly studying these additional elements is essential to gaining a deeper understanding of the challenges associated with vaccine hesitancy. This multifaceted issue extends beyond these indices, as indicated by diverse factors influencing vaccination rates, particularly evident in regions like Eastern Europe, where there is a lower vaccination rate relative to HDI and EI values as per the results of the study. A multidimensional and evidence-based approach is essential to achieving higher vaccination rates, ultimately saving lives, and mitigating the impact of the future pandemics.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

References

  1. Wynter-Adams D, Thomas-Brown P. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a developing country: prevalence, explanatory factors and implications for the future. Public Health. 2023;217:146–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carrieri V, Guthmuller S, Wübker A. Trust and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):9245.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher KA, Bloomstone SJ, Walder J, Crawford S, Fouayzi H, Mazor KM. Attitudes toward a potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: a Survey of U.S. adults. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(12):964–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sallam M. COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: a concise systematic review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(2):160.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Babatope T, Ilyenkova V, Marais D. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: a systematic review of barriers to the uptake of COVID-19 vaccine among adults in Nigeria. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2023;47(1):45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lazarus JV, Ratzan SC, Palayew A, Gostin LO, Larson HJ, Rabin K, Kimball S, El-Mohandes A. A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat Med. 2021;27(2):225–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tan M, Straughan PT, Cheong G. Information trust and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy amongst middle-aged and older adults in Singapore: a latent class analysis Approach. Soc Sci Med. 2022;296:114767.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ullah I, Khan KS, Tahir MJ, Ahmed A, Harapan H. Myths and conspiracy theories on vaccines and COVID-19: potential effect on global vaccine refusals. Vacunas. 2021 May-Aug;22(2):93–7.

  9. Human Development Insights. UNDP– Human Development Reports, Published in 2022.

  10. Education index - United. Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Published in 2018.

  11. Democracy Index 2022. Economist Intelligence. Published in 2022.

  12. WHO COVID-19 Dashboard. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2020. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/.

  13. Edouard Mathieu H, Ritchie L, Rodés-Guirao C, Appel C, Giattino J, Hasell B, Macdonald S, Dattani D, Beltekian, Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Max Roser. (2020) - Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19). Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus’ [Online Resource].

  14. Covid-19 vaccine. tracker: the global race to vaccinate. The financial Times. published in 2021.

  15. Ayenigbara IO, Adegboro JS, Ayenigbara GO, Adeleke OR, Olofintuyi OO. The challenges to a successful COVID-19 vaccination programme in Africa. Germs. 2021;11(3):427–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kamara J, Essien U. COVID-19 in Africa: Supply chain disruptions and the role of the Africa Continental Free Trade Agreement. J Glob Health. 2022;12:03085.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Russian Vaccine Skeptics Rush to Buy Fake Covid Jab Certificates. The Moscow Times. Published in 2021. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/06/25/russian-vaccine-skeptics-rush-to-buy-fake-covid-jab-certificates-a74348.

  18. Arakpogun EO, Rodrigo P, Olan F. You shall not pass without a jab: an institutional theory perspective to COVID-19 vaccine passport policies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(21):14105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Fake COVID-. 19 Vaccination Cards Emerge in Russia. Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. Published in 2021. https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/14733-fake-covid-19-vaccination-cards-emerge-in-russia.

  20. Holt E. Russia considers legislation to tackle rising AIDS denialism. Lancet HIV. 2019;6(7):e423–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Meylakhs P, Rykov Y, Koltsova O, Koltsov S. An AIDS-denialist online community on a Russian social networking service: patterns of interactions with newcomers and rhetorical strategies of persuasion. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(11):e261.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kalichman SC, Eaton L, Cherry C. There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS: AIDS denialism beliefs among people living with HIV/AIDS. J Behav Med. 2010;33(6):432–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Nadareishvili I, Zhulina A, Tskitishvili A. The approach to the COVID-19 pandemic in Georgia—A health policy analysis. Int J Public Health. 2022;67:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chakhunashvili K, Chakhunashvili DG, Kvirkvelia E, et al. Comparative analysis of a private telehealth clinic and country-wide COVID-19 patient management results. Discover Health Syst. 2023;2:22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Matthews M. Russia’s ‘Firehose of Falsehood’ Propaganda Model. RAND Corporation July 11, 2016, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html.

  26. Ben Dubow EL, Morris J. JABBED IN THE BACK: Mapping Russian and Chinese Information Operations During COVID-19. CEPA., December. 2, 2021. https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/jabbed-in-the-back-mapping-russian-and-chinese-information-operations-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/.

  27. Betsy Reed. Austrian doctors speak out after suicide of GP following Covid threats. The Guardian. August 2., 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/02/austria-doctors-demand-more-protection-lisa-maria-kellermayr-death.

  28. Wilson SL, Wiysonge C. Social media and vaccine hesitancy. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(10):e004206.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Edward Lucas B, Dubow J, Lamond J, Morris. Corina Rebegea and Vera Zakem. Post-mortem: Russian and Chinese COVID-19 Information Operations. CEPA May 26, 2022. https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/post-mortem-russian-and-chinese-covid-19-information-operations/.

  30. Anti-vax conspiracy. groups lean into pro-Kremlin propaganda in Ukraine. Politico. Published in 2022. https://www.politico.eu/article/antivax-conspiracy-lean-pro-kremlin-propaganda-ukraine/.

  31. Ortiz-Sánchez E, Velando-Soriano A, Pradas-Hernández L, Vargas-Román K, Gómez-Urquiza JL. Cañadas-De La Fuente GA, Albendín-García L. Analysis of the Anti-vaccine Movement in Social Networks: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15):5394.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ginossar T, Cruickshank IJ, Zheleva E, Sulskis J, Berger-Wolf T. Cross-platform spread: vaccine-related content, sources, and conspiracy theories in YouTube videos shared in early Twitter COVID-19 conversations. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2022;18(1):1–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Boguslavsky DV, Sharov KS, Sharova NP. Counteracting conspiracy ideas as a measure of increasing propensity for COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Russian society. J Glob Health. 2022;2:03013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Broniatowski DA, Jamison AM, Qi S, AlKulaib L, Chen T, Benton A, Quinn SC, Dredze M. Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(10):1378–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Estrela M, Leitão C, Silva TM, Figueiras A, Roque F, Herdeiro MT. Insights on COVID-19 vaccination in Portugal: a qualitative study among Health professionals and teachers. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(12):1984.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Peña-Ramos JA, Recuero-López F, Sánchez-Bayón A, Sastre FJ. Evaluation of Spanish Health System during the COVID-19 pandemic: accountability and wellbeing results. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(24):12907.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Han Q, Zheng B, Abakoumkin G, Leander NP, Stroebe W. Why some people do not get vaccinated against COVID-19: Social-cognitive determinants of vaccination behavior. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2023;15(3):825–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lacsa JEM. COVID-19 vaccination program: the Catholic Church’s all-time support to the government when it is for the common good. J Public Health (Oxf). 2022;44(2):e320–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Castillo C, Villalobos Dintrans P, Maddaleno M. The successful COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Chile: factors and challenges. Vaccine X. 2021;9:100114.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. OECD. Primary Health Care for Resilient Health Systems in Latin America, OECD Health Policy studies. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Croucher SM, Spencer A, Bustamante S, Nguyen T, Gomez O. COVID-19 and government trust: a spiral of silence analysis in South America. Int Communication Gaz. 2023 May;15:00.

  42. Keefer P, Scartascini C, Trust. The Key to Social Cohesion and Growth in Latin America and the Caribbean (Executive Summary). IADB. January 2022.

  43. Cai Q. Public trust in the Chinese government and life satisfaction during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int Rev Admin Sci. 2023 Mar;22:00208523231161297.

  44. Nham E, Song JY, Noh JY, Cheong HJ, Kim WJ. COVID-19 vaccination in Korea: past, Present, and the Way Forward. J Korean Med Sci. 2022;37(47):e351.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Yu S, Yoo EJ, Kim S. The effect of trust in government on elections during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea. Asian Politics Policy. 2022;14(2):175–98.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Kikuchi M, Ishihara S, Kohno M. Correction to: politics of COVID-19 vaccination in Japan: how governing incumbents’ representation affected regional rollout variation. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):781.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

No financial assistance was received to support the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia

    Konstantine Chakhunashvili

  2. Reproductive Education Hub, Tbilisi, Georgia

    Konstantine Chakhunashvili, Eka Kvirkvelia, Tornike Toria, Liza Basilaia & Tsira Gorjomeladze

  3. Department of Pediatrics, Alte University, Tbilisi, Georgia

    Davit G. Chakhunashvili

  4. Department of Gynecology, Caucasus University, Tbilisi, Georgia

    Eka Kvirkvelia

  5. Business and Technology University, Tbilisi, Georgia

    Tornike Toria

  6. Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

    Liza Basilaia & Tsira Gorjomeladze

Authors
  1. Konstantine Chakhunashvili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Davit G. Chakhunashvili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eka Kvirkvelia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tornike Toria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liza Basilaia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tsira Gorjomeladze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors are responsible for the work described in this paper. All authors were involved in at least one of the following: [conception, design of work or acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data] and [drafting the manuscript and/or revising/reviewing the manuscript for important intellectual content]. All authors provided final approval of the version to be published. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantine Chakhunashvili.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chakhunashvili, K., Chakhunashvili, D.G., Kvirkvelia, E. et al. Correlation of geopolitics, education, democracy with COVID-19 vaccination rate. BMC Public Health 24, 694 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18215-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18215-4

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us