Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Willingness to receive mpox vaccine among men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1878 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Since May 2022, mpox outbreaks have been occurring in non-mpox endemic areas, with the main population affected being men who have sex with men (MSM). Outbreak prevention and control depend not only on the effectiveness of vaccines but also on people’s willingness to receive these vaccines. Currently, there is lack of synthesis on the overall rates and influence factors of MSMs’ willingness to vaccinate against mpox. Therefore, we systematically reviewed studies that assessed the willingness of MSM to receive mpox vaccine.

Methods

Studies reporting mpox vaccination intentions among MSM were included by searching five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS) from inception to May 12, 2024. The quality of the included literature was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tool. The data analysis software is Stata17. The systematic review has been registered with Prospero (registration ID: CRD42023452357).

Results

Twenty cross-sectional studies were included in the review. Meta-analysis results showed that the pooled willingness rate of vaccinate against mpox was 77.0% (95% CI: 73-81%, I2 = 99.4%). According to subgroup analysis, study countries (P = 0.002), research sample size (P = 0.001), and whether participants were infected with HIV (P = 0.002) may be sources of heterogeneity. The results of the meta-analysis of influencing factors showed that more number of sexual partners (OR: 2.24, 95%CI: 1.86–2.69), pre-exposure prophylaxis use (OR: 6.04, 95%CI: 4.80–7.61), history of sexually transmitted infections (OR: 2.96, 95%CI: 2.33–3.76), confidence in the vaccine’s effectiveness (OR: 2.79, 95%CI: 2.04–3.80) and safety (OR: 10.89, 95%CI: 5.22–22.72), fear of mpox infection (OR: 2.47, 95%CI: 2.11–2.89) and epidemics (OR: 2.87, 95%CI: 2.22–3.70), high mpox knowledge (OR: 2.35, 95%CI: 1.51–3.66), and the belief that people at high risk should be prioritized for vaccination (OR: 3.09, 95%CI: 1.40–6.84) were the facilitators of vaccine willingness. In addition, as a secondary outcome, meta-analysis results showed a pooled unwillingness rate of 16% (95% CI: 13-20%, I2 = 98.1%, 9 studies).

Conclusion

Willingness to vaccinate mpox was high among MSM, but some participants still had negative attitudes towards vaccination. Therefore, the Ministry of Public Health should develop targeted and effective strategies against those influencing factors to prevent and manage mpox outbreaks.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Epidemics of infectious diseases have long been a major public health challenge globally. In May 2022, an outbreak of monkeypox (Mpox) suddenly appeared and rapidly spread to Europe, the Americas, and then to all six World Health Organization (WHO) regions [1]. Mpox is a disease caused by the mpox virus (a zoonotic virus) [2]. Human-to-human transmission of mpox can occur through direct contact with infectious skin, mouth, or other lesions on the genitals [1]. This global outbreak primarily (but not only) affects gay and bisexual individuals, but also affect other men who have sex with men (MSM) - thus establishing a steady chain of transmission from person to person among this group people [3].

Vaccination is an effective measure to reduce the spread of the mpox virus and protect the health of the community [4,5,6]. Given this, there has been a renewed interest globally in vaccination as a preventive measure for mpox. Currently, two mpox vaccines, ACAM 2000® (smallpox or cowpox live vaccine) and JYNNEOS™ (cowpox virus modified strain - Ankara-Bavarian Nordic non-replicating antigen), are available as pre-exposure prophylaxis against mpox [7, 8]. Reports from several case studies have confirmed the effectiveness of these vaccines in preventing mpox [9, 10]. The WHO [1] and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) [11] in the United States recommend that people at risk (researchers with occupational exposures, gay bisexual and other MSM, people with multiple sex partners, and sex workers) should be actively vaccinated against mpox during epidemics.

However, as with COVID-19, the effectiveness of mpox vaccines depends not only on the scientific success of the vaccine development [12], but equally on the willingness of people at risk to receive these vaccines [13]. Vaccine uptake willingness is therefore an important aspect that should be considered for mpox prevention and control [14, 15]. Nonetheless, vaccine hesitancy (refusal or delay of vaccination despite available services) remains a major problem facing vaccination uptake worldwide. In 2019, the WHO listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten health threats facing the world [16]. There is now cumulative evidence on the willingness of different populations to receive the mpox vaccine, and the results show wide variation [17, 18]. MSM are one of the main affected groups by the mpox epidemic and the target audience for mpox vaccination [1]. Exploring the willingness of MSM to receive mpox vaccination and the factors that influence it can contribute to the successful design and implementation of public health strategies to control the spread of the virus.

Currently, a few studies have assessed mpox vaccination willingness in different populations [19,20,21]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no systematic reviews that have explored the overall rates of the willingness and the factors that influence the willingness to vaccinate against mpox among MSM. The purpose of this systematic review, therefore, was to synthesize results from different studies of mpox vaccination intentions among MSM, and to assess the factors influencing mpox vaccination intentions. This work provides a data-driven approach to support public health departments in providing scientifically effective mpox prevention guidance to MSM, while contributing to effective responses to potentially preventable future outbreaks of mpox or other similarly serious epidemic outbreaks.

Methods

Study design

This was a systematic review that adhered to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol for this systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023452357).

Eligibility criteria

To be eligible for this review, a study had to be a descriptive or observational study, published in English, conducted on gay or bisexual individuals as well as other MSM, and report on participants willingness to be immunized with the mpox vaccine and factors influencing their willingness to take the vaccine.

Nonoriginal articles such as literature reviews, commentaries, conference abstracts, letters to the editor, case reports were excluded; Qualitative studies that did not assess participants willingness to take the mpox vaccine were also excluded from the review.

Search strategy

We conducted searches in five electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL). Our search terms included mpox, mpox virus, sexual minorities, gay men and MSM, vaccination, vaccine, willingness, attitude, intention, and hesitation. We applied Boolean logic operators and truncation characters to combine subject terms and keywords in the search formula. After devising the search strategy, two reviewers (JL and RH) conducted a thorough search of each database for publicly available literature related to willingness to receive vaccines against mpox, covering the period from the database’s inception up to May 12, 2024. The search was not restricted by publication status. The detailed search algorithms used for each database are presented in Appendix A.

Study selection

We imported the search results into COVIDENCE TM [22] for literature screening. After automatically removing duplicates, literature screening was performed in two steps based on the eligibility criteria. First, three reviewers (JL, SL and SY) screened titles and abstracts of literature and eliminated those did not meet the inclusion criteria. Second, reviewers assessed eligibility separately by reading the full text of all potentially eligible studies. Any conflicts regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a particular article were resolved by consensus between the two senior researchers (JC, WC).

Quality assessment

For quality assessment and risk of bias evaluation, we used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies to assess included cross-sectional studies [23]. The checklist for cross-sectional studies of JBI analysis has eight items, including research inclusion criteria, definition of research subjects, research environment, validity of exposure measurements, objective evaluation criteria, confounder assessment and treatment strategies, reliability and validity of outcome measurements, and rational use of statistical analysis methods. “Yes”, “No”, “Unclear”, or “N/A” was applied to assess quality of each item in the checklist. Two researchers (SL, SY) assessed each study separately and determined the quality of the studies by summarizing the score of each item given by two researchers. Any disagreements were resolved by group consensus with the two senior researchers (WC, JC).

Data extraction

Data extraction was performed by two authors (XD and JH). The extracted data included study characteristics and outcome measures. Study characteristics included study author, year of publication, country, date of survey collection, participants group, sample size. The outcome measures included main survey questions and vaccine willingness response options, and main results. The extracted data was checked for completeness by another author (WC). Any disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Statistical analysis

We used Stata 17.0 software to analyze the data and calculate the pooled rates of vaccine willingness across all studies. Cochran’s Q test and I2 test were used to assess heterogeneity between studies. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was indicated by a p value < 0.1 and I2 > 50%. To explore the source of heterogeneity, we carried out subgroup analyses. Next, we combined the effect sizes while excluding significant clinical heterogeneity using a random effects model. The sensitivity analysis of the willingness rates of the included studies was performed by the one-by-one exclusion method to assess the stability and reliability of the results. We used Egger’s test at a P value < 0.01 to check for the presence of publication bias.

Results

Search resultsp

The study search and screening flowchart is displayed in Fig. 1. A total of 924 studies were imported into COVIDENCE for screening, 510 duplicates were removed. After title and abstract screening, 47 studies were eligible for full text screening. Finally, a total of 20 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The main reasons for full-text screening articles being excluded were studies did not evaluated willingness of vaccination (n = 11, 41%), they were not empirical studies (n = 7, 26%) or did not targeted on MSM (n = 5, 19%).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of the study selection process

Full size image

Study characteristics

Researchers of all included studies conducted cross-sectional online survey in either 2022 or 2023. The Chinese population was most frequently studied, with six studies recruiting participants in China [18, 24,25,26,27,28], followed by three surveys in Netherlands [29,30,31]. Reyes-Uruena et al. conducted a survey in 59 countries or subregions in Europe [32]. Zheng et al. conducted two survey studies with different samples at two different time points [18, 24].

The sample size varied from 154 participants to 32,902 participants for each study. Four studies [26, 33,34,35] targeted MSM that living with HIV (MSMWH), with one study [27]included male sex workers (MSW), a subgroup of MSM. Of all studies, 11 used Likert scales as the outcome score classification standard, and seven studies rated with “yes/no”. In two studies [18, 34], participants were asked one question on vaccine hesitancy, instead of willingness. According to the JBI quality assessment tool, 11 studies were found to have a low risk of bias and 9 studies have a moderate risk of bias (Appendix B). An overview of the included studies and study characteristics is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Full size table

Mpox vaccine willingness rate

The lowest willingness rate to vaccinate reported was 29.2% (214/732) by Hori et al. [17]. The highest rate was 94.5% (1,033/1,093) as reported in Huang et al.’s study [28]. The pooled willingness rate among the 20 studies was 77.0% (95% CI: 73-81%) (Fig. 2). The I2 of the 20 studies was 99.4%, p < 0.001, which showed high heterogeneity. In addition, the pooled rate of mpox vaccine unwillingness among MSM was 16% (95% CI: 13-20%, I2 = 98.1%) among the included nine studies [24, 26,27,28, 31,32,33, 38, 39] (Fig. 3).

Subgroup analyses were performed using survey countries (P = 0.002) and continents (P = 0.05), survey date (P = 0.296), study sample size (P = 0.001), and whether participants were infected with HIV (P = 0.002) as different group variables (Appendix C). The results suggest that countries, study sample size, and whether participants were infected with HIV may be sources of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis by participant groups showed that the general MSM (80%, 95%CI: 75-84%) had a higher overall willingness rate than MSMWH (64%, 95%CI: 55-73%) (Fig. 4).

The sensitivity analysis showed that the result was stable. The result of the Egger’s test was p = 0.106, indicated no publication bias (Appendix C).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Mpox vaccine willingness rates among MSM

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Mpox vaccine unwillingness rates among MSM

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Subgroup analysis of mpox vaccination willingness rates by participant groups

Full size image

Factors associated with mpox vaccine willingness among MSM

A total of 11 articles were included in the meta-analysis of factors associated with mpox vaccination willingness among MSM. Table 2 shows the factors associated with willingness, factor effect values on willingness to vaccinate, I2 values and H values. A total of nine factors were extracted from the meta-analysis, of which six factors (more sexual partners [26, 30, 34, 41], history of sexually transmitted diseases [35, 36, 41], use of PrEP [36, 41], worried about mpox epidemic [26, 29], Worried about mpox infection [24, 29, 30, 34], confidence in vaccine safety [26, 28]) were highly heterogeneous (I2 ≥ 50%), and therefore a random effects model was chosen. A fixed-effects model was applied to three factors (confidence in vaccine effectiveness [26, 29, 40], high level of mpox knowledge [24, 36], agreed that people at high-risk should be given priority for vaccination [27, 28]) that had low heterogeneity (I2 < 50%). All the 9 factors had statistical significance with MSM vaccination willingness, and all were facilitators of vaccination willingness.

Table 2 Meta-analysis of factors of mpox vaccine willingness among MSM
Full size table

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 studies estimated that the willingness to vaccinate against mpox among MSM was 77.0% (95% CI: 73-81%). We found that willingness in MSM was higher than that of healthcare workers (willingness rate 58.5%, 95% CI: 40.5–67.4%) [21]. Both MSM and health care workers are at risk for mpox exposure. The majority of reported cases of mpox outbreaks are from MSM and those who are sexually active or have frequent intimate contacts [42, 43]. MSM are more likely to have a need for and priority to receive vaccination.

There are differences in willingness rates across countries. The large survey conducted by Reyes-Urueña et al. [32] revealed that people living in the subregions of South-Eastern and Central Europe as well as Eastern Europe reported lower vaccination rates than those in other regions. In addition, we found that willingness rates ranged from 56.85 to 94.5% in the six studies conducted in China [18, 24,25,26,27,28]. Geographic differences in vaccine willingness outcomes are plausible due to differences in government measures, social environments, or economic levels across countries. Besides, different vaccine willingness measurement tools also had an impact on the results [44]. Standardized vaccine willingness assessment tools can help improve the ability to measure, evaluate, and compare across jurisdictions and over time [45]. In 2015, Larson and the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization developed a tool to measure vaccine hesitancy [46]. In addition, there are other vaccine willingness assessment tools [44, 47, 48]. However, these tools have been evaluated and validated in only a few studies, or not at all. This may be the reason why included studies do not use a uniform assessment tool.

Contrary to our hypothesis, subgroup analysis results showed that compared to general MSM, the vaccine acceptance rate was lower among MSMWH (MSM with HIV) [26, 33,34,35]. We proposed two possible reasons: (1) Bias caused by clinical heterogeneity factors such as sample size, number of studies included, and study design. (2) Concerns about vaccine side effects may be inhibiting MSMWH’s willingness to vaccinate. For example, ACAM2000® may cause severe mpox-related diseases in immunocompromised people and is contraindicated in people with HIV [49]. JYNNEOS™ has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has been assessed as safe and effective for people living with HIV (PLHIV) [50, 51]. This helps to increase the tendency of MSMWH to be vaccinated. Contrary to our results, multiple studies have shown higher vaccine acceptance rates among people living with HIV compared to those without HIV [31, 37, 38, 52]. This could be explained by HIV infection making MSM more concerned about their health, leading to higher willingness to receive the mpox vaccine.

In meta-analysis of influencing factors, the number of sexual partners has a significant influence on vaccine willingness. MSM who have more sexual partners or are in open relationships show a higher willingness to receive vaccination. This contrasts with the findings of Zhao et al. [53], who explored the acceptability of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among MSM. Having more sexual partners is one of the high-risk sex behaviors. As the number of sexual partners and close contacts increases, the likelihood of contracting mpox from an external source increases exponentially [54]. Therefore, public health centers can collaborate with community organizations during vaccination to provide effective sex education to MSM, thereby increase their self-protection awareness.

There is a statistically significant relationship between participants having a history of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and vaccine willingness. Meta-analysis results indicate that being diagnosed with at least one STD other than HIV in the past two years is associated with a higher willingness to receive vaccination [17, 24, 37, 38]. We argued that contracting sexually transmitted diseases prompts MSM to seek sexual health knowledge and guidance from healthcare professionals, leading to more attention to bodily health and willingness to receive vaccinations [38].

High level of mpox knowledge and perceived risk of mpox increase vaccination willingness among MSM. Participants who feared a mpox epidemic and avoided being infected with mpox were more likely to support vaccination. Mpox vaccine acceptance was higher among participants with high levels of mpox knowledge and those who agreed that people at high risk had priority for vaccination. These results can be explained by the health belief model (HBM). The HBM suggests that peoples’ self-perceptions of disease susceptibility and severity, as well as their perceived benefits and barriers to implementing behavior change, self-efficacy, and cues for action, strongly influence their adoption of health behaviors [55]. Public health departments can disseminate authoritative information on mpox prevention guidelines, self-care and vaccination through multiple channels in vaccination promotion programs [56].

Trust in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines plays an important role in an individual’s decision to get vaccinated [57]. The effectiveness and safety of mpox vaccine have been confirmed by several studies [9, 10]. Based on the results of our review and the study by León-Figueroa et al. [58], people who were confident in the safety and efficacy of the mpox vaccine were more likely to be vaccinated. Therefore, experts should develop and promote a global consensus on mpox vaccination. Mpox vaccine is offered primarily to people at high risk. For HIV-infected patients who are at risk for mpox infection, clinicians should make reasonable prophylactic and therapeutic recommendations based on the patient’s clinical status, viral suppression, and CD4 cell count [26].

The results showed that the pooled vaccine refusal rate among MSM was 16%. In addition to the above influencing factors, participants were more likely to refuse vaccines due to fear of privacy disclosure [18], stigma related to sexual orientation [59], and consideration of vaccination price [28, 60]. In the vaccine promotion work, healthcare workers and medical organizations should pay extra attention to privacy protection. Creating a more inclusive environment for sexual orientation can help eliminate resistance to vaccines among MSM. In addition, the free vaccination policy implemented by the government seems to be more conducive to MSM population acceptance of vaccination [61].

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive meta-analysis of MSM willingness to receive mpox vaccine. To eliminate the risk of missing studies, we conducted a comprehensive literature search to determine the most recent estimates of vaccine intention rates. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also conducted to explore heterogeneous outcomes and identify potential sources of heterogeneity. As a result, the study design was enhanced. In addition, this study analyzed factors associated with vaccination willingness. This complements the shortcomings of other reviews on monkeypox vaccine willingness.

This review also has some limitations. The limitations are mainly related to the limitations of the included studies. First, all included studies applied cross-sectional survey. This limits us from making causal hypotheses. If possible, more rigorously designed cohort studies are needed to confirm our findings. Second, most of the included studies collected data by self-report, and there was no uniform assessment standard. This increases heterogeneity between studies. Experts should develop a common understanding of the measurement of vaccine willingness or hesitancy and develop an assessment tool that can be widely used. In addition, only papers written in English were included in this study. The generality of our findings should be carefully considered.

Conclusion

MSM have a high willingness to vaccinate against mpox. Factors influencing vaccine willingness include behavioral characteristics, health status, knowledge of mpox and perceived associated risks, and confidence in the mpox vaccine. We recommended that public health authorities consider the identified factors when developing effective measures to promote vaccination among MSM. By understanding the unique needs and barriers faced by this population, public health officials can create targeted strategies to increase vaccine uptake. This proactive approach will better prepare authorities to prepare a scientific, evidence-based response plan for preventing and controlling future outbreaks of serious communicable diseases within the MSM population.

Data availability

Data available within the article or its supplementary materials.

References

  1. WHO: Mpox (monkeypox). 2023. https://www.who.int/zh/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/monkeypox (Accessed 23 September 2023).

  2. Di Giulio DB, Eckburg PB. Human monkeypox: an emerging zoonosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004;4(1):15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(03)00856-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cope AB, Kirkcaldy RD, Weidle P, Jackson DA, Laramee N, Weber R, Rowse J, Mangla A, Fox B, Saunders KE, et al. Evaluation of Public Health Contact Tracing for Mpox among Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with Men-10 US jurisdictions, May 17-July 31, 2022. Am J Public Health. 2023;113(7):815–8. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2023.307301.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ellwanger JH, Veiga ABG, Kaminski VL, Valverde-Villegas JM, Freitas AWQ, Chies JAB. Control and prevention of infectious diseases from a one health perspective. Genet Mol Biol. 2021;44(1 Suppl 1):e20200256. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2020-0256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. The unfinished agenda of communicable diseases among children and adolescents before the COVID-19 pandemic. 1990–2019: a systematic analysis of the global burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2023;402(10398):313–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00860-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jiang N, Wei B, Lin H, Wang Y, Chai S, Liu W. Nursing students’ attitudes, knowledge and willingness of to receive the coronavirus disease vaccine: a cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2021;55:103148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103148.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Gupta AK, Talukder M, Rosen T, Piguet V. Differential diagnosis, Prevention, and treatment of mpox (Monkeypox): a review for dermatologists. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023;24(4):541–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-023-00778-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. CDC: Mpox (monkeypox) and smallpox vaccine guidance. 2024: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/smallpox-vaccine.html (Accessed 22 May 2024).

  9. Wolff Sagy Y, Zucker R, Hammerman A, Markovits H, Arieh NG, Abu Ahmad W, Battat E, Ramot N, Carmeli G, Mark-Amir A, et al. Real-world effectiveness of a single dose of mpox vaccine in males. Nat Med. 2023;29(3):748–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02229-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bertran M, Andrews N, Davison C, Dugbazah B, Boateng J, Lunt R, Hardstaff J, Green M, Blomquist P, Turner C, et al. Effectiveness of one dose of MVA–BN smallpox vaccine against mpox in England using the case-coverage method: an observational study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2023;23(7):828–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(23)00057-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. CDC: Mpox Vaccination Basics. 2023 https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/vaccines/ (Accessed 20 May 2024).

  12. Rahbeni TA, Satapathy P, Itumalla R, Marzo RR, Mugheed KAL, Khatib MN, Gaidhane S, Zahiruddin QS, Rabaan AA, Alrasheed HA, et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Umbrella Review of systematic reviews and Meta-analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024;10:e54769. https://doi.org/10.2196/54769.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lazarus JV, Wyka K, White TM, Picchio CA, Gostin LO, Larson HJ, Rabin K, Ratzan SC, Kamarulzaman A, El-Mohandes A. A survey of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 23 countries in 2022. Nat Med. 2023;29(2):366–75. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-02185-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Alarcón-Braga EA, Hernandez-Bustamante EA, Salazar-Valdivia FE, Valdez-Cornejo VA, Mosquera-Rojas MD, Ulloque-Badaracco JR, Rondon-Saldaña JC, Zafra-Tanaka JH. Acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccination in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2022;49:102369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.102369.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Urrunaga-Pastor D, Bendezu-Quispe G, Herrera-Añazco P, Uyen-Cateriano A, Toro-Huamanchumo CJ, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Hernandez AV, Benites-Zapata VA. Cross-sectional analysis of COVID-19 vaccine intention, perceptions and hesitancy across Latin America and the Caribbean. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2021;41:102059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102059.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. WHO: Ten Health Issues WHO Will Tackle This Year. 2019. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 (Accessed 16 May 2024).

  17. Hori D, Kaneda Y, Ozaki A, Tabuchi T. Sexual orientation was associated with intention to be vaccinated with a smallpox vaccine against mpox: a cross-sectional preliminary survey in Japan. Vaccine. 2023;41(27):3954–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.05.050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zheng M, Du M, Yang G, Yao Y, Qian X, Zhi Y, Ma L, Tao R, Zhu Z, Zhou F, et al. Mpox Vaccination Hesitancy and its Associated factors among men who have sex with men in China: A National Observational Study. Vaccines. 2023;11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11091432.

  19. Ulloque-Badaracco JR, Alarcón-Braga EA, Hernandez-Bustamante EA, Al-kassab-Córdova A, Benites-Zapata VA, Bonilla-Aldana DK, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Acceptance towards Monkeypox Vaccination: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Pathogens. 2022;11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11111248.

  20. Moawad MHE, Taha AM, Nguyen D, Ali M, Mohammed YA, Moawad WAET, Hamouda E, Bonilla-Aldana DK, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Attitudes towards receiving Monkeypox Vaccination: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Vaccines. 2023;11(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11121840.

  21. Mektebi A, Elsaid M, Yadav T, Abdallh F, Assker M, Siddiq A, Sayad R, Saifi M, Farahat RA. Mpox vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17186-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Veritas Health Innovation: Covidence systematic review software www.covidence.org (Accessed 4. May 2024).

  23. Moola S, Tufanaru MZ, Aromataris C, Sears E, Sfetcu K, Currie R, Qureshi M, Mattis R, Lisy P, Mu K. May P-F. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis 2020 https://synthesismanual.jbi.global (Accessed 5 2024).

  24. Zheng M, Qin C, Qian X, Yao Y, Liu J, Yuan Z, Ma L, Fan J, Tao R, Zhou F, et al. Knowledge and vaccination acceptance toward the human monkeypox among men who have sex with men in China. Front Public Health. 2022;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.997637.

  25. Li Y, Peng X, Fu L, Wang B, Sun Y, Chen Y, Lin Y-F, Wu X, Liu Q, Gao Y, et al. Monkeypox awareness and low vaccination hesitancy among men who have sex with men in China. J Med Virol. 2023;95(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.28567.

  26. Fu L, Sun Y, Li Y, Wang B, Yang L, Tian T, Wu X, Peng X, Liu Q, Chen Y, et al. Perception of and Vaccine Readiness towards Mpox among men who have sex with men living with HIV in China: a cross-sectional study. Vaccines. 2023;11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11030528.

  27. Chen Y, Li Y, Fu L, Zhou X, Wu X, Wang B, Peng X, Sun Y, Liu Q, Lin Y-F, et al. Knowledge of human mpox (Monkeypox) and attitude towards Mpox Vaccination among male sex workers in China: a cross-sectional study. Vaccines. 2023;11(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11020285.

  28. Huang X, Lin Z, Qin J, Yu D, Zhang F, Fang G, Chen X, He J, Cen P, Li M, et al. Willingness to accept monkeypox vaccine and its correlates among men who have sex with men in Southern China: a web-based online cross-sectional study. Front Public Health. 2024;12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1289918.

  29. Jongen VW, Groot Bruinderink ML, Boyd A, Koole JCD, Teker B, Dukers-Muijrers N, Evers YJ, van der Schim MF, Prins M, de Vries HJC, et al. What determines mpox vaccination uptake? Assessing the effect of intent-to-vaccinate versus other determinants among men who have sex with men. Vaccine. 2024;42(2):186–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.12.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang H, d’Abreu de Paulo KJI, Gultzow T, Zimmermann HML, Jonas KJ. Monkeypox self-diagnosis abilities, determinants of vaccination and self-isolation intention after diagnosis among MSM, the Netherlands. July Euro. 2022;27(33). https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.33.2200603.

  31. Dukers-Muijrers NHTM, Evers Y, Widdershoven V, Davidovich U, Adam PCG, Op de Coul ELM, Zantkuijl P, Matser A, Prins M, de Vries HJC, et al. Mpox vaccination willingness, determinants, and communication needs in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, in the context of limited vaccine availability in the Netherlands (Dutch Mpox-survey). Front Public Health. 2023;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1058807.

  32. Reyes-Uruena J, D’Ambrosio A, Croci R, Bluemel B, Cenciarelli O, Pharris A, Dukers-Muijrers N, Nutland W, Niaupari S, Badran J, et al. High monkeypox vaccine acceptance among male users of smartphone-based online gay-dating apps in Europe, 30 July to 12 August 2022. Eurosurveillance. 2022;27(42). https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.Es.2022.27.42.2200757.

  33. Andersen EW, Kulie P, Castel AD, Lucar J, Benator D, Greenberg AE, Monroe A, Pathogens. 2024, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13020124.

  34. Zucman D, Fourn E, Touche P, Majerholc C, Vallée A. Monkeypox Vaccine Hesitancy in French men having sex with men with PrEP or living with HIV in France. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10101629.

  35. Svartstein ASW, Knudsen AD, Heidari SL, Heftdal LD, Gelpi M, Benfield T, Nielsen SD. Mpox Incidence and Vaccine Uptake in men who have sex with men and are living with HIV in Denmark. Vaccines. 2023;11(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071167.

  36. Chow EPF, Bradshaw C, Chen M, Fairley CK, Maddaford K, Samra RS, Towns JM, Williamson D. Mpox knowledge, vaccination and intention to reduce sexual risk practices among men who have sex with men and transgender people: a cross-sectional study in Victoria, Australia. Sex Transm Dis. 2024;51(1):S216–7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37423606/.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Macgibbon J, Cornelisse VJ, Smith AKJ, Broady TR, Hammoud MA, Bavinton BR, Heath-Paynter D, Vaughan M, Wright EJ, Holt M. Mpox (monkeypox) knowledge, concern, willingness to change behaviour, and seek vaccination: results of a national cross-sectional survey. Sex Health. 2023;20(5):403–10. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH23047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Araoz-Salinas JM, Ortiz-Saavedra B, Ponce-Rosas L, Soriano-Moreno DR, Soriano-Moreno AN, Alave J, Gonzales-Zamora JA. Perceptions and intention to get vaccinated against Mpox among the LGBTIQ + community during the 2022 outbreak: a cross-sectional study in Peru. Vaccines. 2023;11(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11051008.

  39. Karapinar A, Akdağ D, Gökengin D. Awareness and acceptability of monkeypox vaccine in men who have sex with men. Turk J Med Sci. 2023;53(5):1136–43. https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.5679.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Smith LE, Potts HWW, Brainard J, May T, Oliver I, Amlôt R, Yardley L, Rubin GJ. Did mpox knowledge, attitudes and beliefs affect intended behaviour in the general population and men who are gay, bisexual and who have sex with men? An online cross-sectional survey in the UK. BMJ Open. 2023;13(10). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070882.

  41. Ogaz D, Enayat Q, Brown JRG, Phillips D, Wilkie R, Jayes D, Reid D, Hughes G, Mercer CH, Saunders J, et al. Mpox diagnosis, behavioral risk modification, and Vaccination Uptake among Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, United Kingdom, 2022. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30(5). https://doi.org/10.3201/eid3005.230676.

  42. Thornhill JP, Barkati S, Walmsley S, Rockstroh J, Antinori A, Harrison LB, Palich R, Nori A, Reeves I, Habibi MS, et al. Monkeypox Virus infection in humans across 16 countries - April-June 2022. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(8):679–91. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2207323.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Patel A, Bilinska J, Tam JCH, Da Silva Fontoura D, Mason CY, Daunt A, Snell LB, Murphy J, Potter J, Tuudah C, et al. Clinical features and novel presentations of human monkeypox in a central London centre during the 2022 outbreak: descriptive case series. BMJ. 2022;378:e072410. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-072410.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Cheng L, Kong J, Xie X, Zhang F. A psychometric assessment of a novel scale for evaluating vaccination attitudes amidst a major public health crisis. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):10250. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38704420/.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Shapiro GK, Tatar O, Dube E, Amsel R, Knauper B, Naz A, Perez S, Rosberger Z. The vaccine hesitancy scale: psychometric properties and validation. Vaccine. 2018;36(5):660–7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29289384/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Schulz WS, Chaudhuri M, Zhou Y, Dube E, Schuster M, MacDonald NE, Wilson R. Measuring vaccine hesitancy: the development of a survey tool. Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4165–75. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25896384/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Freeman D, Loe BS, Chadwick A, Vaccari C, Waite F, Rosebrock L, Jenner L, Petit A, Lewandowsky S, Vanderslott S, et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II. Psychol Med. 2022;52(14):3127–41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33305716/.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Opel DJ, Taylor JA, Mangione-Smith R, Solomon C, Zhao C, Catz S, Martin D. Validity and reliability of a survey to identify vaccine-hesitant parents. Vaccine. 2011;29(38):6598–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.06.115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rao AK, Petersen BW, Whitehill F, Razeq JH, Isaacs SN, Merchlinsky MJ, Campos-Outcalt D, Morgan RL, Damon I, Sánchez PJ, et al. Use of JYNNEOS (Smallpox and Monkeypox Vaccine, Live, Nonreplicating) for preexposure vaccination of persons at risk for Occupational exposure to Orthopoxviruses: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(22):734–42. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7122e1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Overton ET, Stapleton J, Frank I, Hassler S, Goepfert PA, Barker D, Wagner E, von Krempelhuber A, Virgin G, Meyer TP, et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of Modified Vaccinia Ankara-bavarian nordic Smallpox Vaccine in Vaccinia-Naive and experienced human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals: an Open-Label, controlled clinical phase II trial. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2015;2(2):ofv040. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofv040.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Greenberg RN, Overton ET, Haas DW, Frank I, Goldman M, von Krempelhuber A, Virgin G, Bädeker N, Vollmar J, Chaplin P. Safety, immunogenicity, and surrogate markers of clinical efficacy for modified vaccinia Ankara as a smallpox vaccine in HIV-infected subjects. J Infect Dis. 2013;207(5):749–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jis753.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gilbert M, Ablona A, Chang HJ, Grennan T, Irvine MA, Sarai Racey C, Salway T, Naus M, Dawar M, Ogilvie G. Uptake of Mpox vaccination among transgender people and gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men among sexually-transmitted infection clinic clients in Vancouver, British Columbia. Vaccine. 2023;41(15):2485–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.02.075.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Zhao Y, Xin X, Deng H, Xu J, Weng W, Zhang M, Li J, Gao Y, Huang X, Liu C. Improving the acceptability of human papillomavirus vaccines among men who have sex with men according to the Associated factors: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:600273. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.600273.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Golden MR, Wood RW, Buskin SE, Fleming M, Harrington RD. Ongoing risk behavior among persons with HIV in medical care. AIDS Behav. 2007;11(5):726–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-007-9244-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kim K, Shin S, Kim S, Lee E. The relation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors: systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e40778. https://doi.org/10.2196/40778.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Multi-country monkeypox outbreak. situation update https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON392.].

  57. Baack BN, Abad N, Yankey D, Kahn KE, Razzaghi H, Brookmeyer K, Kolis J, Wilhelm E, Nguyen KH, Singleton JA. COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage and intent among adults aged 18–39 years - United States, March-May 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(25):928–33. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7025e2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. León-Figueroa DA, Barboza JJ, Valladares-Garrido MJ, Sah R, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Prevalence of intentions to receive monkeypox vaccine. A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17473-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Laurenson-Schafer H, Sklenovská N, Hoxha A, Kerr SM, Ndumbi P, Fitzner J, Almiron M, de Sousa LA, Briand S, Cenciarelli O, et al. Description of the first global outbreak of mpox: an analysis of global surveillance data. Lancet Glob Health. 2023;11(7):e1012–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(23)00198-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Harapan H, Wagner AL, Yufika A, Setiawan AM, Anwar S, Wahyuni S, Asrizal FW, Sufri MR, Putra RP, Wijayanti NP, et al. Acceptance and willingness to pay for a hypothetical vaccine against monkeypox viral infection among frontline physicians: a cross-sectional study in Indonesia. Vaccine. 2020;38(43):6800–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.08.034.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Liu R, Zhang Y, Nicholas S, Leng A, Maitland E, Wang J. COVID-19 vaccination willingness among Chinese adults under the free vaccination policy. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9030292.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by Dr. Wang Nina during the manuscript revision process.

Funding

This work was supported by the Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Nursing (grant number 2017TP1004) and the Hunan Provincial Science and Technology Department, China.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Xiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, 172 Tongzipo Road, Yuelu District, Changsha, Hunan, China

    Jiajia Liu, Xiaoyu Du, Jiaqi Hao, Ruixue Hui, Wenjun Chen & Jia Chen

  2. Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changsha, China

    Siying Liu

  3. Centre for Social Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Simin Yu

  4. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

    Amos Buh

Authors
  1. Jiajia Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siying Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simin Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaoyu Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jiaqi Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ruixue Hui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Amos Buh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wenjun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jia Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Jiajia Liu: Investigation, Data collection, Data analysis, Writing– original draft and editing. Siying Liu: Investigation, Data collection, Data analysis. Jia Chen: Conceptualization, Supervision, Review, Project administration. Simin Yu: Investigation, Data collection. Xiaoyu Du: Writing–editing, Data collection. Jiaqi Hao: Data collection. Ruixue Hui: Investigation, Data collection. Wenjun Chen: Methodology, Writing–Editing, Formal analysis. Amos Buh: Writing–Editing, Review. All the authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wenjun Chen or Jia Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

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

Liu, J., Liu, S., Yu, S. et al. Willingness to receive mpox vaccine among men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 24, 1878 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19260-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19260-9

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us