New article by Kristian H. Nielsen (with Loni Ledderer, Lea Skodborg og Antoinette Fage-Butler)
Public trust and mistrust of COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic meta-narrative review. Vaccine, vol. 69: article no. 127947 (2026)
Abstract
Introduction
Trust played a fundamental role in vaccine decision-making and uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study is to explore how public trust was conceptualized, operationalized, and implicated in vaccine uptake research on COVID-19 vaccines.
Methods
Using a systematic meta-narrative review, we searched literature around trust/distrust, science and COVID-19 vaccines. This involved identifying research areas, aims, methods, and sample sizes for each study while inductively/deductively exploring six narratives of trust – attitudinal, cognitive, affective, contingent, contextual, and communicated – developed in a previous study to synthesize findings across diverse disciplines and methodologies.
Results
The final sample consisted of 79 peer-reviewed studies on trust in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Our analysis revealed a degree of methodological uniformity as most were quantitative survey-based investigations conducted in Europe and the United States with trust typically operationalized through Likert-scale measures assessing attitudes toward science, scientists, public health authorities, and the vaccines themselves. Conceptual diversity was also evident as although trust was treated as a key explanatory factor in nearly all studies, its referents varied widely, from institutions and information sources to personal dispositions and social dynamics. Similarly, the implications of trust ranged from vaccination intention and motivation to hesitancy and actual uptake. The meta-narrative framework highlighted that attitudinal and contingent trust dominated the literature, while cognitive and affective dimensions were mainly underexplored. Despite the methodological dominance of quantitative approaches, this standardization offers strengths of comparability and policy relevance, but the limited exploration of emotional, relational, and communicative aspects of trust points to missed opportunities for more nuanced understanding.
Conclusion
The meta-narrative approach provided a valuable tool for synthesizing conceptual pluralism. Our findings suggest that trust in vaccination is not a singular construct, but a constellation of interrelated attitudes and judgments shaped by context, communication, and experience, each with implications for public health.