The Effect of Motivational Interviewing on Vaccine Hesitancy: A Systematic Review Based on the 2010–2025 Literature

Year 2026, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 44 - 51, 14.03.2026

Tuğba Güler Sönmez , İzzet Fidancı

https://doi.org/10.58854/jicm.1837567

https://izlik.org/JA64XL39NC

Abstract

This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) in reducing vaccine hesitancy. Studies published between 2010 and 2025 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. Inclusion criteria were defined as English or Turkish publications reporting MI-based interventions and outcomes related to vaccine hesitancy/acceptance. Following the PRISMA 2020 statement, 23 studies were included in the review after removing duplicates from 312 records. The included studies were examined in five main groups: (1) delivery room/parent interventions, (2) primary care practices, (3) pharmacy practices, (4) healthcare worker training, and (5) mixed-context studies. MI interviews conducted in delivery room and pharmacy settings resulted in a significant increase in vaccine acceptance and intention. Although primary care practices improved patient-physician communication, their effectiveness remained limited. Healthcare worker training improved communication skills, but the reduction in vaccine hesitancy was generally limited. Motivational interviewing is a promising method for reducing vaccine hesitancy. Short-term interviews, especially at direct points of contact such as delivery rooms and pharmacies, yield positive results. However, randomized controlled and multicenter studies conducted in different contexts are needed to clarify long-term effects.

Keywords

Motivational interviewing , vaccine hesitancy , vaccine acceptance , primary care , systematic review

Ethical Statement

Since it is a review article, an ethics committee is not required.

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

Motivasyonel Görüşmenin Aşı Tereddüdüne Etkisi: 2010–2025 Literatürüne Dayalı Sistematik Derleme

https://izlik.org/JA64XL39NC

Abstract

Bu sistematik derleme, motivasyonel görüşmenin (MI) aşı tereddüdünü azaltmadaki etkinliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science ve CINAHL veri tabanlarında 2010–2025 yılları arasında yayımlanan çalışmalar taranmıştır. Dahil etme ölçütleri MI temelli müdahaleler ve aşı tereddüdü/kabulüne ilişkin sonlanımları rapor eden İngilizce veya Türkçe yayınlar olarak belirlenmiştir. PRISMA 2020 bildirimi doğrultusunda yürütülen değerlendirmede 312 kayıttan yinelenenler çıkarıldıktan sonra 23 çalışma derlemeye dahil edilmiştir. Dahil edilen çalışmalar beş ana grupta incelenmiştir: (1) doğumhane/ebeveyn müdahaleleri, (2) birinci basamak uygulamaları, (3) eczane uygulamaları, (4) sağlık çalışanı eğitimleri ve (5) karma bağlamlı çalışmalar. Doğumhane ve eczane ortamlarında yapılan MI görüşmeleri, aşı kabulü ve niyetinde anlamlı artış sağlamıştır. Birinci basamak uygulamaları hasta-hekim iletişimini geliştirse de etkinlik sınırlı kalmıştır. Sağlık çalışanı eğitimleri iletişim becerilerini artırmış, ancak aşı tereddüdünde azalma genellikle sınırlı düzeyde gözlenmiştir. Motivasyonel görüşme, aşı tereddüdünün azaltılmasında umut verici bir yöntemdir. Özellikle doğumhane ve eczane gibi doğrudan temas noktalarında kısa süreli görüşmeler olumlu sonuçlar vermektedir. Bununla birlikte, uzun dönem etkilerin netleşmesi için farklı bağlamlarda yürütülecek randomize kontrollü ve çok merkezli araştırmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

Keywords

Motivasyonel görüşme , aşı tereddüdü , aşı kabulü , birinci basamak , sistematik derleme

Ethical Statement

Derleme yazısı olduğundan etik kurul gerekmemektedir.

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

References

• MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4161-4. doi:10.1016/j. vaccine.2015.04.036.
• Ten health issues WHO will tackle this year. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://www. who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to global-health-in-2019
• Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change. Guilford Press; 2012.
• Gagneur A. Motivational interviewing: A powerful tool to address vaccine hesitancy. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2020;46(4):93-7. doi:10.14745/ccdr.v46i04a06.
• Chen AMH, Anthony A, Balogun A, Pereira R, Cole JW. The Impact of Motivational Interviewing and MOTIVE Tool Use by Pharmacists on Vaccine Acceptance. Pharmacy (Basel). 2024;12(4):114. pharmacy12040114. doi:10.3390/
• Fasce A, Mustață M, Deliu A, et al. A field test of empathetic refutational and motivational interviewing to address vaccine hesitancy among patients. NPJ Vaccines. 2025;10(1):142. doi:10.1038/s41541-025-01197-8.
• Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses - Falagas - 2008 - The FASEB Journal - Wiley Online Library. Accessed October 5, 2025. https://faseb.onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
• Burnham JF. Scopus database: a review. Biomedical Digital Libraries. 2006;3(1):1. doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-1.
• Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):245. doi:10.1186/s13643-017 0644-y.
• The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews | The BMJ. Accessed October 5, 2025. https://www. bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71.short
• Lemaitre T, Carrier N, Farrands A, Gosselin V, Petit G, Gagneur A. Impact of a vaccination promotion intervention using motivational interview techniques on long-term vaccine coverage: the PromoVac strategy. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15(3):732-9. doi:10.1080/21 645515.2018.1549451.
• Dubé E, Laberge C, Guay M, Bramadat P, Roy R, Bettinger JA. Vaccine hesitancy: An overview. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. 2013;9(8):1763-73. doi:10.4161/hv.24657.
• Lundahl B, Moleni T, Burke BL, et al. Motivational interviewing in medical care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(2):157-68. pec.2013.07.012. doi:10.1016/j.
• Rubak S, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Christensen B. Motivational interviewing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(513):305-12.
• Han Yekdeş D, Marangoz B, Eskiocak M. An Intervention Study for Improve Information and Attitudes Family Health Nurses in a Province About Immunization and Vaccine Hesitancy. J Pediatr Inf. 2022;16(3):145-52. doi:10.5578/ ced.20229708.
• Garrison A, Fressard L, Mitilian E, et al. Motivational interview training improves self-efficacy of GP interns in vaccination consultations: A study using the Pro-VC-Be to measure vaccine confidence determinants. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 19(1):2163809. doi:10.1080/ 21645515.2022.2163809.
• Wang Z, Lau JTF, Ip TKM, et al. Two Web Based and Theory-Based Interventions With and Without Brief Motivational Interviewing in the Promotion of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Among Chinese Men Who Have Sex With Men: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2021;23(2):e21465. doi:10.2196/21465.
• Li Y, Li M, Yorke J, et al. Effects of a Theory- and Evidence-Based, Motivational Interviewing Oriented Artificial Intelligence Digital Assistant on Vaccine Attitudes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2025;27(1):e72637. doi:10.2196/72637.
• Jamison KC, Ahmed AH, Spoerner DA, Kinney D. Best shot: A motivational interviewing approach to address vaccine hesitancy in pediatric outpatient settings. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2022;67:124-31. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2022.08.012.
• Harkin K, Apostolopoulos V, Tangalakis K, Irvine S, Tripodi N, Feehan J. The impact of motivational interviewing on behavioural change and health outcomes in cancer patients and survivors. A systematic review and meta analysis. Maturitas. 2023;170:9-21. doi:10.1016/j. maturitas.2023.01.004.