Vaccine hesitancy is a growing challenge for immunization programs worldwide. In Latin America, population-based estimates derived from probabilistic surveys are limited. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of household-level vaccine hesitancy in the City of Buenos Aires and to identify its main determinants using a representative, probabilistic household survey.
The investigation was conducted in the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina, between April and June 2025. Researchers embedded their work within an official periodic household survey and employed a stratified multistage probabilistic sampling design. Analyses explicitly accounted for sampling weights, strata, and primary sampling units to yield population-representative estimates. A total of 1934 households were surveyed.
A culturally adapted version of the WHO-derived Vaccine Hesitancy Scale was administered and psychometrically evaluated as part of the study. Household-level vaccine hesitancy was operationalized using two complementary outcomes:
The adapted scale and the two outcome definitions were used to capture both outright refusal and more subtle barriers or delays that affect immunization uptake.
Analyses incorporated the complex survey design by using sampling weights, strata, and primary sampling units. Adjusted associations were reported as adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The abstract reports multivariable analyses identifying independent correlates of the two hesitancy outcomes.
The study sample comprised 1934 households in the City of Buenos Aires. The provided source excerpt does not include a full breakdown of household demographic characteristics, response rates, or the detailed psychometric properties of the adapted Vaccine Hesitancy Scale; those details were not reported in the abstract available here.
The weighted prevalence of strict vaccine hesitancy—household-level explicit refusal of recommended vaccines—was 7.1% (95% CI: 5.8–8.6). This indicates that outright refusal was uncommon in the surveyed population.
When expanding the definition to include delays related to access, convenience, or organizational barriers, the weighted prevalence of extended vaccine hesitancy was 24.1% (95% CI: 21.8–26.5). This broader measure captured a substantially larger proportion of households affected by programmatic or logistical obstacles to timely vaccination.
In multivariable analyses, the study identified the following independent correlates of strict hesitancy:
These results indicate that households whose respondent was female and those with lower vaccine confidence had higher odds of reporting explicit refusal of recommended vaccines.
For the broader, programmatic outcome of extended hesitancy, independent associations reported in the abstract included:
These findings highlight that, beyond attitudinal factors such as vaccine confidence, sociodemographic and contextual factors—including residence in informal settlements and younger respondent age—were associated with delays or access-related barriers to vaccination.
The study concludes that outright vaccine refusal in Buenos Aires was relatively uncommon, but broader forms of hesitancy that include delays and access or organizational barriers affected a sizable share of households. Across both outcome definitions, vaccine confidence emerged as the most consistent correlate of hesitancy. The distinction between strict refusal and extended hesitancy underscores the need for both confidence-building interventions and programmatic measures to reduce access and convenience barriers.
The authors declared no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the reported work. The abstract provides key prevalence estimates and selected adjusted associations but does not include the full psychometric results of the adapted Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, detailed demographic tables, response rates, or the complete model specifications; those additional details were not reported in the provided source excerpt.