Dukers-Muijrers, Nicole H T MEvers, YmkeWiddershoven, VejaDavidovich, UdiAdam, Philippe C GOp de Coul, Eline L MZantkuijl, PaulMatser, AmyPrins, Mariade Vries, Henry J Cden Heijer, CasperHoebe, Christian J P ANiekamp, Anne-MarieSchneider, FrancineReyes-Urueña, JulianaCroci, RobertoD'Ambrosio, Angelovan der Valk, MarcPosthouwer, DirkAckens, RobinTer Waarbeek, HenrietteNoori, TeymurHoornenborg, Elske2023-01-312023-01-312023-01-053668495910.3389/fpubh.2022.1058807http://hdl.handle.net/10029/626382Of respondents, 81.5% (n = 1,512/1,856) were willing to accept vaccination; this was 85.2% (799/938) in vaccination-eligible people and 77.7% (713/918) in those non-eligible. Determinants for non-acceptance included: urbanization (rural: aOR:2.2;1.2-3.7; low-urban: aOR:2.4;1.4-3.9; vs. high-urban), not knowing mpox-vaccinated persons (aOR:2.4;1.6-3.4), and lack of connection to gay/queer-community (aOR:2.0;1.5-2.7). Beliefs associated with acceptance were: perception of higher risk/severity of mpox, higher protection motivation, positive outcome expectations post vaccination, and perceived positive social norms regarding vaccination. Respondents recommended better accessible communication, delivered regularly and stigma-free, with facts on mpox, vaccination and procedures, and other preventive options. Also, they recommended, "vaccine provision also at non-clinic settings, discrete/anonymous options, self-registration" to be vaccinated and other inclusive vaccine-offers (e.g., also accessible to people not in existing patient-registries).enCopyright © 2023 Dukers-Muijrers, Evers, Widdershoven, Davidovich, Adam, Op de Coul, Zantkuijl, Matser, Prins, de Vries, Heijer, Hoebe, Niekamp, Schneider, Reyes-Urueña, Croci, D'Ambrosio, Valk, Posthouwer, Ackens, Waarbeek, Noori and Hoornenborg.GBMSMcommunicationlow urbanmpoxpreventionpublic healthsocial networkvaccinationArticle2296-2565Front Public Health 2023;10:1058807