The French Covid-19 vaccination policy did not solve vaccination inequities: a nationwide study on 64.5 million people

  1. Florence Débarre
  2. Emmanuel Lecoeur
  3. Lucie Guimier
  4. Marie Jauffret-Roustide
  5. Anne-Sophie Jannot

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

To encourage Covid-19 vaccination, France introduced during the Summer 2021 a ‘Sanitary Pass’, which morphed into a ‘Vaccine Pass’ in early 2022. While the sanitary pass led to an increase in Covid-19 vaccination rates, spatial heterogeneities in vaccination rates remained. To identify potential determinants of these heterogeneities and evaluate the French sanitary and vaccine passes’ efficacies in reducing them, we used a data-driven approach on exhaustive nationwide data, gathering 141 socio-economic, political and geographic indicators.

Methods

We considered the association between vaccination rates and each indicator at different time points: before the sanitary pass announcement (week 2021-W27), before the sanitary pass came into force (week 2021-W31) and 1 month after (week 2021-W35) and the equivalent dates for the vaccine pass (weeks 2021-W49, 2022-W03 and 2022-W07).

Results

The indicators most associated with vaccination rates were the share of local income coming from unemployment benefits, overcrowded households rate, immigrants rate and vote for an ‘anti-establishment’ candidate at the 2017 Presidential election. These associations increase over time. Consequently, living in a district below the median of such indicator decreases the probability to be vaccinated by about 30% at the end of the studied period, and this probability gradually decreases by deciles of these indicators.

Conclusions

Our analysis reveals that factors related to poverty, immigration and trust in the government are strong determinants of vaccination rate, and that vaccination inequities tended to increase after the introduction of the French sanitary and vaccination passes.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/eurpub/ckac125
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.03.22268676v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.03.22268676: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.03.22268676v1 on medRxiv