COVID-19 vaccination coverage and hesitancy among Australians with disability and long-term health conditions
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
COVID-19 vaccination is the cornerstone of managing Australia’s COVID-19 pandemic and the success of the vaccination program depends on high vaccination coverage. This paper examined differences in COVID-19 vaccination coverage and vaccine hesitancy for people with disability, long-term health conditions, and carers – subgroups that were prioritised in the vaccination program.
Methods
Using data from 2,400 Australians who participated in two waves of the Taking the Pulse of the Nation survey in April and May 2021, we described vaccination coverage and hesitancy among people with disability, severe mental health conditions, severe long-term health conditions, frequent need for assistance with everyday activities, and carers, disaggregated by age group and gender.
Findings
Vaccination coverage was estimated to be 8.2% in the sample overall and was similar for people with disability, those with frequent need for assistance, and carers. It was higher for people with severe long-term health conditions (13.4%) and lower for people with severe mental health conditions (4.3%). Vaccine hesitancy was high overall (35.6%) and was similarly high across the priority groups.
Interpretation
This study highlights the lack of a difference in vaccination coverage and vaccine hesitancy for people with disability, long-term health conditions, and carers compared to the general population. Sub-optimal vaccination coverage for people in the priority population groups leaves many people at significant risk of serious disease or death if exposed to COVID-19, particularly in light of the easing of disease-control restrictions across Australia and the emergence of new COVID-19 variants.
Funding
National Health and Medical Research Council
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.05.21261633: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable Population subgroups of interest included age groups (18-64 years; 65 years and above) and gender (men; women). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:There were also limitations. We did not examine all vaccine priority groups. There was insufficient data to examine occupational vaccine priority groups such …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.05.21261633: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable Population subgroups of interest included age groups (18-64 years; 65 years and above) and gender (men; women). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:There were also limitations. We did not examine all vaccine priority groups. There was insufficient data to examine occupational vaccine priority groups such as healthcare workers, though it would be valuable to gain insights into vaccination coverage and hesitancy in these groups who were also eligible to receive the vaccine. We only examined two broad age groups because there were too few younger people in the priority groups to disaggregate the age groups further. Given the notable difference in vaccine hesitancy between older and younger people in the priority groups in this analysis, further research is needed to understand trends in vaccine hesitancy across a greater number of age groups. Further, we did not examine differences by ethnicity, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, or cultural and linguistic diversity because the survey did not collect data on these characteristics. Given the evidence about differences in vaccine hesitancy by ethnicity in the United Kingdom and the Unites States (24), it is important to examine differences in vaccine hesitancy by these characteristics for people in priority groups in future research. The survey is unlikely to be representative of the Australian population, though the sample weights make the results more representative of the population. The vaccine coverage was estimated to be 8.2% overall, which is broadly consistent, though perhaps slightly lower, than population estimates of vaccination coverage at similar time...
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.
-