COVID-19 infection and vaccination rates in healthcare workers in British Columbia, Canada: A Longitudinal Urban versus Rural Analysis of the Impact of the Vaccine Mandate

  1. Annalee Yassi
  2. Stephen Barker
  3. Karen Lockhart
  4. Deanne Taylor
  5. Devin Harris
  6. Harsh Hundal
  7. Jennifer M. Grant
  8. Arnold Ikedichi Okpani
  9. Sue Pollock
  10. Stacy Sprague
  11. Chad Kim Sing

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Purpose

Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a critical role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, urban centres were hit hardest globally; rural areas gradually became more impacted. We compared COVID-19 infection and vaccine uptake in HCWs living in urban versus rural locations within, and between, two health authorities in British Columbia (BC), Canada. We also analyzed the impact of a vaccine mandate for HCWs.

Methods

We tracked laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, positivity rates, and vaccine uptake in 29,021 HCWs in Interior Health (IH) and 24,634 HCWs in Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH), by occupation, age, and home location, comparing to the general population in that region. We then evaluated the impact of infection rates as well as the mandate on vaccination uptake.

Results

By October 27, 2021, the date that unvaccinated HCWs were prohibited from providing healthcare, only 1.6% in VCH yet 6.5% in IH remained unvaccinated. Rural workers in both areas had significantly higher unvaccinated rates compared with urban dwellers. Over 1,800 workers, comprising 6.4% of rural HCWs and 3.3% of urban HCWs, remained unvaccinated and set to be terminated from their employment. While the mandate prompted a significant increase in second doses, the impact on the unvaccinated was less clear.

Conclusions

As rural areas often suffer from under-staffing, loss of HCWs could have serious impacts on healthcare provision as well as on the livelihoods of unvaccinated HCWs. Greater efforts are needed to understand how to better address the drivers of rural-related vaccine hesitancy as the pandemic continues.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.13.22269078: (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

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Database: Healthcare worker records were obtained from the provincial Workplace Health Indicator Tracking and Evaluation (WHITE™) database.
    Database: Healthcare
    suggested: None

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.13.22269078v1 on medRxiv