COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Among US Child Care Providers

  1. Kavin M. Patel
  2. Amyn A. Malik
  3. Aiden Lee
  4. Madeline Klotz
  5. John Eric Humphries
  6. Thomas Murray
  7. David Wilkinson
  8. Mehr Shafiq
  9. Inci Yildirim
  10. Jad A. Elharake
  11. Rachel Diaz
  12. Chin Reyes
  13. Saad B. Omer
  14. Walter S. Gilliam

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Ensuring high coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine uptake among US child care providers is crucial to mitigating the public health implications of child-staff and staff-child transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; however, the vaccination rate among this group was previously unknown.

METHODS

To characterize vaccine uptake among US child care providers, we conducted a multistate cross-sectional survey of the child care workforce. Providers were identified through various national databases and state registries. A link to the survey was sent via e-mail between May 26 and June 23, 2021. A 37.8% response yielded 21 663 respondents, with 20 013 satisfying inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Overall COVID-19 vaccine uptake among US child care providers (78.2%, 90% confidence interval: 77.5% to 78.9%) was higher than the US general adult population (65%). Vaccination rates varied between states from 53.5% to 89.4%. Vaccine uptake among respondents differed significantly (P < .01) based on respondent age (70.0% for ages 25–34, 91.6% for ages 75–84), race (70.0% for Black or African Americans, 92.5% for Asian Americans), annual household income (70.8% for <$35 000, 85.1% for >$75 000), and child care setting (73.0% for home-based, 79.7% for center-based).

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine uptake among US child care providers was higher than the general US adult population. Those who were younger, lower income, Black or African American, resided in states either in the Mountain West or the South, and/or worked in home-based child care programs reported the lowest rates of vaccination. State public health leaders and lawmakers should prioritize these subgroups to realize the largest gains in vaccine uptake among providers.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1542/peds.2021-053813
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.30.21261383: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Respondents provided informed consent prior to data collection.
    IRB: The research protocol was approved by the Yale University Institutional Review Board (IRB protocol number: 2000028232).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationRespondents were entered into a random drawing to be one of 20 selected to receive a $500 incentive.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data were analyzed using Stata version 16 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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:
    Limitations to our study include the following. First, our sample sizes from some states (mostly in the Mountain West) were relatively low and with a sampling error of above 5%. Second, the respondents of our survey were those who, last year, had completed our previous survey, indicated a willingness to complete later surveys, and then completed a one-year follow up; therefore, it’s possible that this subsample of respondents who are reliable survey takers may differ from the population in meaningful ways that could bias generalization. The major strengths to our study include a large national sample weighted to representativeness and a strong response rate.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.30.21261383v1 on medRxiv