Evaluating the Geographical Accessibility and Equity of COVID-19 Vaccination Sites in England.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Duffy C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8781430 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Evaluating the Geographical Accessibility and Equity of COVID-19 Vaccination Sites in England.
Duffy Catherine C Newing Andy A Górska Joanna J
Vaccines 20211230 1
We assess the geographical accessibility of COVID-19 vaccination sites-including mass vaccination centers and community-level provision-in England utilizing open data from NHS England and detailed routing data from HERE Technologies. We aim to uncover inequity in vaccination site accessibility, highlighting small-area inequality hidden by coverage figures released by the NHS. Vaccination site accessibility measures are constructed at a neighborhood level using indicators of journey time by priva ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has revealed significant disparities in global vaccine accessibility, particularly affecting low and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, current research on COVID-19 vaccine accessibility primarily focuses on individual countries or high-income countries (HIC). We aimed to evaluate geographic accessibility to COVID-19 vaccination on a multicountry scale, covering comparisons across LMICs and HICs. Additionally, we explored the potential economic factors related to accessibility and their impacts on health outcomes.MethodsWe collected population data at a 1 km resolution and geocoded all vaccination sites across the selected countries/regions. Four measures were used to evaluate vaccine accessibility from different perspectives: population coverage with varying travel time thresholds, driving time to vaccination sites, the number of sites within a 30-min threshold and a geographic accessibility index using enhanced two-step floating catchment area method. Finally, we explored the relationships between geographic accessibility and several factors: gross domestic product per capita, vaccination uptake and mortality.FindingsWe found substantial disparities in vaccine accessibility across the selected countries/regions. In 24.07% of these countries/regions, over 95% of the population can access the nearest vaccination services within 15 min. In contrast, in countries/regions such as Manitoba (Canada), Zimbabwe and Bhutan, less than 30% of the population can reach these sites within 60 min. Underserved areas, termed 'vaccine deserts', were identified in both HICs and LMICs. We found that countries/regions with higher vaccine accessibility tend to achieve higher vaccination rates, whereas those with lower vaccine accessibility are likely to experience substantial increases in COVID-19 mortality rates.ConclusionLMICs require enhanced attention to improve geographic accessibility to vaccination. Additionally, there are internal disparities in accessibility within both HICs and LMICs. National public health officials and global health initiatives are suggested to prioritize 'vaccine deserts' and to ensure equitable vaccine access in future pandemics.
| S-EPMC11840912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extreme heat is an increasing climate risk due to climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect and can jeopardize points of dispensing (PODs) for COVID-19 vaccination distribution and broader public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) response operations. These PODs were often located on large parking lot sites with high heat severity and did not take heat mitigation or management strategies into account for unacclimated workers and volunteers. To investigate the personal heat exposure of workers, volunteers, and clients at three PODs in Tucson, Arizona, we collected ambient air temperatures, wet bulb globe temperatures (WBGT), surface temperatures, and thermal images. We also made qualitative observations and compared data against daily meteorological records. Ambient air temperatures at all three PODs exceeded the meteorological recorded high. WBGT on average were 8°F (4.4 °C) higher in full sun locations than shaded locations such as tents. Evaporative cooling decreased ambient air temperatures by 2°F (1.2 °C) when placed one per tent, but decreased ambient air temperatures by 7°F (3.9 °C) when placed en masse in a larger tent. Vehicle surface temperatures exceeded recommended safe limits of 140°F (60 °C) at all three sites, with a maximum temperature recorded at 170.9°F (77.2 °C). Public health professionals should consider heat resilience, including heat mitigation and management measures, in POD and PHEP response operations to reduce exposure. This includes considering the UHI effect in the siting of PODs, applying heat mitigation strategies in the design of PODs such as the adaptive use of solar panels for shading, and improving heat safety guidance for workers and volunteers.
| S-EPMC8401084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe safety of COVID-19 vaccines plays an important role in addressing vaccine hesitancy. We conducted a large cohort study to evaluate the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality after COVID-19 vaccination while adjusting for confounders including individual-level demographics, clinical risk factors, health care utilization, and community-level socioeconomic risk factors.MethodsThe retrospective cohort study consisted of members from seven Vaccine Safety Datalink sites from December 14, 2020 through August 31, 2021. We conducted three separate analyses for each of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US. Crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates were reported by vaccine type, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The counting process model for survival analyses was used to analyze non-COVID-19 mortality where a new observation period began when the vaccination status changed upon receipt of the first dose and the second dose. We used calendar time as the basic time scale in survival analyses to implicitly adjust for season and other temporal trend factors. A propensity score approach was used to adjust for the potential imbalance in confounders between the vaccinated and comparison groups.ResultsFor each vaccine type and across age, sex, and race/ethnicity groups, crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates among COVID-19 vaccinees were lower than those among comparators. After adjusting for confounders with the propensity score approach, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.49) after dose 1 and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.46-0.50) after dose 2 of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.39-0.44) after dose 1 and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.37-0.40) after dose 2 of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51-0.59) after receipt of Ad26.COV2.S.ConclusionWhile residual confounding bias remained after adjusting for several individual-level and community-level risk factors, no increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality among recipients of three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.
| S-EPMC9763207 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMass vaccination has been a key strategy in effectively containing global COVID-19 pandemic that posed unprecedented social and economic challenges to many countries. However, vaccination rates vary across space and socio-economic factors, and are likely to depend on the accessibility to vaccination services, which is under-researched in literature. This study aims to empirically identify the spatially heterogeneous relationship between COVID-19 vaccination rates and socio-economic factors in England.MethodsWe investigated the percentage of over-18 fully vaccinated people at the small-area level across England up to 18 November 2021. We used multiscale geographically weighted regression (MGWR) to model the spatially heterogeneous relationship between vaccination rates and socio-economic determinants, including ethnic, age, economic, and accessibility factors.ResultsThis study indicates that the selected MGWR model can explain 83.2% of the total variance of vaccination rates. The variables exhibiting a positive association with vaccination rates in most areas include proportion of population over 40, car ownership, average household income, and spatial accessibility to vaccination. In contrast, population under 40, less deprived population, and black or mixed ethnicity are negatively associated with the vaccination rates.ConclusionsOur findings indicate the importance of improving the spatial accessibility to vaccinations in developing regions and among specific population groups in order to promote COVID-19 vaccination.
| S-EPMC10185460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:‘Deprivation amplification’ is used to understand the relationship between deprivation, scale and COVID-19 mortality rates. We found that more deprived Middle Super Output Areas (MSOAs) in the more deprived northern regions suffered greater COVID-19 mortality rates. Across England, the most deprived 20% of MSOAs had higher mortality than the least deprived (44.1% more COVID-19 deaths/10,000). However, the most deprived MSOAs in the north fared worse than equally deprived areas in the rest of England (14.5% more deaths/10,000, beta = 0.136, p < 0.01). There was also strong evidence of spatial clustering and spill-overs. We discuss these findings in relation to ‘deprivation amplification’, the ‘syndemic pandemic’, and the health and place literature.
| S-EPMC9637535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluate approaches to vaccine distribution using an agent-based model of human activity and COVID-19 transmission calibrated to detailed trends in cases, hospitalizations, deaths, seroprevalence, and vaccine breakthrough infections in Florida, USA. We compare the incremental effectiveness for four different distribution strategies at four different levels of vaccine supply, starting in late 2020 through early 2022. Our analysis indicates that the best strategy to reduce severe outcomes would be to actively target high disease-risk individuals. This was true in every scenario, although the advantage was greatest for the intermediate vaccine availability assumptions and relatively modest compared to a simple mass vaccination approach under high vaccine availability. Ring vaccination, while generally the most effective strategy for reducing infections, ultimately proved least effective at preventing deaths. We also consider using age group as a practical surrogate measure for actual disease-risk targeting; this approach also outperforms both simple mass distribution and ring vaccination. We find that quantitative effectiveness of a strategy depends on whether effectiveness is assessed after the alpha, delta, or omicron wave. However, these differences in absolute benefit for the strategies do not change the ranking of their performance at preventing severe outcomes across vaccine availability assumptions.
| S-EPMC11230632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluate the efficiency of various heuristic strategies for allocating vaccines against COVID-19 and compare them to strategies found using optimal control theory. Our approach is based on a mathematical model which tracks the spread of disease among different age groups and across different geographical regions, and we introduce a method to combine age-specific contact data to geographical movement data. As a case study, we model the epidemic in the population of mainland Finland utilizing mobility data from a major telecom operator. Our approach allows to determine which geographical regions and age groups should be targeted first in order to minimize the number of deaths. In the scenarios that we test, we find that distributing vaccines demographically and in an age-descending order is not optimal for minimizing deaths and the burden of disease. Instead, more lives could be saved by using strategies which emphasize high-incidence regions and distribute vaccines in parallel to multiple age groups. The level of emphasis that high-incidence regions should be given depends on the overall transmission rate in the population. This observation highlights the importance of updating the vaccination strategy when the effective reproduction number changes due to the general contact patterns changing and new virus variants entering.
| S-EPMC9017881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on hospital admissions in England in 2021.DesignObservational study of emergency admissions for COVID-19 by vaccination status in people 16 years and over in England.SettingHospitals in England.ParticipantsA total of 48.1 million people registered with an English GP, aged ≥16 years with a recent NHS contact.Main outcome measuresEmergency hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 between 1 January and 31 December 2021. Monthly admission rates were directly standardised for age, sex, risk category and vaccination dose to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) over time, between vaccine doses, age groups and risk groups.ResultsA total of 192,047 hospital admissions were included. The unvaccinated admission rate was higher in December 2021 (6.1 admissions per 100,000 person-days; 95% CI: 5.9 to 6.3) than January 2021 (4.9; 95% CI: 4.9 to 5.0). Vaccinated admission rates were ≤1 per 100,000 from February to December. Doses 1 and 2 VE waned over time, particularly in older and clinically vulnerable groups (although this may reflect that they were vaccinated earlier). Dose 3 VE remained above 93%.ConclusionsCOVID-19 hospitalisations were consistently highest in the unvaccinated. Despite high case rates at the end of 2021, overall admission rates remained stable, driven by low admission rates among vaccinated people. There is population-level waning in VE, recovering after subsequent doses, potentially more marked in older and at-risk groups. The findings support JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) guidance for an ongoing booster programme, especially in older people and higher clinical risk groups.
| S-EPMC10248539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe sought to examine the extent to which populations experiencing inequities were considered in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs).MethodsWe included all studies (n = 19) from an ongoing Cochrane living systematic review on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AIRDs. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital, plus: age, multimorbidity, and health literacy) to identify factors that stratify health outcomes. We assessed equity considerations in relation to differences in COVID-19 baseline risk, eligibility criteria, and description of participant characteristics and attrition, controlling for confounding factors, subgroup analyses, and applicability of findings.ResultsAll 19 studies were cohort studies that followed individuals with AIRDs after vaccination. Three studies (16%) described differences in baseline risk for COVID-19 across age. Two studies (11%) defined eligibility criteria based on occupation and age. All 19 studies described participant age and sex. Twelve studies (67%) controlled for age and/or sex as confounders. Eight studies (47%) conducted subgroup analyses across at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age. Ten studies (53%) interpreted applicability in relation to at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age (47%), then ethnicity (16%), sex (16%), and multimorbidity (11%).ConclusionSex and age were the most frequently considered PROGRESS-Plus factors in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with AIRDs. The generalizability of evidence to populations experiencing inequities is uncertain. Future COVID-19 vaccine studies should report participant characteristics in more detail to inform guideline recommendations.
| S-EPMC9874440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile relationships and connectedness among organizations have been included in implementation theories, models, and frameworks, the increased attention to health equity in implementation science raises the urgency of understanding the role of relationships external to the implementing organization. This paper addresses this gap through an exploration of the role of external relationships in community-based, equity-focused interventions.MethodsThis study focuses on an equity-focused, community-based COVID-19 vaccination intervention in Arkansas, drawing upon long-term community-engaged relationships among University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and the Hispanic and Marshallese Islander communities. We used an exploratory qualitative descriptive design to examine barriers and facilitators to implementation of COVID-19 vaccination events analyzing in-depth qualitative interviews with implementation team members (n = 17).ResultsAll participants described pre-existing relationships among the implementing organization, partner organizations, and communities as a key implementation determinant for this equity-focused program. At the inter-organizational level, external relationships included formal connections and informal relationships among staff (e.g., communication channels from prior partnerships). At the individual level, strong external relationships with the community were facilitators leveraging long-term engagement, community familiarity, and staff from the communities of focus. Strong external relationships facilitated program reach in underserved communities through three mechanisms: (1) reduced time required to establish functional working relationships among partners; (2) accessibility and cultural congruence of health services; and (3) increased trust among community members. Barriers to implementation also existed in external relationships, but had less influence than facilitators.ConclusionsAchieving health equity in implementation science requires greater understanding of external relationships as implementation determinants. This exploratory study makes a significant contribution to the literature by describing the types of external relationships that facilitate equitable implementation and identifying the mechanisms through which they may work. We argue that approaches to community engagement drawn from community-engaged research approaches may be useful, as these processes require investment in building/maintaining formal and informal organizational and interpersonal relationships. Further research is needed to understand connections among external relationships and other implementation determinants.
| S-EPMC10964718 | biostudies-literature