Measuring COVID-19 vaccination coverage: an enhanced age-adjusted two-step floating catchment area model.
COVID-19
Iran
Spatial accessibility
Spatial inequality
Two-step floating catchment area
Vaccination coverage
Journal
Infectious diseases of poverty
ISSN: 2049-9957
Titre abrégé: Infect Dis Poverty
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101606645
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Sep 2021
16 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
16
07
2021
accepted:
03
09
2021
entrez:
17
9
2021
pubmed:
18
9
2021
medline:
1
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There are only limited studies on access to COVID-19 vaccines and identifying the most appropriate health centres for performing vaccination in metropolitan areas. This study aimed to measure potential spatial access to COVID-19 vaccination centres in Mashhad, the second-most populous city in Iran. The 2021 age structure of the urban census tracts was integrated into the enhanced two-step floating catchment area model to improve accuracy. The model was developed based on three different access scenarios: only public hospitals, only public healthcare centres and both (either hospitals or healthcare centres) as potential vaccination facilities. The weighted decision-matrix and analytic hierarchy process, based on four criteria (i.e. service area, accessibility index, capacity of vaccination centres and distance to main roads), were used to choose potential vaccination centres looking for the highest suitability for residents. Global Moran's index (GMI) was used to measure the spatial autocorrelation of the accessibility index in different scenarios and the proposed model. There were 26 public hospitals and 271 public healthcare centres in the study area. Although the exclusive use of public healthcare centres for vaccination can provide the highest accessibility in the eastern and north-eastern parts of the study area, our findings indicate that including both public hospitals and public healthcare centres provide high accessibility to vaccination in central urban part. Therefore, a combination of public hospitals and public healthcare centres is recommended for efficient vaccination coverage. The value of GMI for the proposed model (accessibility to selected vaccination centres) was calculated as 0.53 (Z = 162.42, P < 0.01). Both GMI and Z-score values decreased in the proposed model, suggesting an enhancement in accessibility to COVID-19 vaccination services. The periphery and poor areas of the city had the least access to COVID-19 vaccination centres. Measuring spatial access to COVID-19 vaccination centres can provide valuable insights for urban public health decision-makers. Our model, coupled with geographical information systems, provides more efficient vaccination coverage by identifying the most suitable healthcare centres, which is of special importance when only few centres are available.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There are only limited studies on access to COVID-19 vaccines and identifying the most appropriate health centres for performing vaccination in metropolitan areas. This study aimed to measure potential spatial access to COVID-19 vaccination centres in Mashhad, the second-most populous city in Iran.
METHODS
METHODS
The 2021 age structure of the urban census tracts was integrated into the enhanced two-step floating catchment area model to improve accuracy. The model was developed based on three different access scenarios: only public hospitals, only public healthcare centres and both (either hospitals or healthcare centres) as potential vaccination facilities. The weighted decision-matrix and analytic hierarchy process, based on four criteria (i.e. service area, accessibility index, capacity of vaccination centres and distance to main roads), were used to choose potential vaccination centres looking for the highest suitability for residents. Global Moran's index (GMI) was used to measure the spatial autocorrelation of the accessibility index in different scenarios and the proposed model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were 26 public hospitals and 271 public healthcare centres in the study area. Although the exclusive use of public healthcare centres for vaccination can provide the highest accessibility in the eastern and north-eastern parts of the study area, our findings indicate that including both public hospitals and public healthcare centres provide high accessibility to vaccination in central urban part. Therefore, a combination of public hospitals and public healthcare centres is recommended for efficient vaccination coverage. The value of GMI for the proposed model (accessibility to selected vaccination centres) was calculated as 0.53 (Z = 162.42, P < 0.01). Both GMI and Z-score values decreased in the proposed model, suggesting an enhancement in accessibility to COVID-19 vaccination services.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The periphery and poor areas of the city had the least access to COVID-19 vaccination centres. Measuring spatial access to COVID-19 vaccination centres can provide valuable insights for urban public health decision-makers. Our model, coupled with geographical information systems, provides more efficient vaccination coverage by identifying the most suitable healthcare centres, which is of special importance when only few centres are available.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34530923
doi: 10.1186/s40249-021-00904-6
pii: 10.1186/s40249-021-00904-6
pmc: PMC8443959
doi:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
118Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 28;18(3):
pubmed: 33525529
Geospat Health. 2020 Nov 26;15(2):
pubmed: 33461262
Geohealth. 2021 Jun 01;5(6):e2021GH000427
pubmed: 34179672
Geospat Health. 2017 Nov 07;12(2):584
pubmed: 29239556
BMC Med. 2021 Feb 5;19(1):40
pubmed: 33541353
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 25;18(11):
pubmed: 34070378
Med Care. 1981 Feb;19(2):127-40
pubmed: 7206846
Global Health. 2021 Jan 5;17(1):4
pubmed: 33402169
Health Care Manag Sci. 2006 Nov;9(4):371-89
pubmed: 17186772
Int J Equity Health. 2013 Mar 11;12:18
pubmed: 23496984
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Jul;60(1):e41-e44
pubmed: 32276097
Geospat Health. 2017 May 11;12(1):561
pubmed: 28555481
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021 May 12;14:1917-1932
pubmed: 34012304
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Feb 06;4(7):439-45
pubmed: 26188808
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Feb 14;14(1):22
pubmed: 28196495
BMC Public Health. 2021 Jan 4;21(1):7
pubmed: 33397340
Int J Health Geogr. 2020 Sep 14;19(1):36
pubmed: 32928236
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2016 Jan;21(1):36-9
pubmed: 26377728
Geospat Health. 2018 May 07;13(1):577
pubmed: 29772871
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2020 May;35(3):788-798
pubmed: 31794096
World Health Popul. 2011;12(3):33-41
pubmed: 21677527
BMC Public Health. 2020 Sep 17;20(1):1414
pubmed: 32943045
Health Place. 2020 Sep;65:102406
pubmed: 32877867
Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 21;11(1):1972
pubmed: 33479325
Travel Behav Soc. 2021 Jul;24:95-101
pubmed: 33777697
GeoJournal. 2022;87(2):815-828
pubmed: 32868960
BMC Public Health. 2021 Jul 12;21(1):1373
pubmed: 34247616
Brain Behav Immun Health. 2020 Dec;9:100159
pubmed: 33052327
Int J Equity Health. 2020 Jun 26;19(1):104
pubmed: 32586388
Arch Public Health. 2021 May 22;79(1):85
pubmed: 34022968
Health Place. 2009 Dec;15(4):1100-7
pubmed: 19576837
Int J Health Geogr. 2008 Feb 18;7:7
pubmed: 18282284
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Sep 03;12:643783
pubmed: 34539457
Heliyon. 2021 Jun;7(6):e07233
pubmed: 34124399
Health Aff (Millwood). 2021 Mar;40(3):410-418
pubmed: 33539191
Geospat Health. 2018 Nov 09;13(2):
pubmed: 30451464
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Mar;273:113773
pubmed: 33609968
Socioecon Plann Sci. 1980;14(3):121-7
pubmed: 10248180
BMC Public Health. 2020 May 19;20(1):722
pubmed: 32430028
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2021 Mar 4;14(1):28
pubmed: 33663583
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Nov 20;20(1):1053
pubmed: 33213404
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Nov;46(11):2026-2034
pubmed: 32886208
Mech Ageing Dev. 2020 Jun;188:111255
pubmed: 32353398