Tackling barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in London: a mixed-methods evaluation.
COVID-19
London
ethnicity
inequalities
vaccination
Journal
Journal of public health (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1741-3850
Titre abrégé: J Public Health (Oxf)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101188638
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jun 2023
14 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
26
01
2022
medline:
19
6
2023
pubmed:
5
4
2022
entrez:
4
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first vaccine was administered in December 2020 in England. However, vaccination uptake has historically been lower in London than in other English regions. Mixed-methods: This comprised an analysis of cumulative percentage uptake across London between 8 December 2020 and 6 June 2021 by vaccine priority cohorts and ethnicity. We also undertook thematic analyses of uptake barriers, interventions to tackle these and key learning from a qualitative survey of 27 London local authority representatives, vaccine plans from London's five Integrated Care Systems and interviews with 38 London system representatives. Vaccine uptake was lower in Black ethnic (57-65% uptake) compared with the White British group (90% uptake). Trust was a critical issue, including mistrust in the vaccine itself and in authorities administering or promoting it. The balance between putative costs and benefits of vaccination created uptake barriers for zero-hour and shift workers. Intensive, targeted and 'hyper-local' initiatives, which sustained community relationships and were not constrained by administrative boundaries, helped tackle these barriers. The success of the national vaccination programme depended on conceding local autonomy, investing in responsive and long-term partnerships to engender trust through in-depth understanding of communities' beliefs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first vaccine was administered in December 2020 in England. However, vaccination uptake has historically been lower in London than in other English regions.
METHODS
METHODS
Mixed-methods: This comprised an analysis of cumulative percentage uptake across London between 8 December 2020 and 6 June 2021 by vaccine priority cohorts and ethnicity. We also undertook thematic analyses of uptake barriers, interventions to tackle these and key learning from a qualitative survey of 27 London local authority representatives, vaccine plans from London's five Integrated Care Systems and interviews with 38 London system representatives.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Vaccine uptake was lower in Black ethnic (57-65% uptake) compared with the White British group (90% uptake). Trust was a critical issue, including mistrust in the vaccine itself and in authorities administering or promoting it. The balance between putative costs and benefits of vaccination created uptake barriers for zero-hour and shift workers. Intensive, targeted and 'hyper-local' initiatives, which sustained community relationships and were not constrained by administrative boundaries, helped tackle these barriers.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The success of the national vaccination programme depended on conceding local autonomy, investing in responsive and long-term partnerships to engender trust through in-depth understanding of communities' beliefs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35373295
pii: 6562974
doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdac038
pmc: PMC8992332
doi:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
393-401Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : NIHR20092
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : NIHR20092
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health.
Références
BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 23;11(7):e053402
pubmed: 34301672
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Oct 01;9(10):
pubmed: 34696228
Psychol Med. 2022 Oct;52(14):3127-3141
pubmed: 33305716
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013 Aug;9(8):1763-73
pubmed: 23584253
BMJ. 2009 Jun 16;338:b2025
pubmed: 19531549
BJGP Open. 2021 Aug 24;5(4):
pubmed: 34006529