Welsh J, Biddle N, Butler DC, Korda RJ. Discretion in decision to receive COVID-19 vaccines and associated socio-economic inequalities in rates of uptake: a whole-of-population data linkage study from Australia.
Public Health 2023;
224:82-89. [PMID:
37741156 DOI:
10.1016/j.puhe.2023.08.020]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2023] [Revised: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 08/14/2023] [Indexed: 09/25/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
In Australia, first and second compared to third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were implemented under different policies and contexts, resulting in greater discretion in decisions to receive a third compared to first and second dose. We quantified socio-economic inequalities in first and third dose to understand how discretion is associated with differences in uptake.
STUDY DESIGN
Whole-of-population cohort study.
METHODS
Linked immunisation, census, death and migration data were used to estimate weekly proportions who received first and third doses of a COVID-19 vaccine until 31 August 2022 for those with low (no formal qualification) compared to high (university degree) education, stratified by 10-year age group (from 30 to 89 years). We estimated relative rates using Cox regression, including adjustment for sociodemographic factors.
RESULTS
Among 13.1 million people in our study population, 94% had received a first and 80% a third dose by 31 August 2022. Rates of uptake of first and third dose were around 50% lower for people with low compared to high education. Gaps were small in absolute terms for first dose, and at the end of the study period ranged from 1 to 11 percentage points across age groups. However, gaps were substantial for third dose, particularly at younger ages where the socio-economic gap was as wide as 32 percentage-points.
CONCLUSION
Education-related inequalities in uptake were larger where discretion in decisions was larger. Policies that limited discretion in decisions to receive vaccines may have contributed to achieving the dual aims of maximising uptake and minimising inequalities.
Collapse