Time for action: towards an intersectional gender approach to COVID-19 vaccine development and deployment that leaves no one behind

Sex and COVID-19 vaccination uptake and intention in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda

The introduction of vaccines marked a game changer in the fight against COVID-19. In sub-Saharan Africa, studies have documented the intention to vaccinate and the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. However, little is documented about how sex differences could have impacted COVID-19 vaccination. We conducted a multi-country cross-sectional study to assess the sex differences in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and intention to vaccinate in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda. This study involved analysis of data from mobile surveys conducted between March and June 2022 among nationally constituted samples of adults in each country. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were run. The self-reported uptake of COVID-19 vaccines was not significantly different between males and females (p = 0.47), while the intention to vaccinate was significantly higher among males (p = 0.008). Among males, obtaining COVID-19 information from health workers, testing for COVID-19, and having high trust in the Ministry of Health were associated with higher vaccination uptake. Among females, having high trust in the government was associated with higher vaccination uptake. For intention to vaccinate, males who resided in semi-urban areas and females who resided in rural areas had significantly higher vaccination intention compared to their counterparts in urban areas. Other factors positively associated with vaccination intention among males were trust in the World Health Organization and perceived truthfulness of institutions, while males from households with a higher socio-economic index and those who had declined a vaccine before had a lower vaccine intention. Overall, the factors differentiating vaccine uptake and intention to vaccinate among males and females were mostly related to trust in government institutions, perceived truthfulness of institutions, and respondent's residence. These factors are key in guiding the tailoring of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in sub-Saharan Africa and similar contexts.

Immune Cells, Gut Microbiota, and Vaccines: A Gender Perspective

The development of preventive and therapeutic vaccines has played a crucial role in preventing infections and treating chronic and non-communicable diseases, respectively. For a long time, the influence of sex differences on modifying health and disease has not been addressed in clinical and preclinical studies. The interaction of genetic, epigenetic, and hormonal factors plays a role in the sex-related differences in the epidemiology of diseases, clinical manifestations, and the response to treatment. Moreover, sex is one of the leading factors influencing the gut microbiota composition, which could further explain the different predisposition to diseases in men and women. In the same way, differences between sexes occur also in the immune response to vaccines. This narrative review aims to highlight these differences, focusing on the immune response to vaccines. Comparative data about immune responses, vaccine effectiveness, and side effects are reviewed. Hence, the intricate interplay between sex, immunity, and the gut microbiota will be discussed for its potential role in the response to vaccination. Embracing a sex-oriented perspective in research may improve the efficacy of the immune response and allow the design of tailored vaccine schedules.

A Scoping Review on Gender/Sex Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Uptake in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To explore the empirical literature on gender/sex differences in vaccine acceptance among U.S.-based adults and adolescents in approximately the first 2 years of the pandemic.

DATA SOURCE

Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, EBSCO, CINAHL, Web of Science.

STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed studies conducted in the U.S. with those aged 12 and older, published in English before January 12, 2022, examining the relationship between gender/sex on COVID-19 vaccine intentions and/or uptake.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three authors screened studies and extracted data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Univariate and multivariate results are summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 53 studies met inclusion criteria (48 intentions, 7 uptake), using mostly cross-sectional designs (92.5%) and non-random sampling (83.0%). The majority of studies supported men's greater intentions to vaccinate compared to women, and men's greater vaccine uptake in univariate analyses, but most multivariate analyses supported no gender differences in uptake. Few studies examined gender beyond binary categories (women/men), highlighting a gap in the studies inclusive of transgender or gender-diverse populations in analyses.

CONCLUSION

Women may have been more hesitant to get the vaccine than men early in the pandemic, but these differences may not translate to actual behavior. Future research should include non-binary/transgender populations, explore the gender-specific reasons for hesitancy and differences by sub-populations, utilize more rigorous designs, and test gender-sensitive public health campaigns to mitigate vaccine concerns.

Gender analysis of the World Health Organization online learning program on Immunization Agenda 2030

Vaccine-preventable diseases pose a significant threat to children under five globally, creating disparities in immunization coverage. Despite its cost-effectiveness and life-saving potential, immunization faces challenges in achieving equitable coverage. Gender inequalities deeply influence access to healthcare, affecting immunization rates. This study examines the action plans submitted by participants of the World Health Organization's (WHO) IA2030 Scholar Level 1 certification course in 2021. A qualitative analysis was conducted on a subset of 111 action plans that scored above 75%, employing narrative thematic analysis to categorize and explore gender incorporation and identified barriers based on the IA2030 Gender Guide. Among the 111 analyzed action plans, gender considerations were present in almost all plans, underscoring the effectiveness of integrating gender perspectives in the course curriculum. The most frequently cited barriers included low education and health literacy, issues related to accessing quality immunization services, gendered dynamics in decision-making within households, and limited access to resources and mobility, predominantly impacting women. The findings confirm that gender inequalities significantly contribute to suboptimal immunization coverage. An intersectional approach, recognizing diverse social markers impacting immunization, is vital to address disparities effectively. Moreover, the need for gender-sensitive data and deeper understanding of intersectional dynamics was emphasized. The study highlights the importance of gender-transformative interventions, including community engagement and efforts targeting both men and women to enhance immunization coverage. While acknowledging limitations, such as potential biases in peer evaluations and the need for wider inclusivity in gender perspectives, this analysis underscores the significance of mainstreaming gender in immunization capacity-building programs. The integration of gender considerations not only raises awareness but also equips professionals to create more gender-responsive immunization programs. Continuous efforts to incorporate gender perspectives can lead to more effective, equitable, and gender-transformative immunization initiatives at various levels.

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine readiness and hesitancy among adults in sub-Saharan Africa

There is very limited data on the extent and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults living in sub-Saharan Africa since the global roll-out of vaccines began in 2021. This multi-country survey sought to investigate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and other predictors of readiness to get vaccinated. We conducted surveys among adults residing in nine urban and rural areas in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, and Tanzania in late 2021. Log binomial regression models were used to identify prevalence and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and beliefs around COVID-19 misinformation. We completed a total of 2,833 interviews. Among all respondents, 9% had never heard of a COVID-19 vaccine, 12% had been vaccinated, and 20% knew someone else who had been vaccinated. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy varied by country (Ethiopia 29%, Burkina Faso 33%, Nigeria 34%, Ghana 42%, Tanzania 65%), but not by rural or urban context. People who did not think the vaccine was safe or effective, or who were unsure about it, were more likely to be vaccine hesitant. Those who reported they did not have a trusted source of information about the vaccine (aPR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.18,1.31) and those who thought the vaccine would not be made available to them within the year were more likely to be vaccine hesitant. Women were more likely to be vaccine hesitant (aPR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.19,1.43) and believe COVID-19 falsehoods (aPR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02,1.08). The most commonly believed falsehoods were that the vaccine was developed too fast and that there was not enough information about whether the vaccine was effective or not. Educational campaigns targeted at misinformation and tailored to suit each country are recommended to build trust in COVID-19 vaccines and reduce hesitancy.

Sex and gender in infection and immunity: addressing the bottlenecks from basic science to public health and clinical applications

Although sex and gender are recognized as major determinants of health and immunity, their role is rarely considered in clinical practice and public health. We identified six bottlenecks preventing the inclusion of sex and gender considerations from basic science to clinical practice, precision medicine and public health policies. (i) A terminology-related bottleneck, linked to the definitions of sex and gender themselves, and the lack of consensus on how to evaluate gender. (ii) A data-related bottleneck, due to gaps in sex-disaggregated data, data on trans/non-binary people and gender identity. (iii) A translational bottleneck, limited by animal models and the underrepresentation of gender minorities in biomedical studies. (iv) A statistical bottleneck, with inappropriate statistical analyses and results interpretation. (v) An ethical bottleneck posed by the underrepresentation of pregnant people and gender minorities in clinical studies. (vi) A structural bottleneck, as systemic bias and discriminations affect not only academic research but also decision makers. We specify guidelines for researchers, scientific journals, funding agencies and academic institutions to address these bottlenecks. Following such guidelines will support the development of more efficient and equitable care strategies for all.

Axes of social inequities in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review

Objective

The representativeness of participants is crucial to ensure external validity of clinical trials. We focused on the randomized clinical trials which assessed COVID-19 vaccines to assess the reporting of age, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, obesity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status in the results (description of the participants' characteristics, loss of follow-up, stratification of efficacy and safety results).

Methods

We searched the following databases for randomized clinical trials published before 1st February 2022: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Excerpta Medica. We included peer-reviewed articles written in English or Spanish. Four researchers used the Rayyan platform to filter citations, first reading the title and abstract, and then accessing the full text. Articles were excluded if both reviewers agreed, or if a third reviewer decided to discard them.

Results

Sixty three articles were included, which assessed 20 different vaccines, mainly in phase 2 or 3. When describing the participants' characteristics, all the studies reported sex or gender, 73.0% race, ethnicity, 68.9% age groups, and 22.2% obesity. Only one article described the age of participants lost to follow-up. Efficacy results were stratified by age in 61.9%, sex or gender in 26.9%, race and/or, ethnicity in 9.5%, and obesity in 4.8% of the articles. Safety results were stratified by age in 41.0%, and by sex or gender in 7.9% of the analysis. Reporting of gender identity, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status of participants was rare. Parity was reached in 49.2% of the studies, and sex-specific outcomes were mentioned in 22.9% of the analysis, most of the latter were related to females' health.

Conclusions

Axes of social inequity other than age and sex were hardly reported in randomized clinical trials that assessed COVID-19 vaccines. This undermines their representativeness and external validity and sustains health inequities.

Resolving sex and gender bias in COVID-19 vaccines R&D and beyond

The influence of sex and gender in immune response and vaccine outcomes is established in many disease areas, including in COVID-19. Yet, there are notable gaps in the consideration of sex and gender in the analysis and reporting of COVID-19 vaccines clinical trial data. The push for stronger sex and gender integration in vaccines science should be championed by all researchers and stakeholders across the R&D and access ecosystem - not just gender experts. This requires joint action on the tactical framing of customized value propositions (based on stakeholder motivations), the stronger enforcement of existing regulation, tools, and commitments, and aligning the overall agenda to parallel calls on intersectionality, equity diversity and inclusion.

A qualitative investigation of facilitators and barriers to accessing COVID-19 vaccines among Racialized and Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Structural and systemic inequalities can contribute to susceptibility to COVID-19 disease and limited access to vaccines. Recognizing that Racialized and Indigenous Peoples may experience unique barriers to COVID-19 vaccination, this study explored early COVID-19 vaccine accessibility, including barriers and potential solutions to vaccine access, for these communities in Canada. We conducted semi-structured interviews about challenges to accessing COVID-19 vaccination with Racialized and Indigenous Peoples, including linguistic minorities and newcomers, in Spring 2021, just as COVID-19 vaccines were becoming more widely available in Canada. Participants were purposely selected from respondents to a Canadian national online survey. Three researchers analyzed the interviews for emergent themes using a descriptive content analysis approach in NVivo. At the time of the interview, interview participants (N = 27) intended to receive (n = 15) or had received (n = 11) at least one vaccine dose, or did not state their status (n = 1). Participants described multiple barriers to COVID-19 vaccination that they personally experienced and/or anticipated they or others could experience - including technology requirements, language barriers, lack of identification documentation, and travel challenges - as well as related solutions. These were organized into three broad categories: 1) COVID-19 disease and vaccination information, 2) vaccination booking procedures, and 3) vaccination sites. These structural and systemic barriers during the initial months of vaccine rollout substantially restricted participants' COVID-19 vaccination access, even when they were eager to get vaccinated, and should be addressed early in vaccine rollouts to facilitate optimal uptake for everyone everywhere.

Considerations of sex and gender dimensions by research ethics committees: a scoping review

Despite a growing consensus on the importance of integrating sex and gender in health research, research across disciplines continues to be conducted and reported without a gender focus. Research ethics committees (RECs) can play a particularly powerful role in identifying the gender gaps at an early stage of the development of research protocols. Their role is missing in the dialogue related to improving gender awareness and analysis in health research. A scoping review was conducted to examine the extent to which RECs discuss and consider the inclusion and analysis of sex and gender in health research and to examine the literature regarding the gender balance of RECs. The limited literature around gender and research ethics reveals the power and potential of RECs to ensure that gender dimensions are thoughtfully included in health research, and sheds light on the gaps that exist. These include an under-representation of women on RECs, a lack of awareness of the importance of gender-related aspects in health research and a paucity of gender-related training to RECs. Guidelines such as the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines are required for RECs to strengthen the ways in which health research is gendered from conception of a research protocol to its publication.

Bargaining and gendered authority: a framework to understand household decision-making about childhood vaccines in the Philippines

Introduction

Targeted vaccination promotion efforts aimed at building vaccine confidence require an in-depth understanding of how and by whom decisions about vaccinating children are made. While several studies have highlighted how parents interact with other stakeholders when discussing childhood vaccination, less is known about the way in which vaccination uptake is negotiated within households.

Methods

We conducted 44 in-depth interviews with caregivers of children under five in the Philippines who had delayed or refused vaccination. Interviews were conducted between August 2020 and March 2021 and were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Notions of intra-household vaccination bargaining emerged early during systematic debriefings and were probed more pointedly throughout data collection.

Results

Parents as well as paternal and maternal families proved to be dominant stakeholders in intra-household bargaining for childhood vaccination. Although bargaining among these stakeholders was based on engrained, gender-based power imbalances, disadvantaged stakeholders could draw on a range of interrelated sources of bargaining power to nevertheless shape decision-making. Sources of bargaining power included, in descending order of their relevance for vaccination, (1) physical presence at the household (at the time of vaccination decision-making), (2) interest in the topic of vaccination and conviction of one’s own position, (3) previous vaccination and caregiving experience, and (4) access to household resources (including finances). The degree to which each household member could draw on these sources of bargaining power varied considerably over time and across households.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight how bargaining due to intra-household disagreement coins decisions regarding childhood vaccination. Considering the risks for public health associated with vaccine hesitancy globally, we advocate for acknowledging intra-household dynamics in research and practice, such as by purposefully targeting household members with decision-making capacity in vaccination promotion efforts, aligning promotion efforts with available bargaining capacity or further empowering those convinced of vaccination.

Gender perspective in COVID-19. SESPAS Report 2022

We failed to adequately launch a gender transformative response to COVID-19 pandemic, data by sex on a variety of indicators for most countries are hard to find. Some symptoms reported as common of COVID-19 infection, are more prominent in men, while others are more prominent in women, one cannot with certainty exclude that some of the differences observed could be due to gender bias in the management of cases in health services. The gender implications of the pandemic reach wide and far. Inequalities can be further aggravated as sex and gender intersect with other axes of inequality. The SAGER guidelines exemplify an effort to improve reporting of sex and gender dimensions and encouraging researchers to integrate these aspects in the research design. these observations and emerging evidence about the persistent gender-blind approach to COVID-19 is a wake-up call to change course. National Gender Equality Institutions can be central in ensuring gender matters are considered in government responses. COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to reverse the trend and take action to apply an intersectional feminist approach to global health that enables a just and equal world where everyone's health and wellbeing matter.

Attention for sex in COVID-19 trials: a review of regulatory dossiers

An under-representation of women and a lack of sex-specific analyses in COVID-19 trials has been suggested. However, the higher number of men than women who are severely affected by COVID-19 and the restricted information in scientific publications may have biased these suggestions. Therefore, we evaluated sex proportionality and sex-specific efficacy and safety data in trials of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines using both publicly available regulatory documents and confidential documents used by regulators in their review of medicinal products. Included were two treatments (ie, remdesivir and dexamethasone) and four vaccines (ie, BNT162b2 mRNA (BioNTech/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2-S (Janssen)) that received marketing authorisation by the European Commission at the time of the study conduct. An under-representation of women was shown in three of the nine data sets for one treatment (ie, remdesivir), but the proportion of women included was representative in each of the data sets for the other five products. This indicates that there is no structural under-representation of women in the COVID-19 trials. Currently, sex-specific efficacy data are available for five of the six assessed products and sex-specific safety data are available for half of the products only. It is important that this information will also be made available for the other products. There are only small differences in efficacy and safety between men and women which are likely to be of limited clinical relevance. Sex-specific efficacy information can generally be found in the publicly available regulatory documents other than the Summary of Product Characteristics, for which more awareness might be required.

Thrombotic Adverse Events Reported for Moderna, Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccines: Comparison of Occurrence and Clinical Outcomes in the EudraVigilance Database

Vaccination against COVID-19 is the cornerstone of controlling and mitigating the ongoing pandemic. Thrombotic adverse events linked to Moderna, Pfizer and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine have been documented and described as extremely rare. While the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has received much of the attention, the other vaccines should not go unchallenged. This study aimed to determine the frequency of reported thrombotic adverse events and clinical outcomes for these three COVID-19 vaccines, namely, Moderna, Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca. A retrospective descriptive analysis was conducted of spontaneous reports for Moderna, Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines submitted to the EudraVigilance database in the period from 17 February to 14 June 2021. There were 729,496 adverse events for the three vaccines, of which 3420 were thrombotic, mainly Oxford-AstraZeneca (n = 1988; 58.1%) followed by Pfizer (n = 1096; 32.0%) and Moderna (n = 336; 9.8%). As serious adverse events, there were 705 reports of pulmonary embolism for the three vaccines, of which 130 reports (18.4%) were for Moderna, 226 reports (32.1%) for Pfizer and 349 (49.5%) for Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines. The occurrence of pulmonary embolism is significantly associated with a fatal outcome (p ≤ 0.001). Sixty-three fatalities were recorded (n = 63/3420; 1.8%), of which Moderna (n = 6), Pfizer (n = 25) and Oxford-AstraZeneca (n = 32).

A Systematic Review of the Sex and Gender Reporting in COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Sex and gender have implications for COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and adverse effects from the vaccine. As vaccination is one of the key responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is vital that sex and gender differences be acknowledged, measured, and analysed in clinical research. Here, we systematically review published COVID-19 vaccine trials, both interventional and observational, to assess the quality of reporting of sex and gender. Of the 75 clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines included in this review, only 24% presented their main outcome data disaggregated by sex, and only 13% included any discussion of the implications of their study for women and men. Considering the sex differences in adverse events after vaccination, and the gendered aspects of vaccine hesitancy, these oversights in clinical research on vaccines have implications for recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and for wider public health.

Worldwide Vaccination Willingness for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Countries across the globe are currently experiencing a third or fourth wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections; therefore, the need for effective vaccination campaigns is higher than ever. However, effectiveness of these campaigns in disease reduction is highly dependent on vaccination uptake and coverage in susceptible populations. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the vaccination intention and identified determinants of willingness and hesitancy. This study updates the existing body of literature on vaccination willingness, and was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed was searched for publications, selecting only studies published between 20 October 2020 and 1 March 2021, in English, with participants aged >16 years of age. The search identified 411 articles, of which 63 surveys were included that accounted for more than 30 countries worldwide. The global COVID-19 vaccination willingness was estimated at 66.01% [95% CI: 60.76–70.89% I² = 99.4% [99.3%; 99.4%]; τ² = 0.83]. The vaccination willingness varied within as well as between countries. Age, gender, education, attitudes and perceptions about vaccines were most frequently observed to be significantly associated with vaccine acceptance or refusal.