Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
Date Submitted: Dec 10, 2021
Open Peer Review Period: Dec 10, 2021 - Feb 4, 2022
Date Accepted: Feb 22, 2023
Date Submitted to PubMed: Feb 22, 2023
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Demographic Determinants and Geographical Variability of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Underserved Communities
ABSTRACT
Background:
COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths disproportionately affect underserved and minority populations, emphasizing that vaccine hesitancy can be an especially important public health risk factor in these populations.
Objective:
To characterize COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in underserved diverse populations.
Methods:
The Minority and Rural Coronavirus Insights Study recruited a convenience sample of adults (ages ≥18, n=3,735) from Federally Qualified Health Centers in California, Midwest (Illinois/Ohio), Florida and Louisiana and collected baseline data in November 2020-April 2021. Vaccine hesitancy status was defined as responses "no" or "undecided" to the question “Would you get a coronavirus vaccine, if it was available?” (“yes” categorized as not hesitant). The cross-sectional descriptive analyses and logistic regression models examined vaccine hesitancy prevalence by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and geography. The expected vaccine hesitancy estimates for the general population were calculated for the study counties using published county-level data. Crude associations with demographic characteristics within each region were assessed by the chi-squared test. The main effect model included age, gender, race/ethnicity, and geographical region to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Interactions between geography and each demographic characteristic were evaluated in separate models.
Results:
The strongest vaccine hesitancy variability was by geographic region: in California 28.3% (26.5-31.1), the Midwest 36.1 % (32.1-40.2), Louisiana 59.1% (56.0-62.1), Florida 67.9% (65.0-70.8). The expected estimates for the general population were lower: 9.7% (California), 15.2 % (Midwest), 18.2% (Florida), and 27.0% (Louisiana). The demographic patterns also varied by geography. An inverted U-shape age pattern was found, with the highest prevalence among ages 25-34 in the Midwest (39.3%), Florida (79.5%,) and Louisiana (79.4%) (p <0.05). Females were more hesitant than males in the Midwest (36.5% vs 23.9%), Florida (71.6% vs 59.4%), and Louisiana (66.5% vs. 46.4%) (p<0.05). Racial/ethnic differences were found in California with the highest prevalence among non-Hispanic Black (45.8%) and in Florida with the highest among Hispanic (69.3%) participants (p<0.05) but not in the Midwest and Louisiana. The main effect model confirmed the U-shape association with age: strongest association with age 25-34, OR=2.28 (1.74, 2.99). Statistical interactions of gender and race/ethnicity with the region were significant, following the pattern found by the crude analysis. The associations with the female gender were strongest in Florida and Louisiana: ORs were 7.83 (5.94, 10.33) and 6.04 (4.52, 8.06) compared to males in California, respectively. Compared to non-Hispanic White participants in California, the strongest associations were found with being Hispanic in Florida and Black in Louisiana: ORs were 11.18 (7.01, 17.85) and 8.94 (5.53, 14.47), respectively. However, the strongest race/ethnicity variability was observed within California and Florida: ORs varied 4.7- and 2-fold between racial/ethnic groups in these regions, respectively.
Conclusions:
These findings highlight the role of local contextual factors in driving vaccine hesitancy and its demographic patterns.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.