4.1 Article

COVID-19 vaccination coverage and vaccine hesitancy among Australians with disability and long-term health conditions

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hpja.691

关键词

chronic disease; COVID-19; disabled persons; health inequities; vaccination coverage; vaccination hesitancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that there were no significant differences in COVID-19 vaccination coverage and hesitancy between people with disability, long-term health conditions, and carers compared to the general population in Australia.
Issue Addressed: COVID-19 vaccination is the cornerstone of managing Australia's COVID-19 pandemic and the success of the vaccination program depends on high vaccination coverage. This paper examined differences in COVID-19 vaccination coverage and vaccine hesitancy for people with disability, long-term health conditions, and carers - subgroups that were prioritised in Australia's vaccination program. Methods: Using data from 2400 Australians who participated in two waves of the Taking the Pulse of the Nation survey in April and May 2021, we described vaccination coverage and hesitancy among people with disability, severe mental health conditions, severe long-term health conditions, frequent need for assistance with everyday activities, and carers. Results: Vaccination coverage was estimated to be 8.2% in the population overall and was similar for people with disability, those with frequent need for assistance, and carers. It was higher for people with severe long-term health conditions (13.4%) and lower for people with severe mental health conditions (4.3%). Vaccine hesitancy was high overall (35.6%) and was similarly high across the priority groups, with only small differences for people with disability, severe long-term health conditions and frequent need for assistance. Conclusions: This study highlights a lack of difference in vaccination coverage for people with disability, long-term health conditions, and carers compared to the general population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据