4.7 Article

COVID-19 vaccination coverage for half a million non-EU migrants and refugees in England

期刊

NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01768-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that some non-European Union migrants and refugees in England experienced delays in receiving the second and third doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. Refugees had the highest risk of delay, and black migrants were more likely to experience delays in the second dose compared to white migrants, although this trend reversed for the third dose. Older migrants (>65 years) were four times less likely to have received their second or third dose compared with the general population aged >65 or older in England.
Despite evidence suggesting that some migrants are at risk of under-immunization and have experienced severe health inequities during the pandemic, data are limited on migrants' COVID-19 vaccine coverage globally. Here we linked data from non-European Union migrants and resettled refugees to the national COVID-19 vaccination dataset in England. We estimated patterns in second and third dose delays and overdue doses between 12 December 2020 and 20 April 2022 by age, visa type and ethnicity. Of the 465,470 linked records, 91.8% (427,073/465,470) of migrants received a second dose and 51.3% (238,721/465,470) received a third. Refugees had the highest risk of delayed second (adjusted odds ratio 1.66; 95% confidence interval 1.55-1.79) and third dose (1.55; 1.43-1.69). Black migrants were twice as likely to have a second dose delayed (2.37; 2.23-2.54) than white migrants, but this trend reversed for the third dose. Older migrants (>65 years) were four times less likely to have received their second or third dose compared with the general population in England aged >65 or older. Policymakers, researchers and practitioners should work to understand and address personal and structural barriers to vaccination for diverse migrant populations.

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

4.7
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