Affiliation:
1. University of Manchester
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
Groups which are marginalised, disadvantaged or otherwise vulnerable have lower uptake of vaccinations. This differential has been amplified in COVID-19 vaccination compared to (e.g.) influenza vaccination. This overview assessed the effectiveness of interventions to increase vaccination in underserved, minority or vulnerable groups.
Methods
In November 2022 we searched four databases for systematic reviews including RCTs of interventions to increase vaccination in underserved, minority or vulnerable groups. We used rapid review methods to screen, extract data and assess risk of bias in identified reviews. We undertook narrative synthesis using an approach modified from SWiM guidance. We categorised interventions as being high, medium or low intensity, and as targeting vaccine demand, access, or providers.
Results
We included 23 systematic reviews, including studies in high and low or middle income countries, focused on children, adolescents and adults. Groups were vulnerable based on socioeconomic status, minority ethnicity, migrant/refugee status, age, location or LGBTQ identity. Pregnancy/maternity sometimes intersected with vulnerabilities. Evidence supported interventions including: home visits to communicate/educate and to vaccinate, and facilitator visits to practices (high intensity); telephone calls to communicate/educate, remind/book appointments (medium intensity); letters, postcards or text messages to communicate/educate, remind/book appointments and reminder/recall interventions for practices (low intensity). Many studies used multiple interventions or components.
Conclusion
There was considerable evidence supporting the effectiveness of communication in person, by phone or in writing to increase vaccination. Both high and low intensity interventions targeting providers showed effectiveness. Limited evidence assessed additional clinics or targeted services for increasing access; only home visits had higher confidence evidence showing effectiveness. There was no evidence for interventions for some communities, such as religious minorities which may intersect with gaps in evidence for additional services. None of the evidence related to COVID-19 vaccination where inequalities of outcome are exacerbated.
Prospero registration: CRD42021293355
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference37 articles.
1. SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Diagnosing the determinants of vaccine hesitancy in specific subgroups: The Guide to Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP);Butler R;Vaccine,2015
2. Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparison to seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in Greater Manchester, UK: A cohort study;Watkinson RE;PLoS Med,2022
3. Disparities in the risk and outcomes of COVID-19. 2020, Public Health England: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/908434/Disparities_in_the_risk_and_outcomes_of_COVID_August_2020_update.pdf.
4. Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of published reviews;Dubé E;Vaccine,2015
5. Norman G, Kletter M, Dumville J. CRD42021293355. Rapid review of reviews of interventions for vaccine hesitancy in underserved, minority or vulnerable groups.. 2021.