ArticlePloS one2022
Variation in COVID-19 booster uptake in England: An ecological study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disparity between expected spatial accessibility and actual travel time to vaccination sites: Implications for COVID-19 immunization delays.SSM - population health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVariable and low uptake of the COVID-19 booster is a recognised problem, associated with individual characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, and deprivation. Are there other relevant predictors at area level?
methodsAnonymous grouped data was downloaded from the UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard for Middle Super Output Areas (MSOA) in England, along with demographic, employment, and health data from public sources. Mixed models with a random intercept for Upper Tier Local Authority were analysed as quasibinomial Generalized Additive Models. The estimated random effects were then fitted with Bayesian linear mixed models using flu vaccination uptake, change in public health budgets, population proportion of vaccination sites at pharmacies, GP-led, vaccination centres, and hospital hubs, and Region.
resultsModels for the MSOA-level COVID-19 first and second vaccinations and the Third Injection (including the booster), fit well. Index of Multiple Deprivation, proportion Aged 15-24 and 25-44, and ethnicity groupings Other White, Indian-Pakistani-Bangladeshi, and African-Caribbean-Other Black-Other, are highly significant predictors of lower uptake. The estimated random effects vary widely amongst local authorities, with positive impact of flu vaccine uptake and change in public health budgets, and regional impacts which are positive for London and South East (first and second doses only), and negative for North West and North East. The impact of vaccination sites did not reach 90% credibility, in general.
conclusionCOVID-19 vaccination rates at each stage are very well modelled if local authority random effects are included along with non-linear terms for demographic, employment and health data. Deprivation, younger age, and Other White, South Asian, and African-Caribbean-Other ethnicities are associated with lower uptake. The estimated local effects show strong regional variation and are positively associated with flu vaccination and increasing public health budgets. One simple way to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake in England would be to increase local public health allocations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.