ArticleFuture healthcare journal2022
Mitigating inequalities at a large COVID-19 vaccination centre.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What matters most?Future healthcare journal · 2022Article
- A Quality Improvement Study: Optimizing COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccination Rates in Individuals With Diabetes: A Tale of 2 Sites.AACE endocrinology and diabetesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 vaccination service is a key component in the UK approach to reducing disease morbidity and mortality. Groups within the population at increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 overlap with groups that are less likely to take up the offer of vaccination. This article outlines some learning from approaches within a large vaccination centre in the UK to reduce inequalities. Solution: Continuous quality improvement processes were used to operationalise the mitigations to inequalities with vaccination uptake that were identified by a systematic equality impact assessment framework and continuous service feedback. Outcome: Quality improvement processes and community engagement enabled tailored mitigations to vaccination uptake. Engagement with community ambassadors strengthened community relationships and the co-creation of bespoke sessions encouraged vaccination uptake within specific groups. Conclusion: Recommendations for strengthening approaches to inequality reduction include having a systematic framework for assessment and mitigation of inequalities, embedding quality improvement, identifying resources, and taking a collaborative and co-design approach to services with underserved groups.
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.