Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36813760›Full record

ArticleNature communications2023

National surveillance data analysis of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in England by women of reproductive age.

Laura A Magee, Erika Molteni, Vicky Bowyer, Jeffrey N Bone, Harriet Boulding, Asma Khalil, Hiten D Mistry, Lucilla Poston, Sergio A Silverio, Ingrid Wolfe and 3 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interventions to Address Disparities in Perinatal Outcomes by Ethnicity: A Systematic Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Laura A Magee *Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Science, King's College London, London, UK. laura.a.magee@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1355-610X
Erika Molteni *Biomedical Engineering Department, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Vicky BowyerDepartment of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, School of Life Course & Population Science, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9174-9129
Jeffrey N BoneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Harriet BouldingThe Policy Institute at King's, Social Science and Public Policy, King's College London, London, UK.
Asma KhalilDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. George's, University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2802-7670
Hiten D MistryDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Science, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2564-7348
Lucilla PostonDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Science, King's College London, London, UK.
Sergio A SilverioDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Science, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7177-3471
Ingrid WolfeDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Science, King's College London, London, UK.
Emma L DuncanDepartment of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, School of Life Course & Population Science, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8143-4403
Peter von DadelszenDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Science, King's College London, London, UK.
RESILIENT Study Group
King's College London · GBDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · USUniversity of British Columbia · CASt George's, University of London · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women of reproductive age are a group of particular concern with regards to vaccine uptake, related to their unique considerations of menstruation, fertility, and pregnancy. To obtain vaccine uptake data specific to this group, we obtained vaccine surveillance data from the Office for National Statistics, linked with COVID-19 vaccination status from the National Immunisation Management Service, England, from 8 Dec 2020 to 15 Feb 2021; data from 13,128,525 such women at population-level, were clustered by age (18-29, 30-39, and 40-49 years), self-defined ethnicity (19 UK government categories), and index of multiple deprivation (IMD, geographically-defined IMD quintiles). Here we show that among women of reproductive age, older age, White ethnicity and being in the least-deprived index of multiple deprivation are each independently associated with higher vaccine uptake, for first and second doses; however, ethnicity exerts the strongest influence (and IMD the weakest). These findings should inform future vaccination public messaging and policy.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdolescentEnglandEthnicityFemaleHumansPregnancyReproductionVaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID36813760
PMCPMC9947170
OpenAlexW4321495921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.