Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37802621›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Evaluating the impact of using mobile vaccination units to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Cheshire and Merseyside, UK: a synthetic control analysis.

Xingna Zhang, John S P Tulloch, Shane Knott, Rachel Allison, Paula Parvulescu, Iain E Buchan, Marta Garcia-Finana, Roberta Piroddi, Mark A Green, Sophie Baird and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Xingna ZhangDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK xingna.zhang@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8849-2112
John S P TullochHPRU EZI, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2150-0090
Shane KnottPublic Health, Liverpool City Council, Liverpool, UK.
Rachel AllisonRussells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.
Paula ParvulescuPublic Health, Liverpool City Council, Liverpool, UK.
Iain E BuchanDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3392-1650
Marta Garcia-FinanaDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Roberta PiroddiDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Mark A GreenGeography & Planning, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Sophie BairdPublic Health, Wirral Council, Wirral, UK.
Ben BarrDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR200910Department of Health NIHR202484
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the impact of mobile vaccination units on COVID-19 vaccine uptake of the first dose, the percentage of vaccinated people among the total eligible population. We further investigate whether such an effect differed by deprivation, ethnicity and age.

designSynthetic control analysis.

settingThe population registered with general practices (GPs) in nine local authority areas in Cheshire and Merseyside in Northwest England, UK.

interventionMobile vaccination units that visited 37 sites on 54 occasions between 12 April 2021 and 28 June 2021. We defined intervention neighbourhoods as having their population weighted centroid located within 1 km of mobile vaccination sites (338 006 individuals). A weighted combination of neighbourhoods that had not received the intervention (1 495 582 individuals) was used to construct a synthetic control group. OUTCOME: The weekly number of first-dose vaccines received among people aged 18 years and over as a proportion of the population.

resultsThe introduction of a mobile vaccination unit into a neighbourhood increased the number of first vaccinations conducted in the neighbourhood by 25% (95% CI 21% to 28%) within 3 weeks after the first visit to a neighbourhood, compared with the synthetic control group. Interaction analyses showed smaller or no effect among older age groups, Asian and black ethnic groups, and the most socioeconomically deprived populations.

conclusionsMobile vaccination units are effective interventions for increasing vaccination uptake, at least in the short term. While mobile units can be geographically targeted to reduce inequalities, we found evidence that they may increase inequalities in vaccine uptake within targeted areas, as the intervention was less effective among groups that tended to have lower vaccination uptake. Mobile vaccination units should be used in combination with activities to maximise outreach with black and Asian communities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAdolescentAdultAgedCOVID-19 VaccinesEnglandHumansVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCOVID-19Health policyPublic health

Identifiers

PMID37802621
PMCPMC10565187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.