Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38504230›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Marginalisation and distrust in the context of the COVID-19 vaccination programme: experiences of communities in a northern UK city region.

Stephanie Gillibrand, Dharmi Kapadia, Ruth Watkinson, Basma Issa, Charles Kwaku-Odoi, Caroline Sanders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors.

Stephanie GillibrandCentre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK. Stephanie.gillibrand@manchester.ac.uk.
Dharmi KapadiaSchool of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK.
Ruth WatkinsonCentre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK.
Basma IssaIndependent public contributor, Greater Manchester, UK.
Charles Kwaku-OdoiCaribbean and African Health Network, Greater Manchester, UK.
Caroline SandersCentre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK.

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/W000849/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are clear inequalities in COVID - 19 vaccination rates amongst marginalised groups, with lower rates for some minoritised ethnic and religious groups, younger people, those living in more deprived areas, and with lower socio-economic status. Existing research focuses on psychological and socio-economic factors that influence vaccine uptake and does not explore broader social and historical contexts. Understanding inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake requires a critical examination of the drivers of, and barriers to, vaccination.

methodsWe present findings from a co-designed qualitative research study undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic. Focus groups and interviews were used to examine the context underpinning responses to the COVID-19 vaccination in Greater Manchester, particularly focussing on experiences of marginalisation. Thematic framework analysis was used to analyse the data.

resultsWe found that the public's responses to the COVID-19 vaccination programme are intertwined with a longstanding history of institutional distrust and disenfranchisement, resulting from experiences of marginalisation and social inequalities. This was exacerbated further by the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on minoritised ethnic groups, younger people, and those with existing health conditions.

conclusionsHistories of structural inequalities experienced by minoritised groups invoked feelings of suspicion and scepticism at the motivations of the agencies behind the vaccination rollout. This highlights the need for a contextualised analysis of attitudes to vaccines, considering pre-existing inequalities, which may be especially relevant for conceptualising public responses to the vaccination programme. Finally, our study shows the important ways in which public (dis)trust can impact public health policies. We recommend this should be incorporated into responses to future public health crises.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansPandemicsUnited KingdomVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19DistrustInequalitiesMarginalisationVaccines

Identifiers

PMID38504230
PMCPMC10953068

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.