ArticleVaccine2024
COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake in women with criminal-legal system involvement.
Article in Vaccine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveGiven their vulnerable health status and resource constraints, the perspectives of women with criminal-legal involvement (WCLI) are important but not usually represented in the literature on vaccine interest and vaccine hesitancy. This study aims to examine how the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine affected the influenza vaccine uptake among WCLI.
methodsA cross-sectional secondary analysis was conducted using data collected from the Tri-City study, which followed WCLI in three U.S. cities from 2019 to 2023. We mapped the distribution of influenza vaccine uptake in 2019-2023 and developed a composite outcome that reflected participants' patterns of Y/N to influenza vaccine, which were categorized into four groups: Influenza Vaccine Supportive, Influenza Vaccine Adaptive, Influenza Vaccine Discontinued, and Influenza Vaccine Resistant.
resultsOut of 507 people: 23.7% were Supportive, 8.5% Adaptive, 15.2% Discontinued and 38.3% Resistant. People who received the COVID vaccine had significantly lower odds of being identified as Discontinued (OR = 0.42, 95%CI = 0.20-0.87, p = .020) and Resistant (OR = 0.23, 95%CI = 0.13-0.43, p < .001), compared to the Supportive group. Mistrust toward COVID-19-related information was a significant independent predictor of being Adaptive (OR = 1.59, 95%CI = 1.08-2.35, p = .019), Discontinued (OR = 1.61, 95%CI = 1.15-2.25, p = .006), and Resistant (OR = 1.54, 95%CI = 1.19-2.00, p < .001) relative to Supportive.
conclusionsVaccine hesitancy poses significant challenges to public health efforts, with apparent dampening effect across vaccines. Public health messaging and clinical interactions informed by best practices in communication tailored to the lived experience of all people, including women with criminal-legal system involvement, will be necessary to inform future interventions aimed at increasing vaccine uptake.
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.