Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39361282›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Time to COVID-19 Vaccination by Language and Country of Origin.

Margaret B Nolan, Ella Chrenka, Malini B DeSilva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Margaret B NolanHealthPartners Institute for Medical Education and Research, Bloomington, Minnesota.
Ella ChrenkaHealthPartners Institute for Medical Education and Research, Bloomington, Minnesota.
Malini B DeSilvaHealthPartners Institute for Medical Education and Research, Bloomington, Minnesota.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Disparities in COVID-19 vaccination rates by race and ethnicity are well documented. Less is known about primary language and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Objective: To describe the time to COVID-19 primary series vaccination and booster doses by primary language and country of origin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 6 months or older with at least 1 health encounter from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2023, at a single health care system serving patients across Minnesota and western Wisconsin. Exposure: Primary language and country of origin documented in the electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three COVID-19 vaccine coverage outcomes were evaluated: (1) primary series (1 Ad26.COV.S vaccine or 2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccines), (2) first-generation booster (primary series Ad26.COV.S vaccine plus 1 Ad26.COV.S or mRNA COVID-19 vaccine at least 2 months after the second dose or primary series mRNA vaccine plus 1 mRNA vaccine at least 5 months after the second dose), and (3) bivalent booster. Vaccine coverage was described by patient characteristics. Associations of primary language, race and ethnicity, and other patient characteristics with COVID-19 vaccine uptake were evaluated using time-to-event analysis in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) with 95% CIs were reported. Results: There were 1 001 235 patients included (53.7% female). Most patients reported English as a primary language (94.1%) and were born in the US (91.8%). Primary series coverage was 63.7%; first-generation booster coverage, 64.4%; and bivalent booster coverage, 39.5%. Coverage for all outcomes was lower among those with a non-English primary language compared with English as the primary language (56.9% vs 64.1% for primary series; 47.5% vs 65.3% for first-generation booster; 26.2% vs 40.3% for bivalent booster). Those with a non-English primary language had lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake for the primary series (AHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.84-0.86), first-generation booster (AHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.73-0.75), and bivalent booster (AHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.64-0.67) compared with patients with English as their primary language. Non-US-born patients had higher primary series uptake compared with US-born patients (AHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.18-1.20) but similar first-generation booster (AHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02) and bivalent booster (AHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) uptake. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with a non-English primary language had both lower coverage and delays in receiving COVID-19 vaccines compared with those with English as their primary language. Reporting on language may identify health disparities that can be addressed with language-specific interventions.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesLanguageSARS-CoV-2AdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansImmunization, SecondaryInfantMaleMiddle AgedMinnesotaCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID39361282
PMCPMC11450518

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.