ArticleVaccine: X2024
Sex differences in COVID-19 vaccine confidence in people living with HIV in Canada.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamics of HIV reservoirs following repeated anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- The CanCURE Survey: Gender-Based Differences in HIV Cure Research Priorities.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Among People Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS CareArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Understanding the roots of vaccine confidence in vulnerable populations, such as persons living with HIV (PLWH), is important to facilitate vaccine uptake, thus mitigating infection and spread of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases. In an online survey of PLWH conducted in Canada during winter 2022 ( Methods: Between February and May 2022, PLWH across Canada were recruited via social media and community-based organizations to complete an online survey consisting of a modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) questionnaire with items from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization Acceptability Matrix. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics and responses to the VHS questionnaire by sex. The effect of biological sex on total VHS score, two subscales ("lack of confidence" and "perceived risk") was assessed separately by linear regression adjusting for other key baseline variables. Results: Of 259 PLWH, 69 (27 %) were females and 189 (73 %) were males. Sixty-six (26 %) of participants self-identified as a woman, 163(63 %) as a man and 28(11 %) as trans/two-spirited/queer/non-binary/agender/other. The mean age (SD) was 47 ± 14 years. Females were less likely to believe that COVID-19 vaccination was: important for his/her own health (71 % vs. 86 %); a good way to protect themselves from infection (68 % vs. 86 %); that getting the COVID-19 vaccine was important for the health of others in his/her community (78 % vs. 91 %); believed recommendations by their doctor/health care provider about COVID-19 vaccines (78 % vs. 88 %); that information about COVID-19 vaccines from public health officials was reliable and trustworthy (56 % vs. 75 % vs); COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19 infections (61 % vs. 82 %) and that all COVID-19 vaccines offered by government programs in their communities were important for good health (70 % vs. 87 %). Although more males than females felt that new vaccines generally carry more risks than older vaccines (19 % vs 16 %,), fewer males than females endorsed concern about serious side effects of COVID-19 vaccines (33 % vs 45 %).The linear regression model showed females had a significantly higher VHS total score than males (adjusted mean difference 0.38; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.64; p = 0.004), indicating greater COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among females. It was observed that females had a greater "lack of confidence in vaccines" score than males (adjusted mean difference 0.43; 95 % CI 0.14-0.73; p = 0.004). We did not observe a significant difference in "perceived risk in vaccines" between males and females (adjusted mean difference 0.20; 95 % CI -0.07-0.46; p = 0.1). The inadequate number of participants self-identifying as different from biological sex at birth prevented us from analyzing the VHS score based on gender identity. Conclusions: Among PLWH, females showed greater COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy than males. Specifically, compared with males, females had a higher level of lack of confidence in vaccines. Fewer females than males believed that COVID-19 vaccines had health benefits at both the personal and societal levels and that recommendations made by their doctor/health care provider and public health officials are reliable and trustworthy. Further investigation into reasons for this difference in opinion still needs to be elucidated. Educational interventions targeted toward females living with HIV are especially needed to increase confidence in vaccination.
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.