ArticleBMJ public health2024
COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Skåne county, Sweden, in relation to individual-level and area-level sociodemographic factors: a register-based cross-sectional analysis.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake according to region of birth: findings from a cross-sectional survey in Sweden.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Barriers and motivators associated with COVID-19 vaccination-a vaccine acceptance scoring system based on a population survey in southern Sweden.European journal of public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Better understanding of societal factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination can have important implications for public health policy to increase uptake. Methods: This study investigated sociodemographic determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake with ≥2 doses vs 0 doses, and ≥3 doses vs 2 doses, among adults (≥18 years) in a general population from Sweden followed from 27 December 2020 (n=1 064 548 at the present cross-section-12 June 12 2022). Associations between individual-level and area-level sociodemographic factors and vaccine uptake were modelled with logistic regression, with average marginal effects and estimated proportion vaccinated subsequently estimated. Results: Being vaccinated with ≥2 doses vs 0 doses was positively associated with education (tertiary vs primary, OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.7), household disposable income (Q5 vs Q1, OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.9 to 2.7), comorbidities (≥2 doses vs none, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.8 to 1.9) and residential area type (affluent socioeconomic conditions vs poor, OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.4). Whereas, being born outside Sweden was associated with a lower uptake (low and middle-income countries vs Swedish born, OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.7). The associations were generally similar when comparing booster vs remaining on only two doses. From these ORs, there were consistent differences in the estimated proportion vaccinated both for ≥2 doses and booster vaccination. Absolute changes in percentage vaccinated between affluent and poor areas were largely similar across individual country of birth, income and education, both for at least two doses and for the booster doses. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine uptake was associated with higher sociodemographic classifications both at the individual level and area level. The predicted proportion vaccinated increased with more affluent socioeconomic conditions and concurrent increases in individual household income were the strongest indicators. This sociodemographic selection showed consistency with respect to entering (obtaining ≥2 doses) and remaining (obtaining at least one booster dose) in the vaccination programme.
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.