Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40336086›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025

Gender equity and COVID-19 vaccine policies for pregnant people: a global analysis.

Eleonor Zavala, Elizabeth Doggett, Andrew Nicklin, Ruth A Karron, Ruth R Faden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. 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

5 authors.

Eleonor ZavalaDepartment of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 N. Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. ezavala1@jhu.edu.
Elizabeth DoggettJhpiego, 1615 Thames Street, Baltimore, MD, 21231, USA.
Andrew NicklinBloomberg Center for Government Excellence, Johns Hopkins University, 711 W 40th St, Baltimore, MD, 21211, USA.
Ruth A Karron *Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 N. Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Ruth R Faden *Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, 1809 Ashland Avenue, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-016877Wellcome 221556/Z/20/ZWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increasing vaccine availability and evidence and expert recommendations to support administration, some countries maintained restrictive policies regarding COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy throughout the pandemic. This global analysis explores the role of gender equity, country income level, and vaccine availability in predicting national policies on COVID-19 vaccine administration in pregnancy.

methodsPolicies were collected from May 2021 to January 2023 from 224 countries/territories using publicly available information posted on national public health authority web pages. Policies were categorized into 6 types, representing different levels of permissiveness, from recommended for some or all to not recommended, and changes in national policies were captured over time. Outcomes were defined as: 1) prevalence of restrictive policies at a specific time point; 2) country-level change from restrictive policy/no position at an earlier time point to a permissive policy at a later timepoint. Simple and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to explore the association between the outcomes and potential policy predictors, including income level, mRNA vaccine availability, and the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI).

resultsComplete cross-sectional data were available for 114 countries as of June 2021, 137 countries as of October 2021, and 142 countries as of March 2022. The number of maternal immunization policies increased and became steadily more permissive between 2021 and 2022. Availability of mRNA vaccines and higher income level were associated with reduced odds of a restrictive policy at the 2021 timepoints, and higher GGGI scores were associated with reduced odds of restrictive policies at all timepoints. After adjusting for income level and mRNA vaccine availability, higher GGGI scores reduced the relative odds of a restrictive COVID-19 vaccine policy by 10% (aOR: 0.90, 95CI: 0.81, 0.99) in October 2021 and 14% (aOR: 0.86, 95%CI: 0.76, 0.97) in March 2021. Higher GGGI scores were also associated with increased odds of a policy switch from restrictive/no position in June 2021 to permissive in October 2021 (aOR: 1.12, 95%CI: 1.00, 1.24).

conclusionsGender inequity was associated with greater odds of a restrictive policy for use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, suggesting that gender biases may influence fair policymaking for pregnant people in pandemic preparedness and response.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesGender EquityHealth PolicyPregnant PeopleCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGlobal HealthHumansMalePregnancySARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesBioethicsCOVID-19 vaccineGender equityHealth policyPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID40336086
PMCPMC12060400

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.