ArticleEuropean journal of public health2025
Is equitable priority vaccination of vulnerable people feasible in a real-world context? The case of Belgium.
Article in European journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The impact of risk prioritization in COVID-19 vaccination in Belgium on hospital and intensive care unit admissions.European journal of public health · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Belgium has implemented a strategy to prioritize vaccination at population level during the COVID-19 pandemic, targeting individuals with pre-existing health conditions at increased risk of severe COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate whether prioritized groups were vaccinated sooner, and which socio-demographic and -economic characteristics were related to the speed of vaccine uptake. We calculated the time to vaccination between the start of the prioritization (1 April 2021) and receiving a first COVID-19 vaccine dose, using this interval as a proxy for evaluating the strategy's early impact. A multivariate regression model, incorporating priority status, age, sex, region of residence, income, and migration background, described the natural logarithm of this time gap. The sample included 4 472 873 individuals vaccinated between 1 April and 31 December 2021, of which 26.4% were prioritized. The results show a 34.6 days earlier vaccination for prioritized individuals versus non-prioritized ones. The time difference between the prioritized and non-prioritized groups was larger in the younger age groups compared to the older age groups (28.2 days versus 19.3 days). Based on the multivariate model estimates, being prioritized [βpriority = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.38; -0.36)], older age [β55-64 = -0.57, 95% CI(-0.58; -0.56)], residency in Brussels or Wallonia [βBrussels = -0.18, 95%CI (-0.20; -0.16); βWallonia = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.19; -0.17)], having a high income [βhigh income = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.12; -0.10)], being a Belgian national (βbelgian = reference), having had a recent prior infection (βno prior infection = reference) and being female (βfemale = reference) are associated with a shorter time to vaccination. Developing and implementing a prioritization vaccination strategy accelerated vaccination for the high-risk population with health conditions, demonstrating its feasibility in promoting equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.
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.