ArticleVaccine2025
Differences in COVID-19 XBB.1.5 vaccination coverage: A decomposition analysis across racial and ethnic groups in a large U.S. healthcare system.
Article in Vaccine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDifferences in COVID-19 vaccination coverage across racial and ethnic groups have been widely documented in the U.S. We conducted Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analyses to examine the contribution of 13 risk factors to COVID-19 XBB.1.5 vaccination differences across racial and ethnic groups within a large U.S. healthcare system.
methodsThe retrospective cohort included adult members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California between September 12, 2023, and April 30, 2024. The outcome was COVID-19 XBB.1.5 vaccination. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association of demographic factors, socioeconomic status measured by neighborhood deprivation index (NDI), clinical factors, and healthcare utilization with vaccination. Decomposition analyses were performed to quantify the extent to which differences in these factors explained differences in vaccination rates between Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White individuals.
resultsAmong 2,621,148 members eligible for decomposition analyses, COVID-19 XBB.1.5 vaccination rates were 25.5%, 15.5% and 19.7% for non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black individuals, respectively. Decomposition analyses showed that 78.9% of the vaccination difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White individuals and 86.2% of the difference between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals were explained by observed risk factors. With non-Hispanic White individuals serving as the reference group, differences in age distribution explained 22.3% of the difference for Hispanic individuals and 11.5% for non-Hispanic Black individuals, and NDI explained 12.0% and 21.2%, respectively; differences in prior season influenza vaccination and prior bivalent COVID-19 vaccination accounted for 10.5% and 29.3% of the difference for Hispanic individuals, and 30.8% and 19.3% for non-Hispanic Black individuals, respectively. When prior vaccination history was excluded, the share of the difference explained by age and NDI increased substantially.
conclusionDifferences in COVID-19 XBB.1.5 vaccination across race/ethnicity were largely explained by differences in age, socioeconomic status, and healthcare utilization. The findings underscore the need for targeted interventions, particularly in younger populations and highly deprived neighborhoods, as well as leveraging outpatient visits to improve vaccine uptake.
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.