Association of demographic and occupational factors with SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake in a multi-ethnic UK healthcare workforce: a rapid real-world analysis
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003823
Abstract
Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and adverse outcome. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination is now available for frontline UK HCWs; however, demographic/occupational associations with vaccine uptake in this cohort are unknown. We sought to establish these associations in a large UK hospital workforce. Methods: We conducted cross-sectional surveillance examining vaccine uptake amongst all staff at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. We examined proportions of vaccinated staff stratified by demographic factors, occupation and previous COVID-19 test results (serology/PCR) and used logistic regression to identify predictors of vaccination status after adjustment for confounders. Findings: We included 19,044 HCWs; 12,278 (64.5%) had received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Compared to White HCWs (70.9% vaccinated), a significantly smaller proportion of ethnic minority HCWs were vaccinated (South Asian 58.5%, Black 36.8% p<0.001 for both). After adjustment, factors found to be negatively associated with vaccine uptake were; younger age, female sex, increasing deprivation and belonging to any non-White ethnic group (Black: aOR0.30, 95%CI 0.26–0.34, South Asian:0.67, 0.62–0.72). Those that had previously had confirmed COVID-19 (by PCR) were less likely to be vaccinated than those who had tested negative. Interpretation: Ethnic minority HCWs and those from more deprived areas as well as younger, female staff are less likely to take up SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. These findings have major implications for the delivery of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programmes in HCWs and the wider population and should inform the national vaccination programme to prevent the disparities of the pandemic from widening. Funding: NIHR, UKRI/MRC
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The differences in vaccine coverage by age, gender, ethnicity, residential deprivation, and occupation found in SIREN have been reported in other studies.
“our findings of differences by age, gender, ethnicity, residential deprivation, and occupation have been reported in other studies.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
Polack, F. P., Thomas, S. J., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., Perez, J. L., Pérez Marc, G., Moreira, E. D., Zerbini, C., et al. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2034577 · Cited by 14,592 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hall, V. J., Foulkes, S., Saei, A., Andrews, N., Oguti, B., Charlett, A., Wellington, E., Stowe, J., Gillson, N., Atti, A., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00790-x · Cited by 767 · see citing works
- Authors
- Martin, C. A., Marshall, C., Patel, P., Goss, C., Jenkins, D. R., Ellwood, C., Barton, L., Price, A., Brunskill, N. J., Khunti, K., & Pareek, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Leicester (GB)
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Khunti, Kamlesh
- Pareek, Manish
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLoS Medicine
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2021-02-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e1003823-e1003823
- ISSN
- 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8570522
- OpenAlex
- W3209262566
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 35
- FWCI
- 13.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Gilead Sciences
- UK Research and Innovation (MR/ V027549/1)
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR301192, ACF-2018-11-004, MR/V027549/1)
- Department of Health and Social Care
- University of Leicester (MR/V027549/1)
- Medical Research Council (MR/V027549/1)
- NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Challenges
- Keywords
- COVID-19 vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine uptake, healthcare workers, ethnic minority disparities, socioeconomic deprivation, gender differences, pregnancy, prior COVID-19 infection, hospital staff, vaccine hesitancy
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Delivery of Health Care, United Kingdom, Health Personnel, Humans, Minority Groups, Vaccination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review