Cited by 253Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyImmune responses and vaccinationsPublic Health and Social Inequalities

Vaccine equity in low and middle income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Ali, Huda Ahmed, Hartner, Anna-Maria, Echeverria-Londono, Susy, Roth, Jeremy, Li, Xiang, Abbas, Kaja, Portnoy, Allison, Vynnycky, Emilia +4 more·2022·International Journal for Equity in Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Evidence to date has shown that inequality in health, and vaccination coverage in particular, can have ramifications to wider society. However, whilst individual studies have sought to characterise these heterogeneities in immunisation coverage at national level, few have taken a broad and quantitative view of the contributing factors to heterogeneity in immunisation coverage and impact, i.e. the number of cases, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years averted. This systematic review aims to highlight these geographic, demographic, and sociodemographic characteristics through a qualitative and quantitative approach, vital to prioritise and optimise vaccination policies. Methods: A systematic review of two databases (PubMed and Web of Science) was undertaken using search terms and keywords to identify studies examining factors on immunisation inequality and heterogeneity in vaccination coverage. Inclusion criteria were applied independently by two researchers. Studies including data on key characteristics of interest were further analysed through a meta-analysis to produce a pooled estimate of the risk ratio using a random effects model for that characteristic. Results: One hundred and eight studies were included in this review. We found that inequalities in wealth, education, and geographic access can affect vaccine impact and vaccination dropout. We estimated those living in rural areas were not significantly different in terms of full vaccination status compared to urban areas but noted considerable heterogeneity between countries. We found that females were 3% (95%CI[1%, 5%]) less likely to be fully vaccinated than males. Additionally, we estimated that children whose mothers had no formal education were 27% (95%CI[16%,36%]) less likely to be fully vaccinated than those whose mother had primary level, or above, education. Finally, we found that individuals in the poorest wealth quintile were 27% (95%CI [16%,37%]) less likely to be fully vaccinated than those in the richest. Conclusions: We found a nuanced picture of inequality in vaccination coverage and access with wealth disparity dominating, and likely driving, other disparities. This review highlights the complex landscape of inequity and further need to design vaccination strategies targeting missed subgroups to improve and recover vaccination coverage following the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration: Prospero, CRD42021261927

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12939-022-01678-5

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ali, H. A., Hartner, A.-M., Echeverria-Londono, S., Roth, J., Li, X., Abbas, K., Portnoy, A., Vynnycky, E., Woodruff, K., Ferguson, N. M., Toor, J., & Gaythorpe, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Public Health England (GB)
Corresponding author
Gaythorpe, Katy AM
Venue
International Journal for Equity in Health
Published
2022-06-11
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
82-82
ISSN
1475-9276 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4282830643
Cited by
253
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 82 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 6
FWCI
6.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal for Equity in Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council, United Kingdom (MR/R015600/1)
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1157270 / INV-009125)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune responses and vaccinations
  • Social Sciences › Health › Public Health and Social Inequalities
Keywords
vaccine equity, vaccination coverage, low- and middle-income countries, socioeconomic disparities, maternal education, wealth inequality, urban-rural differences, sex differences in vaccination, vaccine impact, disability-adjusted life years, COVID-19 pandemic
MeSH terms
Vaccination Coverage, COVID-19, Child, Developing Countries, Female, Humans, Male, Vaccination, Vaccines, Pandemics

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