Dataset Information

Rural-urban and within-rural differences in COVID-19 vaccination rates.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

COVID-19 mortality rates are higher in rural versus urban areas in the United States, threatening to exacerbate the existing rural mortality penalty. To save lives and facilitate economic recovery, we must achieve widespread vaccination coverage. This study compared adult COVID-19 vaccination rates across the US rural-urban continuum and across different types of rural counties.

Methods

We retrieved vaccination rates as of August 11, 2021, for adults aged 18+ for the 2,869 counties for which data were available from the CDC. We merged these with county-level data on demographic and socioeconomic composition, health care infrastructure, 2020 Trump vote share, and USDA labor market type. We then used regression models to examine predictors of COVID-19 vaccination rates across the USDA's 9-category rural-urban continuum codes and separately within rural counties by labor market type.

Findings

As of August 11, 45.8% of adults in rural counties had been fully vaccinated, compared to 59.8% in urban counties. In unadjusted regression models, average rates declined monotonically with increasing rurality. Lower rural rates are explained by a combination of lower educational attainment and higher Trump vote share. Within rural counties, rates are lowest in farming and mining-dependent counties and highest in recreation-dependent counties, with differences explained by a combination of educational attainment, health care infrastructure, and Trump vote share.

Conclusion

Lower vaccination rates in rural areas is concerning given higher rural COVID-19 mortality rates and recent surges in cases. At this point, mandates may be the most effective strategy for increasing vaccination rates.

SUBMITTER: Sun Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8661570 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:After decades of lower or comparable mortality rates in rural than in urban areas of the U.S., numerous studies have documented a rural mortality penalty that started in the 1990s and has grown since the mid-2000s. The widening of the gap appears to be especially pronounced among non-Hispanic (NH) whites. However, the rural U.S. is not monolithic, and some rural places have experienced much larger mortality rate increases than others over the past 30 years. Drawing on restricted mortality files from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), I examine metro versus nonmetro and intra-nonmetro (divisional and economic dependency) all-cause and cause-specific mortality trends among working-age (25-64) NH white males and females, 1990-2018. Results show that the nonmetro mortality penalty is wide and growing and is pervasive across multiple disease and injury categories. Trends for females are particularly concerning. Smaller nonmetro declines in mortality from cancers and cardiovascular disease (throughout the 1990s and 2000s) and larger increases in metabolic and respiratory diseases, suicide, alcohol-related, and mental/behavioral disorders (throughout the 2010s) collectively drove the growth in the nonmetro disadvantage. There are also large divisional disparities (which are growing for females), with particularly poor trends in New England, South Atlantic, ES Central, WS Central, and Appalachia and more favorable trends in the Mid-Atlantic, Mountain, and Pacific. Mining-dependent counties have diverged from the other economic dependency types since the mid-2000s due to multiple causes of death, whereas farming counties have comparatively lower mortality rates. High and rising mortality rates across a variety of causes and rural places, some of which have been occurring since the 1990s and others that emerged more recently, suggest that there is not one underlying explanation. Instead, systemic failures across a variety of institutions and policies have contributed to rural America's troubling mortality trends generally and within-rural disparities more specifically.

Project description:Background: Many regions worldwide reported a decline of stroke admissions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. It remains unclear whether urban and rural regions experienced similar declines and whether deviations from historical admission numbers were more pronounced among specific age, stroke severity or treatment groups. Methods: We used registry datasets from (a) nine acute stroke hospitals in Berlin, and (b) nine hospitals from a rural TeleNeurology network in Northeastern Germany for primary analysis of 3-week-rolling average of stroke/TIA admissions before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared course of stroke admission numbers with regional cumulative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (Sars-CoV-2) infections. In secondary analyses, we used emergency department logs of the Berlin Charité University hospital to investigate changes in age, stroke severity, and thrombolysis/thrombectomy frequencies during the early regional Sars-CoV-2 spread (March and April 2020) and compared them with preceding years. Results: Compared to past years, stroke admissions decreased by 20% in urban and 20-25% in rural hospitals. Deviations from historical averages were observable starting in early March and peaked when numbers of regional Sars-CoV-2 infections were still low. At the same time, average admission stroke severity and proportions of moderate/severe strokes (NIHSS >5) were 20 and 20-40% higher, respectively. There were no relevant deviations observed in proportions of younger patients (<65 years), proportions of patients with thrombolysis, or number of thrombectomy procedures. Stroke admissions at Charité subsequently rebounded and reached near-normal levels after 4 weeks when the number of new Sars-CoV-2 infections started to decrease. Conclusions: During the early pandemic, deviations of stroke-related admissions from historical averages were observed in both urban and rural regions of Northeastern Germany and appear to have been mainly driven by avoidance of admissions of mildly affected stroke patients.

Project description:Established vaccine hesitancy measurement instruments, such as the Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix, are not sufficiently equipped to adequately and consistently measure political and ideological attitudes. Focusing on Germany, which is a particularly interesting case since it witnessed the establishment of the by far most well-organized and sustained 'anti-Covid' movement in Europe, this quantitative study explores the impact of political ideology and partisanship on the degree of vaccine hesitancy based on four surveys (February-October 2021) among more than 30,000 individuals. We demonstrate that party affiliation, political ideology and region of residence all impact vaccine hesitancy. In fact, they turn out to have a greater impact than two factors often analysed with respect to vaccine hesitancy: gender and educational background. Further interaction models show that the effect of political ideology on vaccine hesitancy is moderated by age, gender and region of residency. For instance, while the more rightwing a young individual is, the more hesitant they are towards SARS-CoV-2 vaccination-for older individuals, this is not the case. Our findings are relevant for future investigators measuring vaccine hesitancy and policy makers contemplating the differential impact of complex public health interventions: as the impact of political and ideological attitudes on vaccine hesitancy are not adequately captured by established vaccine hesitancy measurement instruments, we recommend its modification to include a clear and harmonised definition of the political-ideological dimension of vaccine hesitancy together with pre-validated measurement items that improve future studies. In addition, we reason that vaccine hesitancy, while being an outcome of complex socio-political factors, is in itself an indicator for societal cohesion and anomie, the degree of which is associated with trust in (health) policy makers, (public) health authorities, health service providers, etc. Therefore, we further recommend that vaccine hesitancy questions should be integrated in pertinent national surveys.

Project description:Atmospheric particulate matter (PM) is a recognized risk factor for the global burden of disease in human populations. We are presenting here the application of toxicogenomics in the evaluation of the toxic effects of organic content of atmospheric particle matter (PM), from urban and rural environments (city of Barcelona and village of La Pobla, NE Spain), using the developing zebrafish embryo. The main goal is to identify the metabolic pathways involved in the adverse effects observed in zebrafish embryos exposed to PM organic content from urban and rural environments, also allowing the selection of genes of interest that are differentially expressed. The relevance of particle size to the PM toxicity is also addressed. Indeed, the zebrafish embryos were exposed to PM of aerodynamic diameter larger than 7.2 μm and smaller than 0.5 μm (PM10 and PM0.5, respectively). PM0.5 concentrated biological and toxic activities linked to organic substances. Transcriptomic analyses showed strong induction of the AhR signalling pathway (a.k.a. dioxin-like activity) for embryos exposed to both rural and urban extracts, correlating with the concentrations of PAHs. Urban extracts, with strong contribution of traffic emissions, specifically de-regulated oxidative stress-related genes, as well as pancreatic and eye-lens specific genes, two organs known to be affected by air pollution in humans. Exposure to rural extracts, with high contribution of wood burning emissions, affected genes implicated in basic cellular functions, in agreement with their strong embryotoxicity. Extracts from rural and urban samples elicited both common and specific transcriptome responses, suggesting different potentially adverse outcomes depending on PM source and composition. The authors thank the financial support of the Spanish Ministry (project TEA-PARTICLE, grant number CGL2011-29621) and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology for the doctoral grant of Sofia R. Mesquita (SFRH/BD/80710/2011) funded by the Program POPH-QREN through the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science and the European Social Fund, and support through project PEst-C/MAR/LA0015/2013.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy seems to be universal across countries and subgroups, and so are its determinants. We studied the willingness and factors associated with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCW) in a Spanish tertiary hospital. Furthermore, we compared the percentage of willingness to vaccinate against COVID with actual vaccination rates among HCW in our hospital.MethodsFrom December 21, 2020 to January 4, 2021, before initiation of the COVID-19 HCW vaccination campaign at Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital (HUGTiP), an anonymous self-administered questionnaire was administered to HCW. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression of the association of variables with the outcome "intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible" was conducted. Vaccination rates were extracted from the hospital information systems.ResultsForty-four percent of HCW included in the study declared a willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible. This was associated with male sex [1.66 (95%CI 1.13-2.43); p = 0.009], older age [1.02 (95%CI 1.00-1.03); p = 0.014], belonging to the occupational groups "physician" or "other" [5.76 (95%CI 3.44-9.63) and 2.15 (95%CI 1.25-3.70); p<0.001], respectively, and reporting influenza vaccination during the last three seasons or at least one of the last three seasons [3.84 (95%CI 2.56-5.75) and 2.49 (95%CI 1.71-3.63); p<0.001]. One in ten hospital workers reported they were unwilling to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Actual COVID-19 vaccination uptake among HCW was higher (80.4%) than the percentage of willingness to vaccinate estimated from the questionnaire. Physicians not only had the highest vaccination rate, but also the highest correlation between the reported intention to vaccinate and the final decision to receive COVID-19 vaccination.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination uptake was higher than previously estimated according to the stated intentions of HCW. Doubts and fears must be addressed, particularly in persons less inclined to be vaccinated: females, younger people and those not vaccinated against influenza in recent seasons. The study of barriers and strategies aimed at promoting COVID-19 vaccination must be adapted in relation to occupational groups' attitudes, understanding their idiosyncrasies with respect to this and other vaccines.