Locations of COVID-19 vaccination provision: Urban-rural differences

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Rural Health Pub Date : 2023-11-13 DOI:10.1111/jrh.12811
Grace W. Ryan PhD, Amanda R. Kahl MS, Don Callaghan BS, Bethany Kintigh RN, Natoshia M. Askelson PhD
{"title":"Locations of COVID-19 vaccination provision: Urban-rural differences","authors":"Grace W. Ryan PhD,&nbsp;Amanda R. Kahl MS,&nbsp;Don Callaghan BS,&nbsp;Bethany Kintigh RN,&nbsp;Natoshia M. Askelson PhD","doi":"10.1111/jrh.12811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Our goal was to compare locations of COVID-19 vaccine provision in urban and rural communities over the course of the pandemic.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We used the Iowa Immunization Registry Information System (IRIS) to identify the organizations providing COVID-19 vaccines (eg, pharmacies, public health departments, and medical providers). Proportions of first-dose vaccines by organization type and patient census-based statistical area were generated. We calculated Chi-square tests to assess differences among metropolitan, micropolitan, and noncore communities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>IRIS data revealed that 64% (n = 2,043,251) of Iowans received their first COVID-19 vaccine between December 14, 2020, and December 31, 2022. For metropolitan-dwelling individuals, most first doses were administered at pharmacies (53%), with similar trends observed for micropolitan (49%) and noncore (42%) individuals. The second most common location for metropolitan individuals was medical practices (17%); public health clinics and departments were the second most common provider for micropolitan (26%) and noncore (33%) individuals. These trends shifted over time. In December 2020, hospitals were the most common vaccine provider for everyone, but by December 2022, medical providers were the most common source for metropolitan individuals, and pharmacies were most common for micropolitan and noncore individuals.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Trends in the type of vaccine provider differentiated metropolitan residents from micropolitan and noncore residents. For the latter groups, local public health departments played a more significant role. Across all groups, pharmacists emerged as a critical vaccine provider. Our findings can be used to plan for seasonal vaccine campaigns as well as potential future mass vaccination campaigns.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.12811","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Our goal was to compare locations of COVID-19 vaccine provision in urban and rural communities over the course of the pandemic.

Methods

We used the Iowa Immunization Registry Information System (IRIS) to identify the organizations providing COVID-19 vaccines (eg, pharmacies, public health departments, and medical providers). Proportions of first-dose vaccines by organization type and patient census-based statistical area were generated. We calculated Chi-square tests to assess differences among metropolitan, micropolitan, and noncore communities.

Findings

IRIS data revealed that 64% (n = 2,043,251) of Iowans received their first COVID-19 vaccine between December 14, 2020, and December 31, 2022. For metropolitan-dwelling individuals, most first doses were administered at pharmacies (53%), with similar trends observed for micropolitan (49%) and noncore (42%) individuals. The second most common location for metropolitan individuals was medical practices (17%); public health clinics and departments were the second most common provider for micropolitan (26%) and noncore (33%) individuals. These trends shifted over time. In December 2020, hospitals were the most common vaccine provider for everyone, but by December 2022, medical providers were the most common source for metropolitan individuals, and pharmacies were most common for micropolitan and noncore individuals.

Conclusions

Trends in the type of vaccine provider differentiated metropolitan residents from micropolitan and noncore residents. For the latter groups, local public health departments played a more significant role. Across all groups, pharmacists emerged as a critical vaccine provider. Our findings can be used to plan for seasonal vaccine campaigns as well as potential future mass vaccination campaigns.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19疫苗接种地点:城乡差异
目的:我们的目标是比较大流行期间城市和农村社区COVID-19疫苗供应的地点。方法:利用爱荷华州免疫登记信息系统(IRIS)识别提供COVID-19疫苗的机构(如药店、公共卫生部门和医疗服务提供者)。按组织类型和基于患者普查的统计区域生成第一剂疫苗的比例。我们计算卡方检验来评估大都市、小城市和非核心社区之间的差异。IRIS数据显示,64% (n = 2,043251)的爱荷华州人在2020年12月14日至2022年12月31日期间接种了第一次COVID-19疫苗。对于居住在大都市的个体,大多数在药店给药(53%),在小城市(49%)和非核心(42%)个体中观察到类似的趋势。第二常见的城市个人的位置是医疗实践(17%);公共卫生诊所和部门是小城市(26%)和非核心(33%)个人的第二常见提供者。这些趋势随着时间的推移而变化。2020年12月,医院是所有人最常见的疫苗提供者,但到2022年12月,医疗服务提供者是大都市个人最常见的疫苗来源,药店是小城市和非核心个人最常见的疫苗来源。结论:疫苗提供者类型的趋势将大都市居民与小城市和非核心居民区分开来。对于后者,当地公共卫生部门发挥了更重要的作用。在所有群体中,药剂师成为关键的疫苗提供者。我们的发现可用于规划季节性疫苗接种活动以及潜在的未来大规模疫苗接种活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Rural Health
Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.
期刊最新文献
Clinical outcomes and profitability following rural hospital mergers and acquisitions. Community responses and adaptations following the closure of a rural pharmacy and primary care facility. Weight status underestimation and weight management goals among adults in the rural South of the United States. Social needs and health outcomes in two rural Veteran populations. Association between obesogenic environments and childhood overweight/obesity across the United States: Differences by rurality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1