Back

COVID-19 infection and vaccination rates in healthcare workers in British Columbia, Canada: A Longitudinal Urban versus Rural Analysis of the Impact of the Vaccine Mandate

Yassi, A.; Barker, S.; Lockhart, K.; Taylor, D.; Harris, D.; Hundal, H.; Grant, J. M.; Okpani, A. I.; Pollock, S.; Sprague, S.; Kim Sing, C.

2022-01-13 occupational and environmental health
10.1101/2022.01.13.22269078 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeHealthcare workers (HCWs) play a critical role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, urban centres were hit hardest globally; rural areas gradually became more impacted. We compared COVID-19 infection and vaccine uptake in HCWs living in urban versus rural locations within, and between, two health authorities in British Columbia (BC), Canada. We also analyzed the impact of a vaccine mandate for HCWs. MethodsWe tracked laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, positivity rates, and vaccine uptake in 29,021 HCWs in Interior Health (IH) and 24,634 HCWs in Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH), by occupation, age, and home location, comparing to the general population in that region. We then evaluated the impact of infection rates as well as the mandate on vaccination uptake. ResultsBy October 27, 2021, the date that unvaccinated HCWs were prohibited from providing healthcare, only 1.6% in VCH yet 6.5% in IH remained unvaccinated. Rural workers in both areas had significantly higher unvaccinated rates compared with urban dwellers. Over 1,800 workers, comprising 6.4% of rural HCWs and 3.3% of urban HCWs, remained unvaccinated and set to be terminated from their employment. While the mandate prompted a significant increase in second doses, the impact on the unvaccinated was less clear. ConclusionsAs rural areas often suffer from under-staffing, loss of HCWs could have serious impacts on healthcare provision as well as on the livelihoods of unvaccinated HCWs. Greater efforts are needed to understand how to better address the drivers of rural-related vaccine hesitancy as the pandemic continues.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
2
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.8%
4
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.1%
5
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.1%
7
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.7%
8
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
9
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.8%
10
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
11
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.5%
13
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
15
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
16
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
17
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
18
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
American Journal of Infection Control
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
20
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
21
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
22
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%