Understanding inequalities in COVID-19 vaccination between migrants and non-migrants in Germany: The role of psychological factors of vaccine behaviour
Bartig, S.; Siegert, M.; Hoevener, C.; Michalski, N.
Show abstract
BackgroundUnderstanding the underlying mechanisms for differences in vaccine uptake between migrants and non-migrants is crucial in order to design targeted interventions encouraging vaccination and to ensure vaccine-related equity. Therefore, this study examined to what extent migration-related disparities in COVID-19 vaccination were associated with psychological factors, based on the established 5C model of vaccine behaviour (Confidence, Complacency, Constraints, Calculation, Collective Responsibility). MethodsData were obtained from the German study "Corona Monitoring Nationwide - Wave 2" (RKI-SOEP-2 study), which was carried out between November 2021 and March 2022. The association between COVID-19 vaccination and migration status, while considering the psychological factors, was investigated using multivariable binary logistic regressions. A decomposition analysis (Karlson-Holm-Breen method) was conducted to examine the extent to which migration-related disparities in vaccine uptake were associated with the psychological factors of the 5C framework. ResultsMigrants were less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to non-migrants, especially participants from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Our decomposition showed that almost two-thirds of the disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake between migrants and non-migrants were associated with the psychological factors (first-generation: 61.2%, second-generation: 64.2%). Confidence in safety of the vaccine was the most relevant factor in the 5C framework. Furthermore, the results highlighted the importance of a differentiated analysis regarding country of origin: While the 5C model accounted for only 19.4% of the difference between participants from the MENA region and non-migrants, the proportion for participants from Eastern Europe was 73.5%, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms for the lower uptake in the MENA group need further investigation. ConclusionsOverall, migration-related disparities in COVID-19 vaccination were significantly associated with differences in psychological factors of vaccine behaviour. To increase vaccine acceptance within the heterogeneous group of migrants in general, tailored and proactive health communication interventions are needed.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The role of incentives in deciding to receive the available COVID-19 vaccine 96%
- Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the Netherlands: a nationwide registry-based study 96%
- Social patterning and stability of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in Scotland: Will those most at risk accept a vaccine? 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among persons living in homeless shelters in France 96%
- Public opinion on global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines: evidence from two nationally representative surveys in Germany and the United States 95%
- Predicting intention to vaccinate against COVID-19 in older Syrian refugees in Lebanon: findings from a multi-wave study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The influence of COVID-19 risk perception and vaccination status on the number of social contacts across Europe: insights from the CoMix study 96%
- Vaccine confidence and timeliness of childhood immunisation by health information source, maternal, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics in Albania 96%
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: A longitudinal household cross-sectional study 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- The French domestic “sanitary pass” did not solve Covid-19 vaccination inequities in France 93%
- The impact of pausing the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine on uptake in Europe: a difference-in-differences analysis 91%
- “Social distancing: barriers to its implementation and how they can be overcome – a rapid systematic review” 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.