MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393072879 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.03.051

High COVID-19 vaccine uptake following initial hesitancy among people in Australia who inject drugs

2024· article· en· W4393072879 on OpenAlexafffund
Olivia Price, Paul Dietze, Lisa Maher, Gregory J. Dore, Rachel Sutherland, Caroline Salom, Raimondo Bruno, Sione Crawford, Louisa Degenhardt, Sarah Larney, Amy Peacock

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNational Drug and Alcohol Research CentreNational Health and Medical Research CouncilFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéDepartment of Health and Aged Care, Australian GovernmentGilead Sciences
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationOdds ratioPopulationConfidence intervalLogistic regressionInfluenza vaccineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DemographyInternal medicineImmunologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported high COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among people who inject drugs. We aimed to examine COVID-19 vaccine coverage, motivations and barriers to vaccination, and factors associated with uptake among this population in Australia, 1.5 years after vaccine rollout commenced. METHODS: In June-July 2022, 868 people (66.0 % male, mean age 45.6 years) who regularly inject drugs and reside in an Australian capital city reported the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses they had received and their primary motivation (if vaccinated) or barrier (if unvaccinated) to receive the vaccine. We compared vaccine uptake to Australian population estimates and used logistic regression to identify factors associated with ≥ 2 dose and ≥ 3 dose uptake. RESULTS: Overall, 84.1 % (n = 730) had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, 79.6 % (n = 691) had received ≥ 2 doses, and 46.1 % (n = 400) had received ≥ 3 doses. Participants were less likely to be vaccinated than the Australian general population (prevalence ratio: 0.82, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.88). Key motivations to receive the vaccine were to protect oneself or others from COVID-19, while barriers pertained to vaccine or government distrust. Opioid agonist treatment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.49, 95 % CI: 1.44-4.42), current seasonal influenza vaccine uptake (aOR: 6.76, 95 % CI: 3.18-16.75), and stable housing (aOR: 1.58, 95 % CI: 1.02-2.80) were associated with receipt of at least two vaccine doses. Participants aged ≥ 40 years (versus < 40 years; aOR: 1.66, 95 % CI: 1.10-2.53) or who reported a chronic health condition (aOR: 1.71, 95 % CI: 1.18-2.47) had higher odds of receiving at least three vaccine doses. CONCLUSION: We observed higher COVID-19 vaccine uptake than expected given previous studies of vaccine acceptability among people who inject drugs. However, it was lower than the general population. People who inject drugs and reside in unstable housing are a subpopulation that require support to increase vaccine uptake.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccineSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207