Quantifying Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccination Rates by Rural and Urban Areas: Cross-Sectional Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaccination plays an important role in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing the severity of the disease. There are usually differences in vaccination rates between urban and rural areas. Measuring these differences can aid in developing more coordinated and sustainable solutions. This information also serves as a reference for the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases in the future. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the current coverage rate and influencing factors of COVID-19 (second booster) vaccination among Chinese residents, as well as the disparities between urban and rural areas in China. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a stratified random sampling approach to select representative samples from 11 communities and 10 villages in eastern (Changzhou), central (Zhengzhou), western (Xining), and northeast (Mudanjiang) Mainland China from February 1 to February 18, 2023. The questionnaires were developed by experienced epidemiologists and contained the following: sociodemographic information, health conditions, vaccine-related information, information related to the Protective Motivation Theory (PMT), and the level of trust in the health care system. Vaccination rates among the participants were evaluated based on self-reported information provided. Binary logistic regression models were performed to explore influencing factors of vaccination among urban and rural participants. Urban-rural disparities in the vaccination rate were assessed using propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: A total of 5780 participants were included, with 53.04% (3066/5780) being female. The vaccination rate was 12.18% (704/5780; 95% CI 11.34-13.02) in the total sample, 13.76% (341/2478; 95% CI 12.40-15.12) among the rural participants, and 10.99% (363/3302; 95% CI 9.93-12.06) among the urban participants. For rural participants, self-reported health condition, self-efficacy, educational level, vaccine knowledge, susceptibility, benefits, and trust in the health care system were independent factors associated with vaccination (all P＜.05). For urban participants, chronic conditions, COVID-19 infection, subjective community level, vaccine knowledge, self-efficacy, and trust in the health care system were independent factors associated with vaccination (all P＜.05). PSM analysis uncovered a 3.42% difference in vaccination rates between urban and rural participants. CONCLUSIONS: The fourth COVID-19 vaccination coverage rate (second booster) among the Chinese population was extremely low, significantly lower than the previous vaccine coverage rate. Given that COVID-19 infection is still prevalent at low levels, efforts should focus on enhancing self-efficacy to expand the vaccine coverage rate among the Chinese population. For rural residents, building awareness of the vaccine's benefits and improving their overall health status should be prioritized. In urban areas, a larger proportion of people with COVID-19 and patients with chronic illness should be vaccinated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".