MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409301250 · doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2025.03.008

Uptake and Factors Associated With COVID-19 Vaccination Among 3,779,733 Adults Living With and Without Diabetes: A Population Cohort Study in a Universal Health-care Setting

2025· article· en· W4409301250 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sonia Butalia, Ronald J. Sigal, Baiju R. Shah, Jamie L. Benham, Brandy Wicklow, Catherine Yu, Kaberi Dasgupta, Luan Manh Chu, Shazhan Amed, Padma Kaul

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Diabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta HealthAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity Hospital FoundationAlberta HealthAlberta Health ServicesAlberta InnovatesUniversity of CalgaryHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaAmerican Diabetes Association
KeywordsMedicineCohortVaccinationDiabetes mellitusPopulationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GerontologyEnvironmental healthVirologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Our aim in this study was to assess COVID-19 vaccine uptake among adults with and without diabetes and the factors associated with vaccination in people with diabetes. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based cohort study included all adults living in Alberta, Canada, on December 14, 2020, the date COVID-19 vaccines became available. Individual diabetes status was determined between April 1, 2002 and December 14, 2020, using a validated algorithm. Individuals were followed until March 31, 2022. The primary outcome was full vaccination, as defined by the manufacturer. Descriptive statistics were used to compare vaccination status among people with and without diabetes. Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were applied to assess factors associated with full vaccination uptake. RESULTS: Among the 3,779,733 adults (49.7% women; mean age 47.2±18.2 years) included in the study, 9.8% had diabetes. A higher proportion of people with diabetes, compared to those without diabetes, were fully vaccinated (82.5% vs 73.1%, p<0.001; men: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33 to 1.35; women: aHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.24). In people with diabetes, being 65 to 74 years old (men: aHR 1.21, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.26; women: aHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.27) and statin use (men: aHR 1.28, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.30; women: aHR 1.24, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.26) were associated with full vaccination, whereas lower socioeconomic status (men: aHR 0.82, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.84 for quintile 5; women: aHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.82 for quintile 5), rural residence (men: aHR 0.86, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.87; women: aHR 0.87, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92), higher number of comorbidities (men: aHR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.96; women: aHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99), higher glycated hemoglobin level (men: aHR 0.44, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.45; women: aHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.51), and insulin use (men: aHR 0.89, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.91; women: aHR 0.89, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.91) were associated with lower vaccination uptake. CONCLUSIONS: People with diabetes had high COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Further work is needed to better understand the system- and individual-based facilitators of, and barriers to, vaccine uptake to inform future public health vaccine-based interventions.

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)0.002
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 score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Diabetes→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→