ABSTRACT
Introduction There is a need to reflect on the COVID-19 vaccine distribution across Canada and the extent to which they considered equity-deserving populations. This paper examined and compared strategies implemented by six Canadian provinces to increase access and promote the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among selected priority populations. We also explored the factors that impacted the implementation of these strategies.
Methods In six provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec), we conducted an environmental scan of provincial rollout documents and media sources reporting vaccine distribution among selected priority populations: First Nations, Inuit, and Metis; Black communities; essential workers; people experiencing homelessness; and people with disabilities. We subsequently interviewed 39 key informants to validate the environmental scan results, identify additional strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake, and uncover perceptions of the facilitators and challenges that influenced the strategies’ implementation.
Results Through the environmental scans and key informant interviews, we identified that provincial health authorities employed a panoply of strategies to overcome geographic, financial, and attitudinal barriers to COVID-19 vaccines experienced by the priority populations. Most provinces implemented walk-in, mobile, and pop-up vaccination clinics, mobilized public and private health workforce, and designed multilingual communication materials. Facilitators in implementing COVID-19 vaccination strategies included fostering inter-governmental cooperation, harmonizing communication efforts, leveraging existing relationships and networks, and ensuring representation and leadership of community partners. Challenges to implementing COVID-19 vaccination strategies included uncoordinated communication efforts, inadequate distribution of vaccines to areas with the greatest need, mistrust in the government and healthcare system, vaccine hesitancy, and lack of cultural competence by vaccine providers.
Conclusions This study highlights the divide between well-intentioned strategies and interventions and the reality of on-the-ground implementation. The findings offer valuable insights and can inform the implementation of strategies to distribute vaccines equitably in future large-scale vaccination efforts in Canada and globally.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
We received approval from the University of Toronto ethics committee (REB protocol #28098) to conduct the research.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
Declarations: We declare no conflict of interest.
Data Availability
The manuscript and its supporting information files include all relevant data from the environmental scans. Data from the qualitative interviews cannot be shared publicly because they contain potentially identifiable information on the study’s participants. Data may be available upon reasonable request by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (ethics.review{at}utoronto.ca).
