Abstract
Objectives This study examined how six Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec) adapted guidelines from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization to prioritize COVID-19 vaccines equitably for five key populations at high risk: Black communities; First Nations, Inuit, and Métis populations; non-medical essential workers; individuals experiencing homelessness; and individuals with disabilities. The objective was to compare timelines, justifications, and contextual factors that influenced provincial prioritization for early vaccine access.
Methods A mixed-methods approach was used to investigate how provinces operationalized equity in their vaccine rollout plans. Environmental scans (December 2020 – May 2021) gathered data on prioritization and distribution from provincial reports and media articles. Key informant interviews (December 2021 – April 2022) with provincial experts provided context on decision-making and justifications for prioritizing key populations. Data analysis employed the “Reach” component of the RE-AIM framework, with qualitative analysis of interviews following an interpretive descriptive approach.
Results Provinces used age-, risk-, and health status-based approaches to select priority populations. While all provinces consulted the National Advisory Committee on Immunization guidelines and various ethical frameworks to guide their decisions, deviations occurred due to local contexts. First Nations, Inuit, and Métis populations were prioritized earliest in all provinces, while Black communities received the least prioritization. Key subgroups, such as urban First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, unsheltered homeless individuals, and homebound disabled persons, were often overlooked. Factors that emerged as key drivers of priority population selection were data availability, population size, and geography.
Conclusions This study fills gaps in the literature by highlighting key contextual factors unique to each province that drove provincial justifications for their prioritization decisions. We provide several examples of the importance of data availability and early community-led partnerships when designing a successful mass vaccination rollout.
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.
Yes
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. Written and/or oral consent was obtained from participants.
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.
Yes
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).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
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).
