PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Nafilyan, Vahé
AU  - Dolby, Ted
AU  - Finning, Katie
AU  - Morgan, Jasper
AU  - Edge, Rhiannon
AU  - Glickman, Myer
AU  - Pearce, Neil
AU  - van Tongeren, Martie
TI  - Differences in COVID-19 vaccination coverage by occupation in England: a national linked data study
AID  - 10.1101/2021.11.10.21266124
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.11.10.21266124
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/11/2021.11.10.21266124.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/11/2021.11.10.21266124.full
AB  - Background Monitoring differences in COVID-19 vaccination uptake in different groups is crucial to help inform the policy response to the pandemic. A key gap is the absence of data on uptake by occupation.Methods Using nationwide population-level data, we calculated the proportion of people who had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine (assessed on 31 August 2021) by detailed occupational categories in adults aged 40-64 and estimated adjusted odds ratios to examine whether these differences were driven by occupation or other factors, such as education. We also examined whether vaccination rates differed by ability to work from home.Results Our study population included 14,298,147 adults 40-64. Vaccination rates differed markedly by occupation, being higher in administrative and secretarial occupations (90.8%); professional occupations (90.7%); and managers, directors and senior officials (90.6%); and lowest (83.1%) in people working in elementary occupations. We found substantial differences in vaccination rates looking at finer occupational groups even after adjusting for confounding factors, such as education. Vaccination rates were higher in occupations which can be done from home and lower in those which cannot. Many occupations with low vaccination rates also involved contact with the public or with vulnerable peopleConclusions Increasing vaccination coverage in occupations with low vaccination rates is crucial to help protecting the public and control infection, especially in occupations that cannot be done from home and involve contacts with the public. Policies such as ‘work from home if you can’ may only have limited future impact on hospitalisations and deathsWhat is already known on this subject?Whilst several studies highlight differences in vaccination coverage by ethnicity, religion, socio-demographic factors and certain underlying health conditions, there is very little evidence on how vaccination coverage varies by occupation, in the UK and elsewhere. The few study looking at occupational differences in vaccine hesitancy focus on healthcare workers or only examined broad occupational groups. There is currently no large-scale study on occupational differences in COVID-19 vaccination coverage in the UK.What this study adds?Using population-level linked data combining the 2011 Census, primary care records, mortality and vaccination data, we found that the vaccination rates of adults aged 40 to 64 years in England differed markedly by occupation. Vaccination rates were high in administrative and secretarial occupations, professional occupations and managers, directors and senior officials and low in people working in elementary occupations. Adjusting for other factors likely to be linked to occupation and vaccination, such as education, did not substantially alter the results. Vaccination rates were also associated with the ability to work from home, with the vaccination rate being higher in occupations which can be done performed from home. Policies aiming to increase vaccination rates in occupations that cannot be done from home and involve contacts with the public should be prioritiesCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by ONS and supported by funding through the National Core Study 'PROTECT' programme, managed by the Health and Safety Executive on behalf of HM GovernmentAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval was obtained from the National Statistician's Data Ethics Advisory Committee (NSDEC(20)12).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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe ONS Public Health Linked Data Asset will be made available on the ONS Secure Research Service for Accredited researchers. Researchers can apply for accreditation through the Research Accreditation Service.