Sociodemographic inequity in COVID-19 vaccine uptake among youth in Zimbabwe

Introduction

By February 2023, more than 750 million SARS-CoV2 infections and 6.8 million COVID-19 associated deaths had been reported globally [1]. The development of vaccines against SARS-CoV2, which primarily protect against severe disease, has however greatly reduced both COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity [2,3]. Global vaccination programmes were fast-tracked under the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) initiative at the beginning of 2021 [4]. Vaccination rates have, however, failed to meet the targets of vaccinating 70& of the world’s population against COVID-19 by mid-2022 set by the World Health Organization (WHO), especially in the African continent [5].

By February 3^rd 2023, Africa has reported a vaccination coverage (receiving at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine) of eligible population of 46& and of total population of 27%, with coverage varying greatly from < 6% in Madagascar, Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo to more than two thirds of the eligible population in Rwanda and Liberia [6,7]. Differences are partly explained by availability of vaccines, infrastructural constraints, and COVID-19 vaccine nationalism in high income countries (HIC) leading to insufficient donations of vaccine to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [8]. In addition, vaccine hesitancy has been reported to be one of the main barriers towards meeting global vaccine coverage targets [9-11]. Studies conducted both in HICs and LMICs have reported widespread hesitancy towards receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, despite most of the population having previously received vaccines for other viruses [12,13] Zimbabwe recorded its first case of COVID-19 in March 2020 and was subsequently among the first African countries to implement vaccination, with the first vaccine administered on 18 February 2021 [14]. In contrast other countries in the region, Zimbabwe procured COVID-19 vaccines (SinoPharm and SinoVac) through a bilateral agreement with China [15,16]. While non-availability of vaccines was a major barrier for vaccine uptake in other African countries, this was not the case in Zimbabwe [16]. Initially, healthcare workers and people working at borders were targeted for COVID-19 vaccination, followed by those with chronic conditions and essential workers such as teachers [17]. With the availability of more vaccine doses, eligibility was rapidly extended to the rest of the adult population (people aged 18 and over). In November 2021, vaccines were also made available to adolescents aged 16-18 years and in March 2022 to children aged 12 years and older [16-18]. The initial vaccine schedule was two doses of either SinoPharm or SinoVac three weeks apart. A third booster dose was introduced in January 2022 [19-21].

The Zimbabwe vaccination campaign was administered through vaccination centres established in hospitals and clinics and outreach services. In addition, the vaccination campaign included educational programmes in schools, national mobilisation of frontline workers to assist in getting to hard-to-reach populations, and nationwide health education broadcasting [18,22-23]. Once vaccination eligibility was extended to adolescents the government partnered with organisations such as United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to generate vaccination messaging taregting children and adolescents [18,25-27]. As of February 3^rd 2023, the Zimbabwean Government estimates that 44% of the total population have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. With approximately 60% of the population being eligible (12* years), coverage among those eligible was 77% [1,2].

Despite the tremendous efforts put into the vaccination campaign, a considerable proportion of the general population remains unvaccinated and more recently vaccination coverage has stagnated [14]. While a Partnership for Evidence-Based Response to COVID-19 survey in September 2021 demonstrated that 82% of respondents in Zimbabwe were satisfied with the government’s response, there was still some vaccine hesistancy [28]. Findings from a survey in Zimbabwe in January 2022 indicated that half of the population displayed some vaccine hesitancy, mostly driven by social media misinformation and lack of trust in official information [29]. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence in the literature regarding uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among young people and potential causes of vaccine hesitancy in Zimbabwe.

This study investigates self-reported COVID-19 vaccine uptake among 17,862 young people aged 18-24 years across three provinces (Harare, Bulawayo, and Mashonaland East) in Zimbabwe and explores sociodemographic and -economic factors associated with uptake and reasons for possible vaccine hesitancy.

Methods

Results

Of the 18,682 randomly sampled eligible youth in the study communities, 17,682 (94.6%) provided consent to participate. Of these, 5,849 (33.1%) were recruited in Harare, 5,969 (33.8%) in Bulawayo, and 5,864 (33.2%) in Mashonaland East. The median age of survey participants was 20 years (IQR: 19 – 22), and 10,742 (60.8%) were women. This higher proportion of women reflected the community composition.

Overall, 10,652 (60.3%) particpants self-reported having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, with 8,316 (78.1%) having received two doses (Figure 1). The proportion vaccinated was higher among males (n=4,779, 68.9%) compared to females (n=5,872, 54.7%) and increased with age (<20: 57.5%, 20-22: 61.5%, >22: 62.2%) (Table 1). Overall, Harare province, where data collection preceded the other provinces by 3 (Bulawayo) and 6 (Mashonaland East) months, had the lowest proportion vaccinated (42.6%) compared to Bulawayo (69.6%) and Mashonaland East (68.3%) (Figure 1). The proportion vaccinated and double-vaccinated increased with each subsequent month during the survey in Harare and Bulawayo, but not in Mashonaland East.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Proportion of young people aged 18-24 who reported being vaccinated by month of the CHIEDZA prevalence survey stratified by province.

The major reasons given for not being vaccinated were lack of time, belief that the vaccine was unsafe, and anxiety about side effects (Figure 2). Men reported a lack of time as the main reason for not getting vaccinated. Women reported concerns related to side effects and safety as reasons for not getting vaccinated more frequently compared to men, especially infertility (10.7%). 755 (4.3%) women in the survey were pregnant at the time of recruitment. Of these women, 297 (39.3%) reported having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of note, participants frequently reported that they were “afraid to die within 2 years of receiving the vaccine”, 17.7%, 15.6% and 8.2% in Harare, Mashonaland East and Bulawayo respectively. On the other hand, religious belief was a less commonly (< 5.0%) mentioned reason for getting vaccinated. While those living under more deprived socioeconomic circumstances had lower vaccine uptake, reasons for not getting vaccinated were similar across all socioeconomic quintiles (Supplemental Table 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Reasons for not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine stratified by sex and grouped based on the 5C’s of vaccine hesitancy delineated by Razai et al. shown as proportions (%) [31].

Participants could provide multiple reasons and could only answer the question if they were not vaccinated. These reasons were read out or shown to the participant for them to choose from

Univariable analysis (Supplemental Table 2) showed an association between vaccine uptake age, sex, educational attainment and socioeconomic status. The association between vaccine uptake and predictors remained in the multivariable analysis (Table 2). Men (OR 1.69, 95%CI 1.59-1.80), older youth (20-22: OR 1.06, 95%CI 0.98-1.15, >22: OR 1.12, 95%CI 1.04-1.21), those with higher educational attainment (form 4: OR 1.79, 95%CI 1.39-2.30, form 6: OR 3.56, 95%CI 2.72-4.66, post-secondary: OR 4.34, 95%CI 3.27-5.76), and higher socioeconomic status (2^nd quintile: OR 1.06, 95%CI 0.96-1.17, 3 ^rd quintile: OR 1.12, 95%CI 1.01-1.23, 4 ^th quintile: OR 1.17, 95%CI 1.06-1.29, least poor 20%: OR 1.32, 95%CI 1.20-1.47), were more likely to be vaccinated. Overall results and results stratified by province were comparable.

Discussion

This study found a COVID-19 vaccine coverage among young people aged 18-24 years of 69.6% in Bulawayo, 68.3% in Mashonaland East, and 42.6% in Harare. Despite not being a high-risk group, the national vaccination campaign reached them effectively. Vaccine uptake was however inequitable. Those who were male, older, more educated, and of higher socioeconomic status were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccination, which is in-line with studies conducted in HICs, though the specific reasons may be different. Education attainment and male sex were the strongest predictors.

The difference in COVID-19 vaccine coverage among youth across the provinces is partly explained by the staggered timing of the survey. The national vaccination campaign started in February 2021 prioritising front-line workers. Vaccination eligiblity was extended to all adults in March/April 2021 and 16-18-year-olds became eligible in November 2021 (one month after study recruitment started in Harare). At the time the survey was completed in each province, the provincial vaccine coverage in Zimbabwe was 25.3% (Harare), 31.7% (Bulawayo), and 38.6% (Mashonaland East) [33]. Importantly, in the context of COVID-19 vaccination, coverage has been defined as the percentage of the total population that is vaccinated and includes children even though they may not be eligible [34]. At the end of the survey, vaccine coverage using the total eligible population (16* years) as denominator was 73.8% nationally, and thus comparable to coverage among youth in Mashonaland East [2].

In the full adjusted model, men had 1.69 times the odds to have received the vaccine compared to women. Other studies have found higher proportions of men compared to women reporting intention to getting the COVID-19 vaccine [35-37]. These studies have also highlighted that the difference in intention to gett vaccinated against COVID-19 between men and women is less about increased health-seeking behaviour in men and more about decreased health-seeking behaviour among women, which is consistent with existing literature on general vaccine hesitancy [38,39]. This difference is likely due to specific gender differences in risk aversion and potential side effects. Reasons for not getting vaccinated in our study were mainly related to confidence, i.e. regarding safety and efficacy of the vaccine, especially among women. In this survey, 20.1% of women who were not vaccinated said they were afraid of side effects in general and 10.7% said they were afraid of infertility specifically. Furthermore, 66/458 (14.4%) of unvaccinated pregnant women reported fertility-related fears as a barrier, despite the WHO having recommended the use of SinoPharm in pregnant women [35-37,40]. This disparity may be due to confusing communication regarding pregnancy and breastfeeding at the start of the vaccination campaign, including information by official sources and on social media [41,42]. The infodemic about vaccines spread through social media has undoubtably played an important role in Zimbabwe given the high proportion of individuals (both men and women) who reported being afraid of dying within 2 years of vaccination. This myth relates to a widely and globally circulated text message meme claiming that French virologist Luc Montagnier had said all vaccinated people will “die within two years” [42].

Fear of side effects was less frequent among unvaccinated men compared to women, and a higher proportion of men did not feel at risk (felt ‘young and healthy’) or said they were too busy for vaccination. This is despite a vaccination campaign that tried to bring vaccines to the population by offering transport incentives such as transport money, decentralising vaccination to polyclinics, and providing vaccine outreach services [16].

Vaccination rates varied by socioeconomic status and particularily educational attainment, pointing towards health inequity. Other studies have reported that poorer and less educated people experience more barriers to vaccination [44,45]. Those with lower educational attainment are less likely to have access to accurate information and the vaccine information itself might be inaccessible in terms of language, content, and format, especially if this is provided in a written format [46]. Public health information may also include jargon which discriminates against those of lower education level. Those of lower socioeconomic status were also more likely to experience adverse events such as a cut in household income, inability to access food, higher disease risk, or loss of work than those in higher quintiles, which affects people’s ability to receive a vaccine [47].

In this study only a small proportion of individuals said they were not vaccinated because of their religious beliefs. This is in contrast to the results from studies conducted in other countries in Africa where religious beliefs were among the most frequent reasons given for vaccine hesitancy [10-12]. In Zimbabwe the Apostolic church, a Pentecostal Christian denomination, has an estimated 3.5 million followers mainly among poorer and rural households. Children of members of the Apostolic church have been found to have low childhood vaccination coverage [48]. Religious affiliation was not collected in the survey, but membership of the Apostolic church is less common in urban and peri-urban settings, which may explain some of our findings. Also, the Ministry of Health and Child Care, supported by UNICEF, actively reached out to churches including the Apostolic Church to support vaccine education and public engagement [49]. The Apostolic Women’s Empowerment Trust started a COVID-19 awareness programmes in 2021 with the aim to address vaccine hesitancy among those of Apostolic faith [50].

Strengths of this study include a large representative sample of young people from three provinces at the time of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Participation in the survey was high and results were comparable across all three provinces. The main limitation of this study is that COVID-19 vaccination status was self-reported and social desirability bias may have resulted in overestimation of vaccination coverage. However, the survey included a range of potentially sensitive questions, on topics including sexual and reproductive health, and substantial efforts were invested in training the survey team. The survey was conducted in urban and peri-urban settings only and vaccination coverage may be very different among young people living in rural areas. There were no questions specifying the type of vaccine received or the date of vaccination. Another limitation was that the timing of the survey relative to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign differed between the three provinces. Finally, while we asked young people to provide reasons for not being vaccinated, more detailed questions on beliefs, myths, and sources of information might have provided better understanding. Further qualitative research investigating the barriers towards vaccination, especially among women, would strongly contribute to the findings reported in this study.

Conclusion

This study showed inequitable COVID-19 vaccine coverage among young people aged 18-24 years in three provinces in Zimbabwe (Harare, Bulawayo, and Mashonaland East). Vaccination rates were lower among women, people with lower educational attainment and among those living in more deprived socioeconomic circumstances. Fear around death and infertility fueled by myth and misinformation were among the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Therefore, we recommend that national vaccination campaigns should include a major focus on health education, especially for women and those with less education, and particularly around infertility and death. Information that is clear and consistent provided by trusted sources is crucial, and in this way, social media can be used in a positive manner to combat misinformation. Furthermore, campaigns should focus on community and religious leaders as they have a strong impact on their respective groups. No single programme is likely to address vaccine hesitancy in this population and thus strategies should address these inequities by understanding concerns and tailoring vaccine campaigns to specific groups instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.