RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Modeling the COVID-19 Vaccination Dynamics in the United States: An Estimation of Coverage Velocity and Carrying Capacity Based on Socio-demographic Vulnerability Indices in California
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.07.03.21259881
DO 10.1101/2021.07.03.21259881
A1 Bruckhaus, Alexander
A1 Abedi, Aidin
A1 Salehi, Sana
A1 Pickering, Trevor A.
A1 Zhang, Yujia
A1 Martinez, Aubrey
A1 Lai, Matthew
A1 Garner, Rachael
A1 Duncan, Dominique
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/17/2021.07.03.21259881.abstract
AB Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disparities among vulnerable populations are of paramount concern that extend to vaccine administration. With recent uptick in infection rates, dominance of the delta variant, and proposal of a third booster shot, understanding the population-level vaccine coverage dynamics and underlying sociodemographic factors is critical for achieving equity in public health outcomes. This study aimed to characterize the scope of vaccine inequity in California counties through modeling the trends of vaccination using the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).Methods Overall SVI, its four themes, and 9228 data points of daily vaccination numbers from December 15, 2020, to May 23, 2021, across all 58 California counties were used to model the growth velocity and anticipated maximum proportion of population vaccinated, defined as having received at least one dose of vaccine.Results Based on the overall SVI, the vaccination coverage velocity was lower in counties in the high vulnerability category (v=0.0346, 95% CI: 0.0334, 0.0358) compared to moderate (v=0.0396, 95% CI: 0.0385, 0.0408) and low (v=0.0414, 95% CI: 0.0403, 0.0425) vulnerability categories. SVI Theme 3 (minority status and language) yielded the largest disparity in coverage velocity between low and high-vulnerable counties (v=0.0423 versus v=0.035, P<0.001). Based on the current trajectory, while counties in low-vulnerability category of overall SVI are estimated to achieve a higher proportion of vaccinated individuals, our models yielded a higher asymptotic maximum for highly vulnerable counties of Theme 3 (K=0.544, 95% CI: 0.527, 0.561) compared to low-vulnerability counterparts (K=0.441, 95% CI: 0.432, 0.450). The largest disparity in asymptotic proportion vaccinated between the low and high-vulnerability categories was observed in Theme 2 describing the household composition and disability (K=0.602, 95% CI: 0.592, 0.612; versus K=0.425, 95% CI: 0.413, 0.436). Overall, the large initial disparities in vaccination rates by SVI status attenuated over time, particularly based on Theme 3 status which yielded a large decrease in cumulative vaccination rate ratio of low to high-vulnerability categories from 1.42 to 0.95 (P=0.002).Conclusions This study provides insight into the problem of COVID-19 vaccine disparity across California which can help promote equity during the current pandemic and guide the allocation of future vaccines such as COVID-19 booster shots.Key MessagesThe Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and its four themes along with the daily proportion of vaccinated individuals across the 58 California counties were used to model, overall and by theme, the growth velocity and anticipated maximum proportion of population vaccinated.Overall, high vulnerability counties in California had a lower vaccine coverage velocity compared to low and moderate vulnerability counties.The largest disparity in coverage velocity between low and high vulnerability counties was observed based on the SVI Theme 3 status (minority status & language).Based on the current trajectory, highly vulnerable counties based on SVI Theme 3 are expected to eventually achieve a higher proportion of vaccinated individuals compared to low vulnerable counterparts.Understanding the vaccine coverage dynamics and underlying sociodemographic factors is critical for achieving equity in public health outcomes during disease outbreaks and catastrophes.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Award Number 2027456 (COVID-ARC). This publication was supported by grants UL1TR001855 and UL1TR000130 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or other entities.Author 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/IRB was not acquired nor applicable for this research article. No human or animal participants were involved in the study. Publicly available data was used in the process of this study.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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.YesPublicly available data was used in the process of this study.