Commentary: Sex Differences in the COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in the United States.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Mana Moghadami, Seyed M Karimi
{"title":"Commentary: Sex Differences in the COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in the United States.","authors":"Mana Moghadami, Seyed M Karimi","doi":"10.1177/08901171251362791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> This commentary critically evaluates a recent scoping review on differences in COVID-19 vaccine intentions and uptake in the United States (U.S.) by gender or sex.<b>Data Source:</b> The reference articles in the scoping review titled \"A Scoping Review on Gender/Sex Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Uptake in the United States\" and other published articles on the subject.<b>Study inclusion and exclusion criteria:</b> Peer-reviewed articles in the English language that studied COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the U.S. population and evaluated sex/gender differences in vaccination were included. Studies that only assessed COVID-19 vaccine intentions in the U.S. population were excluded.<b>Data extraction:</b> Not applicable to this study.<b>Data synthesis:</b> Not applicable to this study.<b>Results:</b> The commentary findings on gender/sex differences are drawn from limited evidence, many with particular subpopulations (e.g., healthcare workers and military personnel) and an unbalanced gender/sex mix. Additionally, several studies use data from small surveys. By contrast, analyses using immunization registry data and large nationally representative surveys consistently find a higher COVID-19 vaccine uptake among women than men overall and in most age groups.<b>Conclusion:</b> This commentary argues for the inclusion of higher-quality, population-representative data sources within reviews to illustrate gender/sex differences in vaccine coverage more accurately.</p>","PeriodicalId":7481,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Health Promotion","volume":" ","pages":"8901171251362791"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Health Promotion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171251362791","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This commentary critically evaluates a recent scoping review on differences in COVID-19 vaccine intentions and uptake in the United States (U.S.) by gender or sex.Data Source: The reference articles in the scoping review titled "A Scoping Review on Gender/Sex Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Uptake in the United States" and other published articles on the subject.Study inclusion and exclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed articles in the English language that studied COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the U.S. population and evaluated sex/gender differences in vaccination were included. Studies that only assessed COVID-19 vaccine intentions in the U.S. population were excluded.Data extraction: Not applicable to this study.Data synthesis: Not applicable to this study.Results: The commentary findings on gender/sex differences are drawn from limited evidence, many with particular subpopulations (e.g., healthcare workers and military personnel) and an unbalanced gender/sex mix. Additionally, several studies use data from small surveys. By contrast, analyses using immunization registry data and large nationally representative surveys consistently find a higher COVID-19 vaccine uptake among women than men overall and in most age groups.Conclusion: This commentary argues for the inclusion of higher-quality, population-representative data sources within reviews to illustrate gender/sex differences in vaccine coverage more accurately.

评论:美国COVID-19疫苗摄取的性别差异。
目的:本评论批判性地评估了最近一项关于美国(美国)按性别或性别划分的COVID-19疫苗意向和接种差异的范围审查。数据来源:题为“美国COVID-19疫苗意向和吸收中性别/性别差异的范围审查”的范围审查中的参考文章以及其他有关该主题的已发表文章。研究纳入和排除标准:纳入了同行评议的英文文章,这些文章研究了美国人群中COVID-19疫苗的吸收情况,并评估了疫苗接种中的性别/性别差异。仅评估美国人群中COVID-19疫苗意向的研究被排除在外。数据提取:不适用于本研究。数据综合:不适用于本研究。结果:关于性别/性别差异的评注结果来自有限的证据,其中许多证据涉及特定的亚人群(例如卫生保健工作者和军事人员),而且性别/性别混合不平衡。此外,一些研究使用了来自小型调查的数据。相比之下,利用免疫登记数据和具有全国代表性的大型调查进行的分析一致发现,在总体和大多数年龄组中,女性的COVID-19疫苗接种率高于男性。结论:本评论主张在综述中纳入高质量、具有人口代表性的数据源,以更准确地说明疫苗覆盖率的性别/性别差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Health Promotion
American Journal of Health Promotion PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: The editorial goal of the American Journal of Health Promotion is to provide a forum for exchange among the many disciplines involved in health promotion and an interface between researchers and practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信