Abstract
Aim This research examines the spatial equity, and associated health equity implications, of the geographic distribution of Covid-19 vaccination services in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Method We mapped the distribution of Aotearoa’s population and used the enhanced-two-step-floating-catchment-method (E2SFCA) to estimate spatial access to vaccination services, taking into account service supply, population demand, and distance between populations and services. We used the Gini coefficient and both global and local measures of spatial autocorrelation to assess the spatial equity of vaccination services across Aotearoa. Additional statistics included an analysis of spatial accessibility for priority populations, including Māori (Indigenous people of Aotearoa), Pacific, over 65-year-olds, and people living in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation. We also examined vaccination service access according to rurality, and by District Health Board region.
Results Spatially accessibility to vaccination services varies across Aotearoa, and appears to be better in major cities than rural regions. A Gini coefficient of 0.426 confirms that spatial accessibility scores are not shared equally across the vaccine-eligible population. Furthermore, priority populations including Māori, older people, and residents of areas with socioeconomic constraint have, on average, statistically significantly lower spatial access to vaccination services. This is also true for people living in rural areas. Spatial access to vaccination services, also varies significantly by District Health Board (DHB) region as does equality of access, and the proportion of DHB priority population groups living in areas with poor access to vaccination services. A strong and significant positive correlation was identified between average spatial accessibility and the Māori vaccination rate ratio of DHBs.
Conclusion Covid-19 vaccination services in Aotearoa are not equitably distributed. Priority populations, with the most pressing need to receive Covid-19 vaccinations, have the worst access to vaccination services.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was not supported by any funding
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:
This research did not require approval from the New Zealand Health and Disability Commitees (HDEC) because it was out of scope of the criteria for review. The research does not include participants, does not involve the collection or storage of human tissue, and does not involve health information that could identify individuals or be linked with other datasets.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The spatial accessibility data referred to in the manuscript is available on request. Other data used was open source and is freely available from the sources listed.
