ABSTRACT:
Background: In Fall 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of avoiding a simultaneous influenza and COVID-19 “twindemic” led to the implementation of socially distanced, drive-through mobile vaccination clinics. Mobile clinics have been valuable in providing primary and preventative care to underserved populations and expanding healthcare access to individuals marginalized by geographic, social, and structural barriers. Although there are ~2,000 mobile clinics throughout the United States and 120 mobile clinics providing services in California, few studies to date have evaluated neighborhood-level factors to determine whether social drivers of health (SDOH) influence the use of mobile drive-through clinics versus static clinics for immunizations.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of a total of 25,246 patients, 3,151 of whom received immunizations in 3 mobile clinics and 22,095 of whom received immunizations in 3 static clinics in Orange County from 8/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. Data were collected from patient charts on demographic characteristics. Age was stratified 0-21 years, 22-64 years, and 65 years and older. SDOH was measured using state-ranked Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a composite measure of 17 variables across income, education, employment, and housing domains by neighborhood/block group. ADI ranking was categorized into quintiles with higher ADI indices corresponding to greater levels of disadvantage. Chi-squared analysis was paired with logistic regression to examine potential associations. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS (version 28) The study was approved by our institution’s IRB.
Results: A similar percentage of patients who identified as White attended the mobile and static clinics (60.3% and 66.8%, respectively), while a lesser percentage of patients who were <60 years of age (60.3% vs 74.4%); identified as Hispanic (19.4% vs 58.8%); spoke Spanish (5.6% vs 33.7%); and were on public insurance (36.7% vs 74.9%) attended the mobile (vs static) clinics. Less likely to obtain vaccines through mobile clinics were those who identified as Black (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.35, 0.75) relative to Caucasian patients, had public insurance (0.25; 0.23, 0.28) versus commercial insurance, and whose primary language was Spanish (0.29; 0.24, 0.35). Those greater than 65 years of age (7.04; 5.94, 8.34) compared to those under 21 years, and those identified as non-Hispanic (1.67; 1.44, 1.90) versus Hispanic were more likely to obtain their vaccines through the mobile clinic. Additionally, those who lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were the least likely to obtain vaccines at the mobile clinic (0.67; 0.48, 0.93).
Conclusions:
The study demonstrates that patients who lived in more disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to seek vaccinations at mobile clinics. Additional work is needed to identify why the mobile influenza clinics were highly skewed towards those who lived in more advantaged areas.