(Yui Mok/PA)
(Picture: PA Archive)Initial take-up of Covid jabs was lower in the capital because some Londoners had a “critical” lack of trust in the new vaccines and in the authorities promoting and administering them, a study has found.
It also pointed to “barriers” in getting the vaccines to zero-hour and shift-workers, many of whom felt there were more “costs than benefits” because of the time off needed to get a jab and the risk of side effects.
But it said the switch away from relatively inaccessible mass vaccination centres, such as the ExCeL centre, to a “hyper local” supply paid dividends and is the model to follow in future.
The study, by researchers at University College London and involving the government’s Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, is the most comprehensive work to date that looked at reasons for vaccine “hesitancy” and how to improve uptake.
The first jabs were given in December 2020 but uptake among black Londoners in the first six months was 57-65 per cent of those eligible, compared with 90 per cent in the white British cohort.
London has historically had lower uptake of other vaccines due to higher ethnicity, greater deprivation and greater population turnover than the rest of the country.
The study involved surveys and interviews with borough council officials and the staff in the capital’s five NHS integrated care systems.
Thirteen councils said that, for ethnic minority residents, vaccine hesitancy resulted from distrust of government institutions due to “inequalities, deep rooted racism and historic injustices”.
This included concerns among residents with a lack of ID, proof of address or immigration status. Mistrust was said to be “deeply engrained” for some.
There was a lack of trust in the information being given about the safety of vaccines, particularly in ethnic communities and among women of child-bearing age, mostly as a result of social media and online scare stories.
Zero-hour workers were anxious about taking time off to get vaccinated or to recover from any side effects.The report said that the “national imperative” to vaccinate as many people in each cohort as quickly as possible “came at the expense of addressing trust and hence improving equality in uptake”.
It said that while mass vaccination centres and “surge” events at sports grounds such as Chelsea and Arsenal reached large numbers, a “hyper local” approach reached more residents who would otherwise not get vaccinated. One council said the attendance at “pop-up” clinics in churches was more than 60 per cent black people.
London remains about 20 points below the UK average for each of the take-up rates, with only 70 per cent having had one jab, 65 per cent two jabs and 46 per cent three jabs.
Dr Kristoffer Halvorsrud, a research fellow at UCL and joint first author, told the Standard that the “London effect” was the greater prevalence of ethnicity and deprivation factors that also affected take-up across the country.
“The headline should also be that London councils came together in an unprecedented way to document inequalities in uptake and address issues as quickly as possible,” he said.
He said that social care staff were among those invited to get jabbed early but at a time when few local hubs had opened – adding to concerns about the time needed away from work.
“Combined with a belief that getting the vaccine could incur associated side effects, potentially meaning a further loss in income due to time off sick, it was reported that some zero hours/shift workers and domiciliary care staff believed the potential costs of getting vaccinated would outweigh its benefits,” Dr Halvorsrud said.
A spokesperson for the NHS in London said: “This report gives valuable insight into the lessons learned from London’s successful Covid vaccination programme.
“It captures key learning points to support the ongoing vaccination programme, including making vaccinations available at shopping centres, sports grounds, places of worship and a range of other community venues.
“This has seen London achieve increased uptake, while also being applicable to informing how the NHS, with our partners, can provide consistently high-quality services that are accessible for all.”
The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
