IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0287553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of the COVID-19 vaccination mandate on the primary care workforce and differences between rural and urban settings to inform future policy decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Brigit A Hatch
  • Erin Kenzie
  • NithyaPriya Ramalingam
  • Eliana Sullivan
  • Chrystal Barnes
  • Nancy Elder
  • Melinda M Davis

Abstract

Introduction: Little is known about the impact of mandated vaccination policies on the primary care clinic workforce in the United States or differences between rural and urban settings, especially for COVID-19. With the continued pandemic and an anticipated increase in novel disease outbreaks and emerging vaccines, healthcare systems need additional information on how vaccine mandates impact the healthcare workforce to aid in future decision-making. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Oregon primary care clinic staff between October 28, 2021– November 18, 2021, following implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for healthcare personnel. The survey consisted of 19 questions that assessed the clinic-level impacts of the vaccination mandate. Outcomes included job loss among staff, receipt of an approved vaccination waiver, new vaccination among staff, and the perceived significance of the policy on clinic staffing. We used univariable descriptive statistics to compare outcomes between rural and urban clinics. The survey also included three open-ended questions that were analyzed using a template analysis approach. Results: Staff from 80 clinics across 28 counties completed surveys, representing 38 rural and 42 urban clinics. Clinics reported job loss (46%), use of vaccination waivers (51%), and newly vaccinated staff (60%). Significantly more rural clinics (compared to urban) utilized medical and/or religious vaccination waivers (71% vs 33%, p = 0.04) and reported significant impact on clinic staffing (45% vs 21%, p = 0.048). There was also a non-significant trend toward more job loss for rural compared to urban clinics (53% vs. 41%, p = 0.547). Qualitative analysis highlighted a decline in clinic morale, small but meaningful detriments to patient care, and mixed opinions of the vaccination mandate. Conclusions: Oregon’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate increased healthcare personnel vaccination rates, yet amplified staffing challenges with disproportionate impacts in rural areas. Staffing impacts in primary care clinics were greater than reported previously in hospital settings and with other vaccination mandates. Mitigating primary care staffing impacts, particularly in rural areas, will be critical in response to the continued pandemic and novel viruses in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Brigit A Hatch & Erin Kenzie & NithyaPriya Ramalingam & Eliana Sullivan & Chrystal Barnes & Nancy Elder & Melinda M Davis, 2023. "Impact of the COVID-19 vaccination mandate on the primary care workforce and differences between rural and urban settings to inform future policy decision-making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-12, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287553
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287553
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287553&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0287553?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287553. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.