This study revealed that less than half (45%) of middle-age and older Latinx adult residents of South Los Angeles in our sample reported influenza vaccination within the 12 months prior to the interview. Almost 85% of our participants reported receiving vaccination recommendations from a healthcare provider, however, more than 30% of these participants did not adhere to their providers’ recommendations. Systematic reviews of recent studies show that one of the major determinants of influenza vaccination among older adults is recommendation by their healthcare provider.37 Indeed, there are strong evidence that providers may have a profound influence on individuals’ intentions to receive vaccinations thus physicians have a unique role in promoting influenza vaccination rates at a national level.38 Along those lines, it has consistently been documented that vaccination recommendation by primary care providers is an influential factor for immunization among older adults.39 Knowing that almost one out of three participants did not adhere to their providers’ recommendations, it is necessary that providers of older Latinx educate this group on side effects, vaccine safety, and drug interactions. Additionally, the low rates of adherence to providers’ recommendation among minority populations have been linked to issues of trust, education, beliefs, and social factors that need further interventional investigations.40–42
There was also a decreased likelihood of flu vaccination among those living alone, not covered by Medicare, or experiencing higher levels of financial strain. By reviewing the most recent available California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) pooled data (2014–2016) of South LA service area Latinx residents, 55 years of age and older, we determined that participants in our sample were almost 40% less likely to get the vaccine compared to the larger South LA 55 + population (73%).43 These findings suggest that our population differed in some very significant way from the overall Latinx population of South LA. It is possible that those reporting financial strain provides insight into why our sample may have differed from the pooled CHIS sample. It is also possible that the choice of recruitment sites (senior centers, senior living centers) may reflect some aspect of this population that bears deeper investigation.
When unpacking the concept of financial strain in this study, it is notable that the assessment questions reflect both necessities of life (food, clothing, and living expenses) as well as shared commodities in communal Latinx culture. A landmark review of familism by Baca Zinn (1983) perhaps best summarized this as “a positive form of social organization…” that facilitates adaptation to “marginal existence” associated with educational and economic disparities among Latinx.44 In this group, periods of shortage impacting these necessities may be addressed through multigenerational living, allowing for communal access according to need.45 Given that both living alone and financial strain were associated with not having flu vaccine in our sample, it is possible that some participants were unable to avail themselves of the physical, social and financial benefits of shared living46 Given that both living alone and financial strain were associated with not having flu vaccine in our sample, it is possible that some participants were unable to avail themselves of the physical, social and financial benefits of shared living.47 It may also highlight communalistic, pro-social behaviors (such as willingness of a family member to provide transportation for medical appointments) that may act as vaccine facilitators in this group.48,49
Despite the potential benefit of shared living in terms of vaccine access, there have been recent data suggesting it may increase risk of contracting COVID-19 among Latinx.48 Rising costs in the Southern California housing market and rising unemployment driven by the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that such larger household sizes may be a persistent trend and worthy of further exploration in terms of messaging around flu vaccination.50, 51Additionally, interventions in senior centers and senior housing centers may address the need for flu vaccine promotion or delivery among aging Latinx who lack access to the extended family ties or the social support conferred by shared living.52
Individuals with chronic medical conditions are considered high risk for influenza related complications, hospitalization and death.53 While those participants in our sample not diagnosed with COPD or hypertension were less likely to report having a influenza vaccine within the previous 12 months, one striking finding of our study is the lack of a clear association between vaccination and a diabetes mellitus diagnosis. Like chronic respiratory and cardiovascular illness, the management of diabetes mellitus is benefited by regular medical appointments and monitoring every three to six months.54 These frequent interactions with the healthcare system would result in a greater number of opportunities for providers to encourage or deliver impactful and cost-effective flu vaccinations.55 Therefore, it is unclear why a diagnosis of COPD and/or hypertension might be protective in terms of flu vaccine, but diabetes mellitus, asthma and other chronic conditions examined in this study are not. As diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease are two of the top five causes of death for Latinx persons in LA County, and two of the top five causes of premature death among residents of South LA, further exploration is needed to understand the mechanism behind these results.56
Not having Medicare coverage was associated with a lower likelihood of having had a flu vaccine within the 12 months prior to the study. When unpacking the Medicare coverage variable in this population, immigration status is worthy of note and reflects larger phenomena impacting how Latinx access healthcare. Though it bears mentioning that it may also reflect the participant cohort (aged 55–65) not yet qualified to receive this coverage due to chronologic age.
Latinx elders who are not U.S. citizens may qualify for premium-free Medicare Part A benefits if they meet certain conditions, such as qualifying for Social Security retirement benefits, Social Security Disability (SSDI) or Railroad Retirement Benefits (RRB).57 While most people are automatically enrolled in Medicare at age 65, an additional application process may be required for these individuals. However, the process of applying for Medicare in person or online (even when qualified) may present a challenge to those who are hesitant due to fears of deportation or the impact it may have on subsequent application for citizenship.58 Regulations promulgated in August 2019, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “Public Charge Rule”, connected accessing social welfare programs to an inability to gain citizenship.59 Wide-spread anti-immigrant rhetoric in the media during this period resulted in health behavior changes among US Latinx.60–63 In LA County, it is most recently connected to a fear of accessing COVID-19 testing among undocumented Latinx.64 The data used for this study were collected between the period of the “Public Charge Rule” proposal and its announced start date (February 2020). It is unclear how this may have hampered use of Medicare coverage for preventive services including flu vaccine.