ReviewPloS one2020
Global landscape analysis of no-fault compensation programmes for vaccine injuries: A review and survey of implementing countries.
Review in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- No fault vaccine injury compensation after COVID-19: A systematic literature review and proposed typology.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Pooled it
- A systemic review and recommendation for an autopsy approach to death followed the COVID 19 vaccination.Forensic science international · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Ethical Principles in Legal Context: Vaccine Mandates During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Comparison and consideration of vaccine injury compensation programs in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2024Article
- COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Lessons Learned From a Review of 10 Implementing Countries.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- A solution towards a viable compensation mechanism for injury from COVID-19 vaccines in Malaysia: A qualitative study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- [Experiences and Challenges of the Ecuadorean National Advisory Commission on Serious Events Supposedly Attributable to Vaccination or Immunization, 2020-2023Experiências e desafios da Comissão Consultiva Nacional sobre Eventos Supostamente Atribuíveis à Vacinação ou Imunização graves do Equador, 2020-2023].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2024Article
- A review of China's compensation program for adverse reactions following immunization.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Developing an effective and sustainable national immunisation programme in China: issues and challenges.The Lancet. Public health · 2022Review
- Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA): What do we know about its incidence and impact?Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- Healthcare Practitioners Knowledge of Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA).Vaccines · 2022Article
- Global landscape of the COVID-19 vaccination policy: Ensuring equitable access to quality-assured vaccines.GHM open · 2022Article
- State capture through indemnification demands? Effects on equity in the global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2022Article
- Review
- Vaccine injury compensation: the Israeli case.Israel journal of health policy research · 2021Article
- No-fault compensation schemes for COVID-19 medical products.Lancet (London, England) · 2021Article
- Active Vaccine Safety Surveillance: Global Trends and Challenges in China.Health data science · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To update the landscape analysis of vaccine injuries no-fault compensation programmes, we conducted a scoping review and a survey of World Health Organization Member States. We describe the characteristics of existing no-fault compensation systems during 2018 based on six common programme elements. No-fault compensation systems for vaccine injuries have been developed in a few high-income countries for more than 50 years. Twenty-five jurisdictions were identified with no-fault compensation programmes, of which two were recently implemented in a low- and a lower-middle-income country. The no-fault compensation programmes in most jurisdictions are implemented at the central or federal government level and are government funded. Eligibility criteria for vaccine injury compensation vary considerably across the evaluated programmes. Notably, most programmes cover injuries arising from vaccines that are registered in the country and are recommended by authorities for routine use in children, pregnant women, adults (e.g. influenza vaccines) and for special indications. A claim process is initiated once the injured party or their legal representative files for compensation with a special administrative body in most programmes. All no-fault compensation programmes reviewed require standard of proof showing a causal association between vaccination and injury. Once a final decision has been reached, claimants are compensated with either: lump-sums; amounts calculated based on medical care costs and expenses, loss of earnings or earning capacity; or monetary compensation calculated based on pain and suffering, emotional distress, permanent impairment or loss of function; or combination of those. In most jurisdictions, vaccine injury claimants have the right to seek damages either through civil litigation or from a compensation scheme but not both simultaneously. Data from this report provide an empirical basis on which global guidance for implementing such schemes could be developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.