Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32437376›Full record

ReviewPloS one2020

Global landscape analysis of no-fault compensation programmes for vaccine injuries: A review and survey of implementing countries.

Randy G Mungwira, Christine Guillard, Adiela Saldaña, Nobuhiko Okabe, Helen Petousis-Harris, Edinam Agbenu, Lance Rodewald, Patrick L F Zuber

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Vaccine injury compensation: the Israeli case.Israel journal of health policy research · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Randy G MungwiraDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Development, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2505-0904
Christine GuillardAccess to Medicines and Health Products Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Adiela SaldañaInstituto de Salud Pública de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Nobuhiko OkabeKawasaki City Institute for Public Health, Kawasaki-City, Japan.
Helen Petousis-HarrisUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Edinam AgbenuWorld Health Organization, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Lance RodewaldChinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Patrick L F ZuberAccess to Medicines and Health Products Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Insurance, LiabilityAdultChildCompensation and RedressFemaleGlobal HealthHealth PolicyHumansLiability, LegalMaleMalpracticeNational Health ProgramsPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesVaccinationVaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID32437376
PMCPMC7241762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.