Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33317870›Full record

ArticleVaccine2021

Priority allocation of pandemic influenza vaccines in Australia - Recommendations of 3 community juries.

C Degeling, J Williams, S M Carter, R Moss, P Massey, G L Gilbert, P Shih, A Braunack-Mayer, K Crooks, D Brown and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Public values to guide childhood vaccination mandates: A report on four Australian community juries.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

C DegelingAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health & Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. Electronic address: degeling@uow.edu.au.
J WilliamsSydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
S M CarterAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health & Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
R MossModelling and Simulation Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
P MasseyHunter New England Local Health District, Population Health, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia; College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
G L GilbertSydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Marie Bashir Institute for Emerging Infections, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
P ShihAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health & Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
A Braunack-MayerAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health & Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
K CrooksHunter New England Local Health District, Population Health, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia; Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Darwin, Australia.
D BrownModelling and Simulation Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Victorian Infectious Diseases Laboratory Epidemiology Unit at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, The University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
J McVernonModelling and Simulation Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Victorian Infectious Diseases Laboratory Epidemiology Unit at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, The University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
University of Wollongong · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AUCharles Darwin University · AUHunter New England Local Health District · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPandemic planning has historically been oriented to respond to an influenza virus, with vaccination strategy being a key focus. As the current COVID-19 pandemic plays out, the Australian government is closely monitoring progress towards development of SARS-CoV2 vaccines as a definitive intervention. However, as in any pandemic, initial supply will likely be exceeded by demand due to limited manufacturing output.

methodsWe convened community juries in three Australian locations in 2019 to assess public acceptability and perceived legitimacy of influenza pandemic vaccination distribution strategies. Preparatory work included literature reviews on pandemic vaccine allocation strategies and on vaccine allocation ethics, and simulation modelling studies. We assumed vaccine would be provided to predefined priority groups. Jurors were then asked to recommend one of two strategies for distributing remaining early doses of vaccine: directly vaccinate people at higher risk of adverse outcomes from influenza; or indirectly protect the general population by vaccinating primary school students, who are most likely to spread infection.

resultsThirty-four participants of diverse backgrounds and ages were recruited through random digit dialling and topic-blinded social media advertising. Juries heard evidence and arguments supporting different vaccine distribution strategies, and questioned expert presenters. All three community juries supported prioritising school children for influenza vaccination (aiming for indirect protection), one by 10-2 majority and two by consensus. Justifications included that indirect protection benefits more people and is likely to be more publicly acceptable.

conclusionsIn the context of an influenza pandemic, informed citizens were not opposed to prioritising groups at higher risks of adverse outcomes, but if resources and epidemiological conditions allow, achieving population benefits should be a strategic priority. These insights may inform future SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAustraliaChildCOVID-19FemaleHealth Care RationingHumansImmunization ProgramsImmunization ScheduleInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMaleMiddle AgedOrthomyxoviridaePandemicsInfluenza VaccinesHealth policyPandemic Influenza vaccinationPublic deliberationPublic health ethics

Identifiers

PMID33317870
PMCPMC7733601
OpenAlexW3111627640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.