Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33408013›Full record

ArticleVaccine2021

Constructing an ethical framework for priority allocation of pandemic vaccines.

J Fielding, S G Sullivan, F Beard, K Macartney, J Williams, A Dawson, G L Gilbert, P Massey, K Crooks, R Moss and 2 more

Abstract read
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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors.

J FieldingVictorian Infectious Diseases Laboratory Epidemiology Unit, The University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity Melbourne, Australia.
S G SullivanWorld Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Reference & Research on Influenza, Royal Melbourne Hospital, and Doherty Department, University of Melbourne, at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.
F BeardNational Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Westmead, Australia; School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
K MacartneyNational Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Westmead, Australia; Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
J WilliamsSydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
A DawsonSydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Marie Bashir Institute for Emerging Infections and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
G L GilbertSydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Marie Bashir Institute for Emerging Infections and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, 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.
K CrooksHunter New England Local Health District, Population Health, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia; Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
R MossModelling and Simulation Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne Australia.
J M McCawVictorian Infectious Diseases Laboratory Epidemiology Unit, The University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity Melbourne, Australia; Modelling and Simulation Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne Australia; School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
J McVernonVictorian Infectious Diseases Laboratory Epidemiology Unit, The University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity Melbourne, Australia; Modelling and Simulation Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne Australia. Electronic address: j.mcvernon@unimelb.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAllocation of scarce resources during a pandemic extends to the allocation of vaccines when they eventually become available. We describe a framework for priority vaccine allocation that employed a cross-disciplinary approach, guided by ethical considerations and informed by local risk assessment.

methodsPublished and grey literature was reviewed, and augmented by consultation with key informants, to collate past experience, existing guidelines and emerging strategies for pandemic vaccine deployment. Identified ethical issues and decision-making processes were also included. Concurrently, simulation modelling studies estimated the likely impacts of alternative vaccine allocation approaches. Assembled evidence was presented to a workshop of national experts in pandemic preparedness, vaccine strategy, implementation and ethics. All of this evidence was then used to generate a proposed ethical framework for vaccine priorities best suited to the Australian context.

findingsPublished and emerging guidance for priority pandemic vaccine distribution differed widely with respect to strategic objectives, specification of target groups, and explicit discussion of ethical considerations and decision-making processes. Flexibility in response was universally emphasised, informed by real-time assessment of the pandemic impact level, and identification of disproportionately affected groups. Model outputs aided identification of vaccine approaches most likely to achieve overarching goals in pandemics of varying transmissibility and severity. Pandemic response aims deemed most relevant for an Australian framework were: creating and maintaining trust, promoting equity, and reducing harmful outcomes.

interpretationDefining clear and ethically-defendable objectives for pandemic response in context aids development of flexible and adaptive decision support frameworks and facilitates clear communication and engagement activities.

Indexed as

PandemicsVaccinesAustraliaResource AllocationTrustVaccinesPandemic vaccinePriority populationsVaccine allocationVaccine ethics

Identifiers

PMID33408013
PMCPMC7779078

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.