Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33423839›Full record

ArticleVaccine2021

How should we conduct pandemic vaccination?

Jane Williams, Chris Degeling, Jodie McVernon, Angus Dawson

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 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Exploring the ethics of genetic prioritisation for COVID-19 vaccines.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022
    Review
  10. Rifampicin for COVID-19.World journal of virology · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Motivation for COVID-19 Vaccination in Priority Occupational Groups: A Cross-Sectional Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Jane WilliamsSydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Level 1, MFB, 92-94 Parramatta Road, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia. Electronic address: jane.h.williams@sydney.edu.au.
Chris DegelingAustralian Centre for Health Engagement Evidence and Values (ACHEEV), School of Health and Society - Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Building 29 Room 314, NSW 2522, Australia. Electronic address: degeling@uow.edu.au.
Jodie McVernonModelling and Simulation Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia; Victorian Infectious Diseases Laboratory Epidemiology Unit at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, The University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, 792 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia. Electronic address: j.mcvernon@unimelb.edu.au.
Angus DawsonSydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Level 1, MFB, 92-94 Parramatta Road, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia; Marie Bashir Institute for Emerging Infections, University of Sydney, 67/73 Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia. Electronic address: angus.dawson@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination plays an important role in pandemic planning and response. The possibility of developing an effective vaccine for a novel pandemic virus is not assured. However, as we have seen with SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development, with sufficient resources and global focus, successful outcomes can be achieved in a relatively short period. However even when vaccine is available it will initially be scarce. When one becomes available, how should it be distributed? In this paper we explicate how ethical thinking that is carefully attuned to context is essential to decisions about how we should conduct vaccination in a pandemic where demand exceeds supply. We focus on two key issues. First, setting the aims for a pandemic vaccination programme. Second, thinking about the means of delivering a chosen aim. We outline how pandemic vaccine distribution strategies can be implemented with distinct aims, e.g. protecting groups at greater risk of harm, saving the most lives, or ensuring societal benefit. Each aim will result in a focus on a different priority population and each strategy will have a different benefit-harm profile. Once we have decided our aim, we still have choices to make about delivery. We may achieve at least some ends via direct or indirect strategies. Such policy decisions are not merely technical, but necessarily involve ethics. One important general issue is that such planning decisions about distribution will always be made under conditions of uncertainty about vaccine safety and effectiveness. However, planning how to distribute vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 is even harder because we understand relatively little about the virus, transmission, and its immunological impact in the short and long term.

Indexed as

Immunization ProgramsCOVID-19Delivery of Health CareHumansPandemicsPublic HealthVaccinationEthicsPandemic infectionPandemic vaccination strategiesPandemic vaccineSARS-CoV-2Values

Identifiers

PMID33423839
PMCPMC7792561

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.