Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33504627›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2021

Persuasion, not coercion or incentivisation, is the best means of promoting COVID-19 vaccination.

Susan Pennings, Xavier Symons

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Children, vaccines, and financial incentives.International journal of health economics and management · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Debate on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.Ethics, medicine, and public health · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Susan PenningsDepartment of Philosophy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Xavier SymonsPlunkett Centre for Ethics, The Australian Catholic University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia xavier.symons@acu.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Savulescu (forthcoming) argues that it may be ethically acceptable for governments to require citizens be vaccinated against COVID-19. He also recommends that governments consider providing monetary or in-kind incentives to citizens to increase vaccination rates. In this response, we argue against mandatory vaccination and vaccine incentivisation, and instead suggest that targeted public health messaging and a greater responsiveness to the concerns of vaccine-hesitant individuals would be the best strategy to address low vaccination rates.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansPersuasive CommunicationSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinescoercionCOVID-19informed consentpublic health ethicspublic policy

Identifiers

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.