ArticleJAMA network open2021
Public Perspectives on COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritization.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- Who is worthy of protection? Revisiting a theoretical model on the social origins of health inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2026Review
- Equity considerations in COVID-19 vaccine allocation modelling: a methodological study.Interface focus · 2025Review
- Sociodemographic Inequalities in COVID-19 Booster Dose Vaccination Coverage: a Retrospective Study of 196 Provinces in Peru.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- "We've Changed, the World's Changed": Leveraging Knowledge from COVID-19 to Improve Self-management for Cancer Survivors and Care Partners.Cancer care research online · 2025Article
- Serious Safety Signals and Prediction Features Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Experiences, coping strategies and perspectives of people in Malaysia during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Corrections Officers' and Sheriffs' Perceptions of COVID-19 Vaccine Operationalization.Journal of correctional health care : the official journal of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care · 2023Article
- Determinants of COVID-19 vaccination status and hesitancy among older adults in China.Nature medicine · 2023Article
- Healthcare Access and Experiences of Racial Discrimination as Predictors of General Vaccine Hesitancy.Vaccines · 2023Article
- COVID-19 booster prioritization in the West Bank: a survey experiment among Bedouins, refugees, and the majority group.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- The SARS-CoV-2 vaccination rate and hesitation in Shanghai older adults with dementia.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- COVID-19 non-vaccination among older adults in China: a nationwide survey based on the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS).Research square · 2022Article
- Race and resource allocation: an online survey of US and UK adults' attitudes toward COVID-19 ventilator and vaccine distribution.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
- Fair Allocation of Scarce Therapies for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Article
- Disparities in distribution of COVID-19 vaccines across US counties: A geographic information system-based cross-sectional study.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- COVID-19 vaccine behaviors and intentions among a national sample of United States adults ages 18-45.Preventive medicine · 2022Article
- The Willingness of Elderly Taiwanese Individuals to Accept COVID-19 Vaccines after the First Local Outbreak.Vaccines · 2022Article
- Rationing of a scarce life-saving resource: Public preferences for prioritizing COVID-19 vaccination.Health economics · 2022Article
- Prioritization preferences for COVID-19 vaccination are consistent across five countries.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: As COVID-19 vaccine distribution continues, policy makers are struggling to decide which groups should be prioritized for vaccination. Objective: To assess US adults' preferences regarding COVID-19 vaccine prioritization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study involved 2 independent, online surveys of US adults aged 18 years and older, 1 conducted by Gallup from September 14 to 27, 2020, and the other conducted by the COVID Collaborative from September 19 to 25, 2020. Samples were weighted to reflect sociodemographic characteristics of the US population. Exposures: Respondents were asked to prioritize groups for COVID-19 vaccine and to rank their prioritization considerations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study assessed prioritization preferences and agreement with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's Preliminary Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine. Results: A total of 4735 individuals participated, 2730 (1474 men [54.1%]; mean [SD] age, 59.2 [14.5] years) in the Gallup survey and 2005 (944 men [47.1%]; 203 participants [21.5%] aged 55-59 years) in the COVID Collaborative survey. In both the Gallup COVID-19 Panel and COVID Collaborative surveys, respondents listed health care workers (Gallup, 93.6% [95% CI, 91.2%-95.3%]; COVID Collaborative, 80.0% [95% CI, 78.0%-81.9%]) and adults of any age with serious comorbid conditions (Gallup, 78.6% [95% CI, 75.2%-81.7%]; COVID Collaborative, 72.9% [95% CI, 70.7%-74.9%]) among their 4 highest priority groups. Respondents of all political affiliations agreed with prioritizing Black, Hispanic, Native American, and other communities that have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 (Gallup, 74.2% [95% CI, 70.6%-77.5%]; COVID Collaborative, 84.9% [95% CI, 83.1%-86.5%]), and COVID Collaborative respondents were willing to be preceded in line by teachers and childcare workers (92.5%; 95% CI, 91.2%-93.7%) and grocery workers (85.9%; 95% CI, 84.2%-87.5%). Older respondents in both surveys were significantly less likely than younger respondents to prioritize healthy adults aged 65 years and older among their 4 highest priority groups (Gallup, 23.7% vs 39.1% [χ2 = 2160.8; P < .001]; COVID Collaborative, 23.3% vs 28.8% [χ2 = 5.0198; P = .03]). COVID Collaborative respondents believed the 4 most important considerations for prioritization were preventing COVID-19 spread (78.4% [95% CI, 76.3%-80.3%]), preventing the most deaths (72.1% [95% CI, 69.9%-74.2%]), preventing long-term complications (68.9% [66.6%-71.9%]), and protecting frontline workers (63.8% [95% CI, 61.5%-66.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: US adults broadly agreed with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's prioritization framework. Respondents endorsed prioritizing racial/ethnic communities that are disproportionately affected by COVID-19, and older respondents were significantly less likely than younger respondents to endorse prioritizing healthy people older than 65 years. This provides reason for caution about COVID-19 vaccine distribution plans that prioritize healthy adults older than a cutoff age without including those younger than that age with preexisting conditions, that aim solely to prevent the most deaths, or that give no priority to frontline workers or disproportionately affected communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.