ArticleRoyal Society open science2021
Switching vaccination among target groups to achieve improved long-lasting benefits.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modeling geographic vaccination strategies for COVID-19 in Norway.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Factors Influencing Monkeypox Vaccination: A Cue to Policy Implementation.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2023Article
- Supply chains create global benefits from improved vaccine accessibility.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Exploring a COVID-19 Endemic Scenario: High-Resolution Agent-Based Modeling of Multiple Variants.Advanced theory and simulations · 2023Article
- Article
- Predicting the Effects of Waning Vaccine Immunity Against COVID-19 through High-Resolution Agent-Based Modeling.Advanced theory and simulations · 2022Article
- Insights into Controlling the Spread of COVID-19: A Study Inspired by Seven of the Earliest Vaccinated Countries.Journal of environmental and public health · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of vaccines has opened a way to lower the public health and societal burden of COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve sustainable gains in the long term, switching the vaccination from one target group to a more diverse portfolio should be planned appropriately. We lay out a general mathematical framework for comparing alternative vaccination roll-out strategies for the year to come: single focus groups: (i-a) the high-risk older age groups and (i-b) the core-sociable groups; and two focus groups: (ii-a) mixed vaccination of both the high-risk and core-sociable groups simultaneously and (ii-b) cyclic vaccination switching between groups. Featuring analyses of all relevant data including age pyramids for 15 representative countries with diverse social mixing patterns shows that mixed strategies that result in both direct and indirect protection of high-risk groups may be better for the overall societal health impact of COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Of note, over time switching the priority from high-risk older age groups to core-sociable groups responsible for heightened circulation and thus indirect risk may be increasingly advantageous.
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.