Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34787925›Full record

ArticleHealth economics2022

Rationing of a scarce life-saving resource: Public preferences for prioritizing COVID-19 vaccination.

Jeroen Luyten, Sandy Tubeuf, Roselinde Kessels

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Which factors drive the choice of the French-speaking Quebec population towards a COVID-19 vaccination programme: A discrete-choice experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeroen LuytenLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6398-4025
Sandy TubeufFaculté de Santé Publique, Institute for Health and Society (IRSS) and Institute of Economic and Social Research (IRES), Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9001-1157
Roselinde KesselsDepartment of Data Analytics and Digitalization, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4534-0047
KU Leuven · BEUCLouvain · BEUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

Elinor Ostrom grant from Maastricht UniversityUCLouvain SeedFunding FSR18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the face of limited COVID-19 vaccine supply, governments have had to identify priority groups for vaccination. In October 2020, when it was still uncertain whether COVID-19 vaccines would be shown to work in trials, we conducted a discrete choice experiment and a best-worst ranking exercise on a representative sample of 2060 Belgians in order to elicit their views on how to set fair vaccination priorities. When asked directly, our respondents prioritized the groups that would later receive priority: essential workers, the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions. When priorities were elicited indirectly, through observing choices between individuals competing for a vaccine, different preferences emerged. The elderly were given lower priority and respondents divided within two clusters. While both clusters wanted to vaccinate the essential workers in the second place, one cluster (N = 1058) primarily wanted to target virus spreaders in order to control transmission whereas the other cluster (N = 886) wanted to prioritize those who were most at risk because of a pre-existing health condition. Other strategies to allocate a scarce resource such as using a "lottery", "first-come, first-served" approach or highest willingness-to-pay received little support.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAgedHumansSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19discrete choice experimentdistributionefficiencyequityjusticeprioritypublic preferencesscarcityvaccine

Identifiers

PMID34787925
PMCPMC9116477
OpenAlexW3213485803

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.