Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36360982›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

"You Shall Not Pass" without a Jab: An Institutional Theory Perspective to COVID-19 Vaccine Passport Policies.

Emmanuel Ogiemwonyi Arakpogun, Padmali Rodrigo, Femi Olan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. COVID-19 and Public Health: Analysis of Opinions in Social Media.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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.

Emmanuel Ogiemwonyi ArakpogunNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3980-0796
Padmali RodrigoNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK.
Femi OlanNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent health crises (e.g., COVID-19, Ebola and Monkeypox) have pointed out huge disparities in vaccine accessibility across the world. Nonetheless, certain governments have instituted vaccine passport policies (VPPs) to manage public health, raising mixed concerns from the public. Focusing on COVID-19 outbreak as an example, this review and commentary article utilises an institutional theory perspective to uncover the factors contributing to the global vaccine divide. We also explore the wider impact of VPPs to determine whether such tools promote freedom or social exclusion. Our insights shed light on a controversial and increasingly divisive policy with an international dimension and institutional implications. For instance, while some argue that VPPs may be relatively better than the blunt instrument of lockdowns, VPPs also implicate access and discrimination concerns. Given the various reasons for global vaccine disparities, a hybrid policy that combines vaccine passports with other public health practices (e.g., rapid lateral flow/affordable polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and good hygiene) may be more viable. Furthermore, while VPPs may not be desirable and acceptable domestically, they may be inevitable for international travel.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCommunicable Disease ControlHealth PolicyHumansPublic HealthCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19health crisisinstitutional theorysocial exclusionvaccine passport

Identifiers

PMID36360982
PMCPMC9654031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.