Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36642442›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2023

Mitigating donor interests in the case of COVID-19 vaccine: the implication of COVAX and DAC membership.

Yian Fang, Tianyue Ma, Ming Wu, Sian Hsiang-Te Tsuei

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Yian FangDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0906-7434
Tianyue MaCentre for International Knowledge on Development, Beijing, China.
Ming WuDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing, China w_ming@126.com stsuei@g.harvard.edu.
Sian Hsiang-Te TsueiDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA w_ming@126.com stsuei@g.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9540-9399
Peking University · CNHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe COVID-19 vaccine donation process allegedly prioritised national interests over humanitarian needs. We thus examined how donors allocated vaccines by recipient country needs versus donor national interests and how such decisions varied across donation channels (bilateral vs COVAX with country earmarking) or exposure to foreign aid norms (membership status in the Development Assistance Committee-DAC).

methodsWe used the two-part regression model to examine how the probability of becoming a recipient country and the volume of vaccines received were associated with recipient countries' needs (disease burden and GDP per capita), donor countries' interests (bilateral trade volume and voting distance in the United Nations General Assembly) and recipient countries' population size. The analysis further interacted the determinants with channel and DAC status.

resultsDonors preferentially selected countries with higher disease burden, lower GDP per capita, closer trade relations, more different voting preferences, and smaller populations. Compared with bilateral arrangements, COVAX encouraged more needs-based considerations (lower GDP per capita), less interest-based calculus (more distant economic relations and voting preferences) and larger population size. Compared with the DAC counterparts, the non-DAC donors focused more on politically and economically aligned countries but also on less economically developed countries. As for the volume of vaccines donated, countries received more vaccines if they had tighter trade relations with donors, more different voting patterns than donors, and larger populations. COVAX was associated with raising the volumes of vaccines to politically distant countries, and non-DAC donors donated more to countries with stronger trade relations and political alignment.

conclusionDonors consider both recipient needs and national interests when allocating COVID-19 vaccines. COVAX and DAC partially mitigated donors' focus on domestic interests. Future global health aid can similarly draw on multilateral and normative arrangements.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesDeveloping CountriesHumansInternational CooperationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCOVID-19Health policyHealth systemsVaccines

Identifiers

PMID36642442
PMCPMC9842600
OpenAlexW4316253708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.