ArticleBMC health services research2023
Ethical considerations of the vaccine development process and vaccination: a scoping review.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Vaccine preferences and their role for vaccine confidence and uptake: a meta-ethnography.Global health action · 2026Pooled it
- Emerging Viral Zoonoses: Epidemiology, Vaccination Strategies, and Implications for Global Public Health.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Pharmaceutical design of mRNA vaccines for endemic infectious diseases: integrating antigen discovery with platform engineering.Clinical and experimental vaccine research · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for coordinating vaccine design, antiviral discovery, and real-world monitoring in the era of emerging and endemic viral threats.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- GenIV vaccines: bridging innovation to equity in neglected tropical diseases.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Article
- Computational development of multi-epitope vaccine to induce adaptive immunity against multi-drug resistant Prevotella intermedia.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Non-melanoma skin cancer and HPV in persons with albinism: a call for research investment.British journal of cancer · 2025Review
- Vaccine-Based Immunotherapy for Oropharyngeal and Nasopharyngeal Cancers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Analysing vaccine efficacy evaluated in phase 3 clinical trials carried out during outbreaks.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2024Article
- Prophylactic and therapeutic vaccine development: advancements and challenges.Molecular biomedicine · 2024Review
- The Impact of COVID-19 on RNA Therapeutics: A Surge in Lipid Nanoparticles and Alternative Delivery Systems.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Impact of COVID-19 on Psychiatric Patients: The Role of Vaccination, Comorbidities, and Biomarkers in Clinical Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious vaccines have been developed and distributed worldwide to control and cope with COVID-19 disease. To ensure vaccines benefit the global community, the ethical principles of beneficence, justice, non-maleficence, and autonomy should be examined and adhered to in the process of development, distribution, and implementation. This study, therefore, aimed to examine ethical considerations of vaccine development and vaccination processes.
methodsA scoping review of the literature was conducted based on the Arkesy and O'Malley protocol to identify eligible studies published until November 2021. We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and SciELO databases. The search was conducted using combinations of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms and keywords for Ethics, COVID-19, and vaccines in abstract, keywords, and title fields to retrieve potentially relevant publications. We included any study that reported one of the four principles of medical ethics: autonomy, justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence in the COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution and implementation of vaccinations. Letters, notes, protocols, and brief communications were excluded. In addition, we searched gray literature to include relevant studies (ProQuest database, conferences, and reports). Data were analyzed using framework analysis.
resultsIn total, 43 studies were included. Ethical considerations concluded two themes: (1) production and (2) distribution and vaccination. The production process consisted of 16 codes and 4 main Categories, distribution and vaccination process consisted of 12 codes and 4 main Categories. Moreover, the ethical considerations of special groups were divided into four main groups: health care workers (HCWs) (five codes), children and adolescents (five codes), the elderly (one code), and ethnic and racial minorities (three codes).
conclusionDue to the externalities of pandemics and the public and social benefits and harms of vaccination, it is not feasible to adhere to all four principles of medical ethics simultaneously and perfectly. This issue confronts individuals and policymakers with several moral dilemmas. It seems that decision-making based on the balance between social benefit and social harm is a better criterion in this regard, and the final decision should be made based on maximizing the public benefit and minimizing the public harm.
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.