Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37073303›Full record

ArticleHealth policy OPEN2023

COVAX - Time to reconsider the strategy and its target.

David Bell, Garrett W Brown, Wellington A Oyibo, Samiratou Ouédraogo, Blagovesta Tacheva, Elena Barbaud, Andreas Kalk, Valéry Ridde, Elisabeth Paul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy OPEN, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

9 authors.

David BellIndependent Consultant, Lake Jackson, TX, USA.
Garrett W BrownProfessor of Global Health Policy, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
Wellington A OyiboUniversity of Lagos, College of Medicine, Department of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, Lagos, Nigeria.
Samiratou OuédraogoObservatoire national de la santé de la population (ONSP), Institut National de Santé Publique (INSP), Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Blagovesta TachevaUniversity of Leeds, Global Health Research Unit, United Kingdom.
Elena BarbaudUniversity of Leeds, Global Health Research Unit, United Kingdom.
Andreas KalkDeutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Kinshasa Country Office, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Valéry RiddeUniversité Paris Cité, IRD, Inserm, Ceped, F-75006 Paris, France.
Elisabeth PaulUniversité libre de Bruxelles, School of Public Health, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVAX, the international initiative supporting COVID-19 vaccination campaigns globally, is budgeted to be the costliest public health initiative in low- and middle-income countries, with over 16 billion US dollars already committed. While some claim that the target of vaccinating 70% of people worldwide is justified on equity grounds, we argue that this rationale is wrong for two reasons. First, mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns do not meet standard public health requirements for clear expected benefit, based on costs, disease burden and intervention effectiveness. Second, it constitutes a diversion of resources from more cost-effective and impactful public health programmes, thus reducing health equity. We conclude that the COVAX initiative warrants urgent review.

Identifiers

PMID37073303
PMCPMC10098302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.