Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37547915›Full record

ArticlePublic health ethics2023

Can Geographically Targeted Vaccinations Be Ethically Justified? The Case of Norway During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Håkon Amdam, Ole Frithjof Norheim, Carl Tollef Solberg, Jasper R Littmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Håkon AmdamInfluenza Centre, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Ole Frithjof NorheimBergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting-BCEPS, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5748-5956
Carl Tollef SolbergCentre for Medical Ethics (CME), Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3321-3793
Jasper R LittmannBergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting-BCEPS, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6983-8755

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article discusses the fairness of geographically targeted vaccinations (GTVs). During the initial period of local and global vaccine scarcity, health authorities had to enact priority-setting strategies for mass vaccination campaigns against COVID-19. These strategies have in common that priority setting was based on personal characteristics, such as age, health status or profession. However, in 2021, an alternative to this strategy was employed in some countries, particularly Norway. In these countries, vaccine allocation was also based on the epidemiological situations in different regions, and vaccines were assigned based on local incidence rates. The aim of this article is to describe and examine how a geographical allocation mechanism may work by considering Norway as a case study and discuss what ethical issues may arise in this type of priority setting. We explain three core concepts: priority setting, geographical priority setting and GTVs. With a particular focus on Norway, we discuss the potential effects of GTV, the public perception of such a strategy, and if GTV can be considered a fair strategy. We conclude that the most reasonable defence of GTV seems to be through a consequentialist account that values both total health outcomes and more equal outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID37547915
PMCPMC10401490

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.