Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37579373›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2023

Coercion and Its Discontents: The Promise and Peril of Increasingly Restrictive of Vaccination Mandates Comment on "Convergence on Coercion: Functional and Political Pressures as Drivers of Global Childhood Vaccine Mandates".

James Colgrove

Open access · diamondAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Kenyans' Perceptions of the Risks of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Scoping Review.Pan-African journal of health and environmental science · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

James ColgroveDepartment of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-6684-0469
Columbia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attwell and Hannah present a cogent analysis of why policy-makers in four jurisdictions chose to use coercive approaches to increase vaccination rates between 2015 and 2017. Their study calls attention to the challenging political calculations that are necessary when choosing between coercion and persuasion to increase vaccine uptake. Further research is needed on the consequences of making a mandatory vaccination policy more restrictive, in order to better understand the backlash and resistance such a strategy may provoke. Although one reason that policy-makers may choose a coercive approach is that it is cheaper and easier to implement than a persuasive one, sociopolitical trends and backlash related to the COVID-19 pandemic may make coercive policies more politically risky in the coming years.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesChildCoercionHealth PolicyHumansPandemicsVaccinationVaccinesEthicsImmunizationPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID37579373
PMCPMC10461901
OpenAlexW4380265181

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.