Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38295111›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

Modeling geographic vaccination strategies for COVID-19 in Norway.

Louis Yat Hin Chan, Gunnar Rø, Jørgen Eriksson Midtbø, Francesco Di Ruscio, Sara Sofie Viksmoen Watle, Lene Kristine Juvet, Jasper Littmann, Preben Aavitsland, Karin Maria Nygård, Are Stuwitz Berg and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

19 authors.

Louis Yat Hin ChanDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-4689-6995
Gunnar RøDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Jørgen Eriksson MidtbøDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8321-2724
Francesco Di RuscioDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Sara Sofie Viksmoen WatleDepartment of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Lene Kristine JuvetDepartment of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3317-8203
Jasper LittmannDivision of Infection Control, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Preben AavitslandDivision of Infection Control, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Karin Maria NygårdDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Preparedness, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Are Stuwitz BergDepartment of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Geir BukholmDivision of Infection Control, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Anja Bråthen KristoffersenDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2313-9622
Kenth Engø-MonsenSmart Innovation Norway, Halden, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-1618-7597
Solveig EngebretsenSAMBA, Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7064-0869
David SwansonDepartment of Biostatistics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Alfonso Diz-Lois PalomaresDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Jonas Christoffer LindstrømDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Arnoldo FrigessiOslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Birgitte Freiesleben de BlasioDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination was a key intervention in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic globally. In early 2021, Norway faced significant regional variations in COVID-19 incidence and prevalence, with large differences in population density, necessitating efficient vaccine allocation to reduce infections and severe outcomes. This study explored alternative vaccination strategies to minimize health outcomes (infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, deaths) by varying regions prioritized, extra doses prioritized, and implementation start time. Using two models (individual-based and meta-population), we simulated COVID-19 transmission during the primary vaccination period in Norway, covering the first 7 months of 2021. We investigated alternative strategies to allocate more vaccine doses to regions with a higher force of infection. We also examined the robustness of our results and highlighted potential structural differences between the two models. Our findings suggest that early vaccine prioritization could reduce COVID-19 related health outcomes by 8% to 20% compared to a baseline strategy without geographic prioritization. For minimizing infections, hospitalizations, or ICU admissions, the best strategy was to initially allocate all available vaccine doses to fewer high-risk municipalities, comprising approximately one-fourth of the population. For minimizing deaths, a moderate level of geographic prioritization, with approximately one-third of the population receiving doubled doses, gave the best outcomes by balancing the trade-off between vaccinating younger people in high-risk areas and older people in low-risk areas. The actual strategy implemented in Norway was a two-step moderate level aimed at maintaining the balance and ensuring ethical considerations and public trust. However, it did not offer significant advantages over the baseline strategy without geographic prioritization. Earlier implementation of geographic prioritization could have more effectively addressed the main wave of infections, substantially reducing the national burden of the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAgedHumansNorwayPandemicsVaccinationVaccines

Identifiers

PMID38295111
PMCPMC10861074

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.