ArticleHeliyon2024
A solution towards a viable compensation mechanism for injury from COVID-19 vaccines in Malaysia: A qualitative study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It has been established that the existing compensation mechanism is not the favoured platform for vaccine recipients with Adverse Effects Following Immunisation (AEFI). With the mass production of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, intensified by the mandatory National COVID-19 Immunisation Programme in Malaysia, an alternative resolution mechanism for compensation is long overdue. This qualitative study aims to propose a viable alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism for those who suffer AEFI from COVID-19 vaccination, particularly the economically disadvantaged, older people, and disabled individuals in Malaysia. Methods: The researchers conducted an in-depth focus group discussion in September 2022 involving seven participants representing key stakeholders in vaccine compensations from governmental agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and private institutions who were experts in litigation and legislation, consumer protection, and medical practices in Malaysia. The study utilised ATLAS.ti 22 to conduct a thematic analysis. Findings: The analysis yielded three themes: existing mechanisms and their challenges, the role of ADR, and the solution for a vaccine injury compensation mechanism. The participants shared their knowledge and experience regarding the existing vaccine compensation mechanisms in Malaysia, i.e. the common law of Tort and Consumer Protection Act 1999, and explained how each mechanism relates to specific challenges or arguments that provide the basis on which they are unable to accord fair compensation to the vaccine recipients. The participants debated the merits and disadvantages of the types of ADR for AEFI and unanimously proposed a specific healthcare centre for compensation (SHCC) as the most viable compensation mechanism for AEFI. Conclusion: SHCC offers a new ADR to serve as a compensation mechanism for claimants affected by the COVID-19 vaccines while also contributing to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 16: peace, justice, and strong institutions.
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.