Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40351752›Full record

ArticleGlobal bioethics = Problemi di bioetica2025

What vaccine inequity has taught us: a way forward through the lens of ideal and non-ideal theory.

Florencia Luna, Felicitas Holzer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica, 2025. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Florencia LunaBioethics Program FLACSO Argentina and CONICET Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8865-2756
Felicitas HolzerInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3674-0241

Funding

Training Program in Research Ethics in the AmericasR25TW001605 · FIC · YESHIVA UNIVERSITY · PI LUNA, FLORENCIA · 2000 to 2025
$6.7M
FIC NIH HHS R25 TW001605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The equitable distribution of vaccines has emerged as a major issue in pandemic treaty negotiations following the COVID-19 pandemic. Failures in global procurement and distribution have been attributed to ineffective allocation mechanisms and a general lack of cooperation. More than four years after the onset of the pandemic, this article presents a perspective on how to achieve a more equitable global allocation of medical supplies for future pandemics, drawing on the distinction between "ideal" and "non-ideal" schemes of cooperation. We will consider two perspectives: first, improving solutions under current, non-ideal circumstances where non-cooperation dominates in the short and medium term, given the challenges of an uncooperative international landscape; and second, implementing long-term policies that aim at ideal proposals, assuming an increased level of cooperation in the future. This evaluation will address the past successes and shortcomings of the COVAX facility, and also the negotiations on a pandemic treaty led by the World Health Organizations, to better address future pandemics. We will discuss key issues that ought to be of central concern when moving towards more cooperative solutions in the future.

Indexed as

COVAXideal and non-ideal theorypandemic treatyvaccine allocationVaccine equity

Identifiers

PMID40351752
PMCPMC12064108

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.