How should COVID-19 vaccines be distributed between the Global North and South: a discrete choice experiment in six European countries.
covid-19
epidemiology
global health
health equity
vaccination
viruses
Journal
eLife
ISSN: 2050-084X
Titre abrégé: Elife
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101579614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 10 2022
18 10 2022
Historique:
received:
27
04
2022
accepted:
03
10
2022
pubmed:
19
10
2022
medline:
27
10
2022
entrez:
18
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The global distribution of COVID-19 vaccinations remains highly unequal. We examine public preferences in six European countries regarding the allocation of COVID-19 vaccines between the Global South and Global North. We conducted online discrete choice experiments with adult participants in France (n=766), Germany (n=1964), Italy (n=767), Poland (n=670), Spain (n=925), and Sweden (n=938). Respondents were asked to decide which one of two candidates should receive the vaccine first. The candidates varied on four attributes: age, mortality risk, employment, and living in a low- or high-income country. We analysed the relevance of each attribute in allocation decisions using conditional logit regressions. In all six countries, respondents prioritised candidates with a high mortality and infection risk, irrespective of whether the candidate lived in the respondent's own country. All else equal, respondents in Italy, France, Spain, and Sweden gave priority to a candidate from a low-income country, whereas German respondents were significantly more likely to choose the candidate from their own country. Female, younger, and more educated respondents were more favourable to an equitable vaccine distribution. Given these preferences for global solidarity, European governments should promote vaccine transfers to poorer world regions. Funding was provided by the European Union's Horizon H2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 101016233 (PERISCOPE).
Sections du résumé
Background
The global distribution of COVID-19 vaccinations remains highly unequal. We examine public preferences in six European countries regarding the allocation of COVID-19 vaccines between the Global South and Global North.
Methods
We conducted online discrete choice experiments with adult participants in France (n=766), Germany (n=1964), Italy (n=767), Poland (n=670), Spain (n=925), and Sweden (n=938). Respondents were asked to decide which one of two candidates should receive the vaccine first. The candidates varied on four attributes: age, mortality risk, employment, and living in a low- or high-income country. We analysed the relevance of each attribute in allocation decisions using conditional logit regressions.
Results
In all six countries, respondents prioritised candidates with a high mortality and infection risk, irrespective of whether the candidate lived in the respondent's own country. All else equal, respondents in Italy, France, Spain, and Sweden gave priority to a candidate from a low-income country, whereas German respondents were significantly more likely to choose the candidate from their own country. Female, younger, and more educated respondents were more favourable to an equitable vaccine distribution.
Conclusions
Given these preferences for global solidarity, European governments should promote vaccine transfers to poorer world regions.
Funding
Funding was provided by the European Union's Horizon H2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 101016233 (PERISCOPE).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36254593
doi: 10.7554/eLife.79819
pii: 79819
pmc: PMC9592081
doi:
pii:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2022, Steinert, Sternberg et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
JS, HS, GV, TB No competing interests declared
Références
Health Policy Plan. 2009 Mar;24(2):151-8
pubmed: 19112071
Science. 2021 Sep 24;373(6562):eabj7364
pubmed: 34404735
Nature. 2007 Apr 12;446(7137):794-6
pubmed: 17429399
Nature. 2002 Jan 10;415(6868):137-40
pubmed: 11805825
Nature. 2006 Aug 24;442(7105):912-5
pubmed: 16929297
Vaccine. 2021 Apr 22;39(17):2452-2457
pubmed: 33745729
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):3-13
pubmed: 23337210
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Sep 21;118(38):
pubmed: 34526400
BMJ. 2021 Jan 5;372:m4853
pubmed: 33402340
BMC Public Health. 2021 Mar 5;21(1):447
pubmed: 33673813
N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 8;384(14):1281-1283
pubmed: 33830709
Nat Med. 2021 Jun;27(6):935-936
pubmed: 33785911
Science. 2021 Apr 23;372(6540):363-370
pubmed: 33688062
Virulence. 2021 Dec;12(1):507-508
pubmed: 33494661
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jul;6(7):
pubmed: 34210689
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 1;4(4):e217943
pubmed: 33835172
BMC Public Health. 2013 Mar 25;13:271
pubmed: 23530550
Policy Sci. 2021;54(3):493-506
pubmed: 34393278
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33025
pubmed: 22412979
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Sep 1;3(9):e2023020
pubmed: 32990736
Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397(10278):1023-1034
pubmed: 33587887
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Jul;5(7):947-953
pubmed: 33972767
Patient. 2015 Oct;8(5):373-84
pubmed: 25726010
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016 Nov;145(11):1448-1459
pubmed: 27632379
Rand Health Q. 2022 Aug 31;9(4):1
pubmed: 36238007
BMJ. 2021 May 17;373:n1249
pubmed: 34001498
Lancet. 2021 Oct 9;398(10308):1377-1380
pubmed: 34534516
Schweiz Z Polit. 2021 Jun;27(2):297-310
pubmed: 35923368
Nature. 2021 Aug;596(7873):495-504
pubmed: 34237771
J Med Ethics. 2021 May 10;:
pubmed: 33972372
Sci Adv. 2022 Apr 29;8(17):eabm9825
pubmed: 35476432
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jun;6(6):
pubmed: 34919057