Evidence mapPaperPMID 34138458Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2021

A Net Benefit Approach for the Optimal Allocation of a COVID-19 Vaccine.

Erin Kirwin, Ellen Rafferty, Kate Harback, Jeff Round, Christopher McCabe

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Quantifying the economic gains associated with COVID-19 vaccination in the Canadian population: A cost-benefit analysis.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2023
    Article
  13. Relative pandemic severity in Canada and four peer nations during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Vaccine and inclusion.Journal of public economic theory · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Erin KirwinInstitute of Health Economics, #1200, 10405 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T5J 3N4, Canada. EKirwin@ihe.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-6957-7236
Ellen RaffertyInstitute of Health Economics, #1200, 10405 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T5J 3N4, Canada.
Kate HarbackInstitute of Health Economics, #1200, 10405 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T5J 3N4, Canada.
Jeff RoundInstitute of Health Economics, #1200, 10405 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T5J 3N4, Canada.
Christopher McCabeInstitute of Health Economics, #1200, 10405 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T5J 3N4, Canada.
Institute of Health Economics · CAUniversity of Alberta · CAManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

Government of Alberta Grant #008491 2018-21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to implement a model-based approach to identify the optimal allocation of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine in the province of Alberta, Canada.

methodsWe developed an epidemiologic model to evaluate allocation strategies defined by age and risk target groups, coverage, effectiveness and cost of vaccine. The model simulated hypothetical immunisation scenarios within a dynamic context, capturing concurrent public health strategies and population behavioural changes.

resultsIn a scenario with 80% vaccine effectiveness, 40% population coverage and prioritisation of those over the age of 60 years at high risk of poor outcomes, active cases are reduced by 17% and net monetary benefit increased by $263 million dollars, relative to no vaccine. Concurrent implementation of policies such as school closure and senior contact reductions have similar impacts on incremental net monetary benefit ($352 vs $292 million, respectively) when there is no prioritisation given to any age or risk group. When older age groups are given priority, the relative benefit of school closures is much larger ($214 vs $118 million). Results demonstrate that the rank ordering of different prioritisation options varies by prioritisation criteria, vaccine effectiveness and coverage, and concurrently implemented policies.

conclusionsOur results have three implications: (i) optimal vaccine allocation will depend on the public health policies in place at the time of allocation and the impact of those policies on population behaviour; (ii) outcomes of vaccine allocation policies can be greatly supported with interventions targeting contact reduction in critical sub-populations; and (iii) identification of the optimal strategy depends on which outcomes are prioritised.

Indexed as

AgedAlbertaCost-Benefit AnalysisCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansMiddle AgedPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID34138458
PMCPMC8209775
OpenAlexW3171952049

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.