Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37940159›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

What are effective vaccine distribution approaches for equity-deserving and high-risk populations during COVID-19? Exploring best practices and recommendations in Canada: protocol for a mixed-methods multiple case codesign study.

Monica Aggarwal, Alan Katz, Kristina Marie Kokorelias, Sabrina T Wong, Fariba Aghajafari, Noah M Ivers, Ruth Martin-Misener, Kris Aubrey-Bassler, Mylaine Breton, Ross E G Upshur and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. 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. Review
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

11 authors.

Monica AggarwalDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada monica.aggarwal@utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8455-0058
Alan KatzDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8280-7024
Kristina Marie KokoreliasRehabiliation Sciences Institute, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1277-472X
Sabrina T WongCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9619-9012
Fariba AghajafariFamily Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Noah M IversDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ruth Martin-MisenerSchool of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4554-7635
Kris Aubrey-BasslerPrimary Healthcare Research Unit, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8680-6838
Mylaine BretonDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5713-9618
Ross E G UpshurDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jeffrey C KwongDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7820-2046

Funding

CIHR 477174
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe WHO has stated that vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to overcoming COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy among underserved and at-risk communities is an ongoing challenge in Canada. Public confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness and the principles of equity need to be considered in vaccine distribution. In Canada, governments of each province or territory manage their own healthcare system, providing an opportunity to compare and contrast distribution strategies. The overarching objective of this study is to identify effective vaccine distribution approaches and advance knowledge on how to design and implement various strategies to meet the different needs of underserved communities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multiple case studies in seven Canadian provinces will be conducted using a mixed-methods design. The study will be informed by Experience-Based CoDesign techniques and theoretically guided by the Socio-Ecological Model and the Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix frameworks. Phase 1 will involve a policy document review to systematically explore the vaccine distribution strategy over time in each jurisdiction. This will inform the second phase, which will involve (2a) semistructured, in-depth interviews with policymakers, public health officials, researchers, providers, groups representing patients, researchers and stakeholders and (2b) an analysis of population-based administrative health data of vaccine administration. Integration of qualitative and quantitative data will inform the identification of effective vaccine distribution approaches for various populations. Informed by this evidence, phase 3 of the study will involve conducting focus groups with multiple stakeholders to codesign recommendations for the design and implementation of effective vaccine delivery strategies for equity-deserving and at-risk populations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the University of Toronto's Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (#42643), University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (#H22-01750-A002), Research Ethics Board of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (#48272), Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research Ethics Board (#2022.126), Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board, University of Calgary (REB22-0207), and University of Manitoba Health Research Board (H2022-239). The outcome of this study will be to produce a series of recommendations for implementing future vaccine distribution approaches from the perspective of various stakeholders, including equity-deserving and at-risk populations.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesCanadaForecastingHumansNova ScotiaResearch DesignVaccinesCOVID-19Health policyPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID37940159
PMCPMC10632871

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.