How should COVID-19 vaccines be distributed between the global north and south: a discrete choice experiment in six european countries

  1. Janina I Steinert  Is a corresponding author
  2. Henrike Sternberg
  3. Giuseppe A Veltri
  4. Tim Büthe
  1. Technical University of Munich, Germany
  2. University of Trento, Italy

Abstract

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 regression.

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).

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are made publicly available via the Open Science Framework under the following link: https://osf.io/72jrq/

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Janina I Steinert

    TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    For correspondence
    janina.steinert@tum.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7120-0075
  2. Henrike Sternberg

    TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Giuseppe A Veltri

    Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9472-2236
  4. Tim Büthe

    TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4724-5000

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (No 101016233 (PERISCOPE))

  • Janina I Steinert
  • Giuseppe A Veltri

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Margaret Stanley, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Ethics

Human subjects: The study received approvals from the ethics committees of the medical faculty at the Technical University of Munich (TUM, IRB 227/20 S) and the ethics board at the University of Trento (Trento, IRB 2021-027). Participants were given an individual link to the survey, where they first received information about the study's purpose, data protection regulations, and voluntary participation. All participants provided written electronic consent to participate in the study prior to commencing the survey. Personally identifying information such as names and contact details were not collected and data is thus fully anonymised. After completing the survey, participants received a voucher worth three to five Euros, which was distributed by the survey company.

Version history

  1. Received: April 27, 2022
  2. Preprint posted: May 19, 2022 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: October 3, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: October 18, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: October 24, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Steinert et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 809
    views
  • 111
    downloads
  • 4
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Janina I Steinert
  2. Henrike Sternberg
  3. Giuseppe A Veltri
  4. Tim Büthe
(2022)
How should COVID-19 vaccines be distributed between the global north and south: a discrete choice experiment in six european countries
eLife 11:e79819.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79819

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79819

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Xiaoxin Yu, Roger S Zoh ... David B Allison
    Review Article

    We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.

    1. Ecology
    2. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Emilia Johnson, Reuben Sunil Kumar Sharma ... Kimberly Fornace
    Research Article

    Zoonotic disease dynamics in wildlife hosts are rarely quantified at macroecological scales due to the lack of systematic surveys. Non-human primates (NHPs) host Plasmodium knowlesi, a zoonotic malaria of public health concern and the main barrier to malaria elimination in Southeast Asia. Understanding of regional P. knowlesi infection dynamics in wildlife is limited. Here, we systematically assemble reports of NHP P. knowlesi and investigate geographic determinants of prevalence in reservoir species. Meta-analysis of 6322 NHPs from 148 sites reveals that prevalence is heterogeneous across Southeast Asia, with low overall prevalence and high estimates for Malaysian Borneo. We find that regions exhibiting higher prevalence in NHPs overlap with human infection hotspots. In wildlife and humans, parasite transmission is linked to land conversion and fragmentation. By assembling remote sensing data and fitting statistical models to prevalence at multiple spatial scales, we identify novel relationships between P. knowlesi in NHPs and forest fragmentation. This suggests that higher prevalence may be contingent on habitat complexity, which would begin to explain observed geographic variation in parasite burden. These findings address critical gaps in understanding regional P. knowlesi epidemiology and indicate that prevalence in simian reservoirs may be a key spatial driver of human spillover risk.