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.

How should COVID-19 vaccines be distributed between the global north and south: a discrete choice experiment in six European countries / Steinert, Janina I.; Sternberg, Henrike; Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro; Büthe, Tim. - In: ELIFE. - ISSN 2050-084X. - 11:(2022), pp. e79819.1-e79819.19. [10.7554/eLife.79819]

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

Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro;
2022-01-01

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.
2022
Steinert, Janina I.; Sternberg, Henrike; Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro; Büthe, Tim
How should COVID-19 vaccines be distributed between the global north and south: a discrete choice experiment in six European countries / Steinert, Janina I.; Sternberg, Henrike; Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro; Büthe, Tim. - In: ELIFE. - ISSN 2050-084X. - 11:(2022), pp. e79819.1-e79819.19. [10.7554/eLife.79819]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
elife-79819.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (Publisher’s layout)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 921.79 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
921.79 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11572/355781
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact