Abstract
Background Despite ongoing calls for more equity in the global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, there remains a great disparity between high- and low- or middle-income countries. Based on the principles of distributive justice, we assessed the public opinion on this issue in the United States and Germany as examples for high-income countries with a high potential for redistribution.
Methods We conducted representative surveys among the adult population in the United States (N=1,000) and Germany (N=1,003) in June 2021 using two instances of an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to elicit how the public weighs different principles and criteria according to which the vaccines should be allocated as well as discrete choice experiments to split a limited supply of vaccine doses between a hypothetical high-income and low-income country.
Findings In the first AHP, respondents in the United States and Germany gave weight to “medical urgency” by 37·4% (37·2-37·5) and 49·4% (49·2-49·5), “equal access for all” 32·7% (32·6-32·8) and 25·4% (25·2-25·5), “production contribution” 13·7% (13·6-13·8) and 13·3% (13·2-13·4), and “free market rules” 16·3% (16·2-16·4) and 12·0% (11·9-12·1), respectively. In the discrete choice experiment responds in the United States split available vaccine doses such that the low-income country on average received 53·9 percent (95% CI: 52·6-55·1). For Germany this number was 57·5 percent (95% CI: 56·3-58·7). The low-income country had three times as many inhabitants as the high-income country. When facing the dilemma where a vulnerable family member was waiting for a vaccine as opposed to when there was no clear self-interest, 20·7% (18·2-23·3) of respondents in the United States and 18·2% (15·8-20·6) in Germany reduced the amount they allocated to the low-income country
Interpretations The public in the United States and Germany favours utilitarian and egalitarian distribution principles of vaccines for COVID-19 over the currently prevailing libertarian or meritocratic principles. This implies that political approaches and decision favouring higher levels of redistribution would be supported by the public opinion in these two countries.
Funding German Research Foundation DFG RTG 1723.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
German Research Foundation DFG RTG 1723.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Ethical committee at the University of Goettingen, Germany.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Competing Interest Statement: Authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Data Availability
The data will be available after the successful dissemination of the study results.
Abbreviations
- AHP
- Analytical hierarchy process
- COVAX
- the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access program
- GDP
- Gross domestic product
- HICs
- High-income countries
- ICU
- Intensive care unit
- LMICs
- Low- and middle-income countries
- (OR)
- Odds ratio
- R&D
- Research and development
- SD
- Social desirability.
