You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Brief report
Allocation of COVID-19 vaccination: when public prioritisation preferences differ from official regulations
  1. Philipp Sprengholz1,
  2. Lars Korn1,2,
  3. Sarah Eitze1,2,
  4. Cornelia Betsch1,2
  1. 1 Media and Communication Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany
  2. 2 Center for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioral Sciences, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Philipp Sprengholz, Media and Communication Science, University of Erfurt, 99089 Erfurt, Germany; philipp.sprengholz{at}uni-erfurt.de

Abstract

As vaccines against COVID-19 are scarce, many countries have developed vaccination prioritisation strategies focusing on ethical and epidemiological considerations. However, public acceptance of such strategies should be monitored to ensure successful implementation. In an experiment with N=1379 German participants, we investigated whether the public’s vaccination allocation preferences matched the prioritisation strategy approved by the German government. Results revealed different allocations. While the government had top-prioritised vulnerable people (being of high age or accommodated in nursing homes for the elderly), participants preferred exclusive allocation of the first available vaccines to medical staff and personnel caring for the elderly. Interestingly, allocation preferences did not change when participants were told how many individuals were included in each group. As differences between allocation policies and public preferences can affect trust in the government and threaten the social contract between generations, we discuss possible strategies to align vaccination prioritisations.

  • COVID-19
  • resource allocation
  • public health ethics

Data availability statement

Materials, data, and data analysis scripts are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CKHBA.

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107339

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Materials, data, and data analysis scripts are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CKHBA.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors PS, LK, SE and CB designed the research. PS, LK and SE performed the research. PS planned and performed data analysis. PS wrote the initial draft, which was revised and approved by all authors.

    • Funding This work was supported by German Research Foundation (BE3970/12-1), Federal Centre for Health Education, Robert Koch Institute, Leibniz Institute of Psychology, Klaus Tschira Foundation, Thüringer Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und digitale Gesellschaft, Thüringer Staatskanzlei and University of Erfurt (no award/grant numbers).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Other content recommended for you