The CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool for National Immunization Programs

Accelerating access for all through research and innovation in immunization: Recommendations from Strategic Priority 7 of the Immunization Agenda 2030

Research and innovation have been fundamental to many of the successes in immunization thus far, and will play important roles in the future success of Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030). Strategic Priority 7 (SP7) of IA2030, which addresses research and innovation, is explicitly informed by country needs and priorities, and aims to strengthen the innovation ecosystem through capacity building and collaboration at country, regional, and global levels. SP7 identifies four key focus areas: (1) "needs-based innovation", (2) "new and improved products, services, and practices", (3) "evidence for implementation", and (4) "local capacity". Strategic interventions in these key focus areas apply the lessons of the Global Vaccine Action Plan and the "Decade of Vaccines" to emphasize local innovation, promote the use of research by countries to improve program performance and impact, and encourage capacity building for the development and implementation of innovations. The proposed approach will maintain a focus on the development of new vaccines and the improvement of existing vaccines, and increase attention to innovation in service delivery. Monitoring and evaluation will foster evidence-based priority setting at the country level and help to ground the global research and development (R&D) agenda in the needs of communities. Together, these approaches are intended to harness the power of research and innovation more effectively, to meet the challenges of the future and achieve the ambitious goals of IA2030.

National Immunization Program Decision Making Using the CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool: User Feedback from Indonesia and Ethiopia

To ensure that limited domestic resources are invested in the most effective interventions, immunization programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) must prioritize a growing number of new vaccines while considering opportunities to optimize the vaccine portfolio, as well as other components of the health system. There is a strong impetus for immunization decision-making to engage and coordinate various stakeholders across the health system in prioritization. To address this, national immunization program decision-makers in LMICs collaborated with WHO to structure deliberation among stakeholders and document an evidence-based, context-specific, and transparent process for prioritization or selection among multiple vaccination products, services, or strategies. The output of this effort is the Country-led Assessment for Prioritization on Immunization (CAPACITI) decision-support tool, which supports using multiple criteria and stakeholder perspectives to evaluate trade-offs affecting health interventions, taking into account variable data quality. Here, we describe the user feedback from Indonesia and Ethiopia, two initial countries that piloted the CAPACITI decision-support tool, highlighting enabling and constraining factors. Potential immunization program benefits and lessons learned are also summarized for consideration in other settings.

A Practical Guide to Full Value of Vaccine Assessments

Articulating the wide range of health, social and economic benefits that vaccines offer may help to overcome obstacles in the vaccine development pipeline. A framework to guide the assessment and communication of the value of a vaccine-the Full Value of Vaccine Assessment (FVVA)-has been developed by the WHO. The FVVA framework offers a holistic assessment of the value of vaccines, providing a synthesis of evidence to inform the public health need of a vaccine, describing the supply and demand aspects, its market and its impact from a health, financial and economic perspective. This paper provides a practical guide to how FVVAs are developed and used to support investment in vaccines, ultimately leading to sustained implementation in countries. The FVVA includes a range of elements that can be broadly categorised as synthesis, vaccine development narrative and defining vaccine impact and value. Depending on the features of the disease/vaccine in question, different elements may be emphasised; however, a standardised set of elements is recommended for each FVVA. The FVVA should be developed by an expert group who represent a range of stakeholders, perspectives and geographies and ensure a fair, coherent and evidence-based assessment of vaccine value.

The Full Value of Vaccine Assessments (FVVA): a framework for assessing and communicating the value of vaccines for investment and introduction decision-making

BACKGROUND

Several economic obstacles can deter the development and use of vaccines. This can lead to limited product options for some diseases, delays in new product development, and inequitable access to vaccines. Although seemingly distinct, these obstacles are actually interrelated and therefore need to be addressed through a single over-arching strategy encompassing all stakeholders.

METHODS

To help overcome these obstacles, we propose a new approach, the Full Value of Vaccines Assessments (FVVA) framework, to guide the assessment and communication of the value of a vaccine. The FVVA framework is designed to facilitate alignment across key stakeholders and to enhance decision-making around investment in vaccine development, policy-making, procurement, and introduction, particularly for vaccines intended for use in low- and middle-income countries.

RESULTS

The FVVA framework has three key elements. First, to enhance assessment, existing value-assessment methods and tools are adapted to include broader benefits of vaccines as well as opportunity costs borne by stakeholders. Second, to improve decision-making, a deliberative process is required to recognize the agency of stakeholders and to ensure country ownership of decision-making and priority setting. Third, the FVVA framework provides a consistent and evidence-based approach that facilitates communication about the full value of vaccines, helping to enhance alignment and coordination across diverse stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

The FVVA framework provides guidance for stakeholders organizing global-level efforts to promote investment in vaccines that are priorities for LMICs. By providing a more holistic view of the benefits of vaccines, its application also has the potential to encourage greater take-up by countries, thereby leading to more sustainable and equitable impacts of vaccines and immunization programmes.

Systematic review of MCDM approach applied to the medical case studies of COVID-19: trends, bibliographic analysis, challenges, motivations, recommendations, and future directions

When COVID-19 spread in China in December 2019, thousands of studies have focused on this pandemic. Each presents a unique perspective that reflects the pandemic's main scientific disciplines. For example, social scientists are concerned with reducing the psychological impact on the human mental state especially during lockdown periods. Computer scientists focus on establishing fast and accurate computerized tools to assist in diagnosing, preventing, and recovering from the disease. Medical scientists and doctors, or the frontliners, are the main heroes who received, treated, and worked with the millions of cases at the expense of their own health. Some of them have continued to work even at the expense of their lives. All these studies enforce the multidisciplinary work where scientists from different academic disciplines (social, environmental, technological, etc.) join forces to produce research for beneficial outcomes during the crisis. One of the many branches is computer science along with its various technologies, including artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, big data, decision support systems (DSS), and many more. Among the most notable DSS utilization is those related to multicriterion decision making (MCDM), which is applied in various applications and across many contexts, including business, social, technological and medical. Owing to its importance in developing proper decision regimens and prevention strategies with precise judgment, it is deemed a noteworthy topic of extensive exploration, especially in the context of COVID-19-related medical applications. The present study is a comprehensive review of COVID-19-related medical case studies with MCDM using a systematic review protocol. PRISMA methodology is utilized to obtain a final set of (n = 35) articles from four major scientific databases (ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science). The final set of articles is categorized into taxonomy comprising five groups: (1) diagnosis (n = 6), (2) safety (n = 11), (3) hospital (n = 8), (4) treatment (n = 4), and (5) review (n = 3). A bibliographic analysis is also presented on the basis of annual scientific production, country scientific production, co-occurrence, and co-authorship. A comprehensive discussion is also presented to discuss the main challenges, motivations, and recommendations in using MCDM research in COVID-19-related medial case studies. Lastly, we identify critical research gaps with their corresponding solutions and detailed methodologies to serve as a guide for future directions. In conclusion, MCDM can be utilized in the medical field effectively to optimize the resources and make the best choices particularly during pandemics and natural disasters.

COVID-19 vaccine policy development in a sample of 44 countries - Key findings from a December 2021 survey of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs)

National Immunization Technical Advisory Committees (NITAGs) are tasked with the responsibility of guiding ministries of health and national immunization programmes in their policy development processes. Many NITAGs rely on evidence reviewed by the World Health Organization's (WHO) Strategic Group of Experts(SAGE) on immunization and aim to adapt WHO's recommendations to their respective contexts. This relationship took on exceptional importance since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which NITAGs have expressed a notable struggle to craft appropriate policies on population prioritization and vaccine utilization in the face of supply constraints and complex programmatic and delivery logistics. This online survey was conducted to assess the usefulness of the SAGE guidance documents for COVID-19 vaccine policies and to examine the persisting needs and challenges facing NITAGs. Results confirmed that SAGE recommendations concerning COVID-19 vaccines are easy to access, understand, and adapt. They have been found to be comprehensive and timely under the data and time constrained circumstances confronting SAGE. The Global NITAG Network (GNN) appears to be the most popular vehicle for addressing questions among high income countries, in contrast to lower income countries who favour WHO Country or Regional Offices. NITAGs place much value on interaction with other NITAGs, which requires facilitation and could benefit from increased opportunities, especially within regions. It is further noted that some NITAGs have had to tackle issues during the pandemic not typically considered by SAGE, such as supply chain logistics and vaccine demand. Learning from the COVID-19 experience offers opportunities to strengthen NITAGs and the pandemic recovery effort through the development of more concrete procedures and consideration of more varied types of data, including implementation effectiveness and uptake data. There is also an opportunity for an increasing involvement of Country Office WHO personnel to support NITAGs, while ensuring information and evidence needs of countries are adequately reflected in SAGE deliberations.

Country score tool to assess readiness and guide evidence generation of immunization programs in aging adults in Europe

Objectives

Delaying of policies for immunization of aging adults, low vaccine uptake, and the lack of supportive evidence at the national level could diminish the value in health and economics of such programs. This study aims to develop a "country score tool" to assess readiness and to facilitate evidence generation for aging adult immunization programs in Europe, and examine the comprehensiveness, relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of the tool.

Methods

The tool was developed in two phases. First, a modified Delphi process was used to construct the tool. The process included a literature review, stakeholder consultations, and a three-round Delphi study. The Delphi panel included researchers, supra-national and national decision-makers of immunization programs recruited from five countries, using snowball sampling method. The consensus was predefined at the agreement rate of 70%. Pilot testing of the tool was conducted in the Netherlands, Germany, Serbia, and Hungary involving researchers in the field of health technology assessment. After assessing the countries' readiness, researchers evaluated four features, namely comprehensiveness, relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of the tool via an online survey that included 5-scale Likert questions. The percentages of affirmative answers including "agree" and "totally agree" choices were presented.

Results

The review identified 16 tools and frameworks that formed the first version of our tool with 14 items. Eight experts were involved in the Delphi panel. Through three Delphi rounds, four items were added, one was dropped, and all others were amended. The consensus was achieved on the tool with 17 items divided into decision-making and implementation parts. Each item has a guiding question, corresponding to explanations and rationales to inform assessment with readiness scores. Eight researchers completed the pilot testing. The tool was rated as comprehensive (75%), relevant (100%), acceptable (75%), and feasible (88%) by participants.

Conclusion

Through a thorough and transparent process, a country score tool was developed helping to identify strengths, weaknesses, and evidential requirements for decision-making and implementation of immunization programs of aging adults. The tool is relevant for different European contexts and shows good comprehensiveness, acceptability, and feasibility.

Priority setting of vaccine introduction in Bangladesh: a multicriteria decision analysis study

OBJECTIVE

To prioritise vaccines for introduction in Bangladesh.

METHODS

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) process was used to prioritise potential vaccines for introduction in Bangladesh. A set of criteria were identified, weighted and assigned scores by relevant stakeholders (n=14) during workshop A. The performance matrix of the data of vaccines against the criteria set was constructed and validated with the experts (n=6) in workshop B. The vaccines were ranked and appraised by another group of stakeholders (n=10) in workshop C, and the final workshop D involved the dissemination of the findings to decision-makers (n=28).

RESULTS

Five criteria including incidence rate, case fatality rate, vaccine efficacy, size of the population at risk and type of population at risk were used quantitatively to evaluate and to score the vaccines. Two other criteria, cost-effectiveness and outbreak potentiality, were considered qualitatively. On deliberation, the Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccine was ranked top to be recommended for introduction in Bangladesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the MCDA results, JE vaccine is planned to be recommended to the decision-makers for introduction into the national vaccine benefit package. The policymakers support the use of systematic evidence-based decision-making processes such as MCDA for vaccine introduction in Bangladesh, and to prioritise health interventions in the country.

What Drives the Value of a Shigella Vaccine?

The development and licensure of a safe and highly efficacious Shigella vaccine has been a priority in international public health circles for decades and would represent a great scientific achievement. Nonetheless, in the context of increasingly crowded and costly childhood immunization programs, and with a myriad of other new and improved vaccines currently or soon on the market, there is no guarantee that even a highly effective Shigella vaccine would become a priority for adoption and introduction by the low- and middle-income countries that could benefit from it the most. We discuss here some of the major determinants and questions regarding the introduction of Shigella vaccines and the importance of developing a succinct, compelling public health value proposition.