The need for sustainability and alignment of future support for National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in low and middle-income countries

The role of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups in advising COVID-19 immunization policy during the pandemic: lessons from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

A National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) is a multi-disciplinary body of experts that provides evidence-based recommendations on immunizations to policy-makers to assist them in making immunization policy and program decisions. NITAGs faced challenges in making evidence-based recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the new vaccine products available in a short time period and limited available data on vaccine effectiveness and vaccine safety. The authors reviewed the process used by the NITAG in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, called the expert body, to develop COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. The article reviews the evidence that was considered by the expert body when developing 23 recommendations on COVID-19 vaccination and describes the challenges and successes faced by the body. The expert body recommendations led to the successful roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines and provided guidance for COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic. The expert body plans to improve its work and procedures for developing routine immunization recommendations with the support of the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

Functionality of technical working groups in enabling evidence-informed decision-making within Malawi's Ministry of Health: a cross-sectional qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The roles and functionality of technical working groups (TWGs) in the health sectors vary across countries, still they aim to support government and ministries in formulating evidence-informed recommendations for policies and facilitate dialogue and alignment of activities among stakeholders within the health sector. Thus, TWGs have a role in enhancing the functionality and effectiveness of the health system structure. However, in Malawi, the functionality of TWGs and how they utilize research evidence to contribute to decision-making is not monitored. This study sought to understand the TWGs' performance and functionality in enabling evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in Malawi's health sector.

METHODS

A cross-sectional descriptive qualitative study. Data were collected through interviews, documents review and observation of three TWG meetings. Qualitative data were analysed using a thematic approach. The WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Form (JRF) was used to guide the assessment of TWG functionality.

RESULTS

TWG functionality varied in the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Malawi. The reasons for those perceived to be functioning well included meeting frequently, diverse representation of members, and that their recommendations to MoH were usually considered when decisions were made. For the TWGs that were perceived as not functioning well, the main reasons included lack of funding, periodic meetings and discussions that needed to provide clear decisions on the actions to be taken. In addition, evidence was recognized as important in decision-making, and research was valued by decision-makers within the MoH. However, some of the TWGs lacked reliable mechanisms for generating, accessing and synthesizing research. They also needed more capacity to review and use the research to inform their decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

TWGs are highly valued and play a critical role in strengthening EIDM within the MoH. Our paper highlights the complexity and barriers of TWG functionality in supporting pathways for health policy-making in Malawi. These results have implications for EIDM in the health sector. This suggests that the MoH should actively develop reliable interventions and evidence tools, strengthen capacity-building and increase funding for EIDM.

Building and sustaining public and political commitment to the value of vaccination: Recommendations for the Immunization Agenda 2030 (Strategic Priority Area 2)

Vaccines have contributed to substantial improvements in health and social development outcomes for millions in recent decades. However, equitable access to immunization remains a critical challenge that has stalled progress toward improving several health indicators around the world. The COVID-19 pandemic has also negatively impacted routine immunization services around the world further threatening universal access to the benefits of lifesaving vaccines. To overcome these challenges, the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) focuses on increasing both commitment and demand for vaccines. There are three broad barriers that will need to be addressed in order to achieve national and subnational immunization targets: (1) shifting leadership priorities and resource constraints, (2) visibility of disease burden, and (3) social and behavioral drivers. IA2030 proposes a set of interventions to address these barriers. First, efforts to ensure government engagement on immunization financing, regulatory, and legislative frameworks. Next, those in subnational leadership positions and local community members need to be further engaged to ensure local commitment and demand. Governance structures and health agencies must accept responsibility and be held accountable for delivering inclusive, quality, and accessible services and for achieving national targets. Further, the availability of quality immunization services and commitment to adequate financing and resourcing must go hand-in-hand with public health programs to increase access to and demand for vaccination. Last, strengthening trust in immunization systems and improving individual and program resilience can help mitigate the risk of vaccine confidence crises. These interventions together can help ensure a world where everyone, everywhere has access to and uses vaccines for lifesaving vaccination.

Health actor approaches to financing universal coverage strategies for pneumococcal and rotavirus immunisation programmes in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Sustainable financing of immunisation programmes is an important step towards universal coverage of life-saving vaccines. Yet, financing mechanisms for health programmes could have consequences on the design of universal approaches to immunisation coverage. Effective implementation of immunisation interventions necessitates investigating the roles of institutions and power on interventions. This review aims to understand how sustainable financing and equitable immunisation are conceptualised by health actors like Gavi, and government-related entities across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and how financing mechanisms can affect universal coverage of vaccines.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study protocol outline a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and the grey literature, using established methodological framework for scoping review. Literature will be identified through a comprehensive search of multiple databases and grey literature. All peer-reviewed implementation research studies from the year 2002 addressing financing and universal coverage of immunisation programmes for the pneumococcal conjugated vaccine and rotavirus vaccines immunisation interventions will be included and grey literature published in/after the year 2015. For the study scope, population, concept and context are defined: Population as international and national health stakeholders financing immunisation programmes; Concept as implementation research on pneumococcal conjugate and rotavirus vaccination interventions; and Context as LMICs. Findings will be quantitatively summarised to provide an overview and narratively synthesised and analysed. Studies that do not use implementation research approaches, frameworks or models will be excluded.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. Findings and recommendations will be presented to implementation researchers and health stakeholders.

SMART Vaccines 2.0 decision-support platform: a tool to facilitate and promote priority setting for sustainable vaccination in resource-limited settings

In resource-constrained environments, priority setting is critical to making sustainable decisions for introducing new and underused vaccines and choosing among vaccine products. Donor organisations and national governments in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) recognise the need to support prioritisation of vaccine decisions driven by local health system capacity, epidemiology and financial sustainability.

Successful efforts have supported the establishment of National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) to undertake evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) in LMICs. Now, attention is increasingly focused on supporting their function to leverage local expertise and priorities. EIDM and priority-setting functions are complex and dynamic processes. Here, we report a pilot of a web-based decision-support tool. Applying tenets of multicriteria decision analysis, SMART Vaccines 2.0 supported transparent, reproducible and evidence-informed priority setting with an easy-to-use interface and shareable outputs.

The pilot was run by the Uganda NITAG who were requested by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in 2016 to produce recommendations on the prioritised introduction of five new vaccines. The tool was acceptable to the NITAG and supported their recommendations to the MOH. The tool highlighted sensitivity in the prioritisation process to the inherent biases of different stakeholders. This feature also enabled examination of the implications of data uncertainty. Feedback from users identified areas where the tool could more explicitly support evidence-to-recommendation frameworks, ultimately informing the next generation of the platform, PriorityVax.

Country ownership and priority setting in vaccine decisions are central to sustainability. PriorityVax promotes auditable and rigorous deliberations; enables and captures the decision matrix of users; and generates shareable documentation of the process.

Evidence-informed vaccination decision-making in countries: Progress, challenges and opportunities

Countries face an increasingly complex vaccination landscape. As well as ever-changing infectious disease epidemiology, the number and diversity of vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccine products, and vaccine technologies continue to increase. To ensure that vaccination decision-making is transparent, country-owned and informed by sound scientific evidence, many countries have established national immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) to provide independent expert advice. The past decade has seen substantial growth in NITAG numbers and functionality, and there is now a need to consolidate this progress, by further capacity building, to ensure that NITAGs are responsive to the changing face of immunization over the next decade.

Strengthening National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups in resource-limited settings: current and potential linkages with polio national certification committees

Background

Countries are transitioning assets and functions from polio eradication to integrated immunization and surveillance activities. We assessed the extent of linkages between and perceptions of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) and National Certification Committees (NCCs) for polio eradication to understand how linkages can be leveraged to improve efficiencies of these expert bodies.

Methods

During May 2017 to May 2018, we administered a 15-question survey to a NITAG chair or member and an NCC counterpart in all countries of the WHO Regions for Africa (AFR) and for the Eastern Mediterranean (EMR) that had both a NITAG and an NCC. Data were analysed using frequency distributions.

Results

Of countries with both a NITAG and an NCC (n = 44), the response rate was 92% (22/24) in AFR and 75% (15/20) in EMR. Some respondents reported being very familiar with the functions of the other technical bodies, 36% (8/22) for NITAG members and 38% (14/37) for NCC members. Over 85% (51/59) of respondents felt it was somewhat useful or very useful to strengthen ties between bodies. Nearly all respondents (98%, 58/59) felt that NCC expertise could inform measles and rubella elimination programmes.

Conclusions

We observed a broad consensus that human resource assets of NCCs may serve an important technical role to support national immunization policy-making. At this stage of the polio eradication initiative, countries should consider how to integrate the technical expertise of NCC members to reinforce NITAGs and maintain the polio essential functions, beginning in countries that have been polio-free for several years.

Questions for future evidence-informed policy initiatives: insights from the evolution and aspirations of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups

BACKGROUND

Attention to evidence-informed policy has grown; however, efforts to strengthen the quality and use of evidence are not starting from a blank slate. Changes in health architectures and financing pose different considerations for investments in evidence-informed policy than in the past. We identify major trends that have shifted the environment in which health policies are made, and use the evolution and future aspirations of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in low- and middle-income countries to identify questions the sector must confront when determining how best to structure and strengthen evidence-informed health policy.

DISCUSSION

Trends over the last two decades have resulted in a dense arena with many issue-specific groups, discrete initiatives to strengthen evidence-informed policy and increasing responsibility for subnational institutions. Many countries face a shifting resource base, which for some reduces the amount of resources for health. There is global momentum around universal health coverage, reflecting a broader systems approach, but few examples of how the vast array of stakeholders relate within it are available. NITAG aspirations reflect four interconnected themes related to their scope, their integration in national policy processes, health financing and relationships with ministries of finance, and NITAG positioning relative to other domestic and international entities, raising questions such as, What are the bounds of issue-specific groups and their relationship to allocation decision-making processes across health areas? How do technical advisory groups interface with what are inherently political processes? When are finances considered, by whom and how? What is the future of existing groups whose creation was intended to enhance national ownership but who need continued external support to function? When should new entities be created, in what form and with what mandate?

CONCLUSIONS

Countries must determine who makes decisions about resources, when, using what criteria, and how to do so in a robust yet efficient way given the existing and future landscape. While answers to these questions are necessarily country specific, they are collective matters that cannot be addressed by specialised groups alone and have implications for new investments in evidence-informed policy.

Value and effectiveness of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative study of global and national perspectives

The Global Vaccine Action Plan proposes that every country establish or have access to a National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) by 2020. The NITAG role is to produce evidence-informed recommendations that incorporate local context, to guide national immunization policies and practice. This study aimed to explore the value and effectiveness of NITAGs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), identifying areas in which NITAGs may require further support to improve their functionality and potential barriers to global investment. A multi-methods study design was used, comprising 134 semi-structured interviews and 82 literature review sources that included 38 countries. Interviews were conducted with 53 global/regional and 81 country-level participants able to provide insight into NITAG effectiveness, including NITAG members, national immunization programme staff, and global agency representatives (e.g. the World Health Organisation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi the Vaccine Alliance). The review, including published and unpublished sources on NITAGs in LMICs, was conducted to supplement and corroborate interview findings. Data were analysed thematically. NITAGs were described as valuable in promoting evidence-informed vaccination decision-making, with NITAG involvement enhancing national immunization programme strength and sustainability. Challenges to NITAG effectiveness included: (1) unreliable funding; (2) insufficient diversity of member expertise; (3) inadequate conflicts of interest management procedures; (4) insufficient capacity to access and use evidence; (5) lack of transparency; and (6) limited integration with national decision-making processes that reduced the recognition and incorporation of NITAG recommendations. LMIC NITAGs have developed significantly in the past decade. Well-functioning NITAGs were trusted national resources that enhanced country ownership of immunization provision. However, many LMIC NITAGs require additional technical and funding support to strengthen quality and effectiveness, while maintaining impartiality and ensuring sufficient integration with national decision-making processes. Barriers to sustainable global support need to be addressed for LMIC NITAGs to both continue and develop further.

Progress toward sustainable influenza vaccination in the Lao Peoples' Democratic Republic, 2012-2018

Despite global recommendations for influenza vaccination of high-risk, target populations, few low and middle-income countries have national influenza vaccination programs. Between 2012 and 2017, Lao PDR planned and conducted a series of activities to develop its national influenza vaccine program as a part of its overall national immunization program. In this paper, we review the underlying strategic planning for this process, and outline the sequence of activities, research studies, partnerships, and policy decisions that were required to build Laos' influenza vaccine program. The successful development and sustainability of the program in Laos offers lessons for other low and middle-income countries interested in initiating or expanding influenza immunization.

Strengthening national vaccine decision-making: Assessing the impact of SIVAC Initiative support on national immunisation technical advisory group (NITAG) functionality in 77 low and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) are multi-disciplinary expert groups that provide policy-makers with independent, evidence-based advice on vaccination. Between 2008 and 2017, the SIVAC Initiative supported establishment and strengthening of NITAGs in low and lower-middle income countries though its impact was never assessed quantitatively.

AIM

To quantitatively assess whether SIVAC support is associated with a faster rate at which NITAGs became functional based on six performance indicators.

METHODS

Data from the World Health Organization/Unicef Joint Reporting Form (JRF) from 77 low and lower-middle-income countries were used to examine the time delay between the start of SIVAC support and NITAG functionality using a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Countries receiving SIVAC support took a mean of 2.00 (95% CI 1.40-2.60) years to reported functionality compared to 2.82 (95% CI 2.05-3.59) years for countries without SIVAC support. We found evidence that SIVAC support is associated with reduced time until NITAG functionality, and this association cannot fully be explained by GDP per capita, percentage of GDP spent on healthcare, or NITAG functionality score at the start of the study period. However, quality of JRF data for the questions used to calculate NITAG functionality were poor, particularly for countries not receiving SIVAC support.

CONCLUSION

SIVAC support is likely to have enabled many countries to more rapidly achieve NITAG functionality.

The role of National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in strengthening national vaccine decision-making: A comparative case study of Armenia, Ghana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Senegal and Uganda

INTRODUCTION

Improving evidence informed decision-making in immunisation is a global health priority and many low and middle-income countries have established National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) as independent technical advisory bodies for this purpose. NITAG development and strengthening has received financial and technical support over the past decade, but relatively little evaluation. This study examined NITAGs in six low and middle-income countries (i.e. Armenia, Ghana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda), to examine functionality, quality of recommendation development, and integration with national decision-making bodies and processes.

METHODS

A mixed-method case-series design, used semi-structured interviews, NITAG meeting observations, and document review. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Five NITAGs had been legally established with terms of reference and appeared well functioning, with Ghana's in development. All NITAGs had standard operating procedures and nomination procedures to ensure a range of expertise, generally comprising 10-15 core, 1-5 secretariat, and several ex-officio members. Aside from economics, NITAGs reported a wide range of member expertise. Newer NITAGs had particular concerns about funding. Four used formal conflict of interest procedures, although some commented that implications were not always understood. NITAGs valued local data, and limited evidence suggested NITAG presence might reinforce data production through surveillance and local research studies. All observed meetings demonstrated due process and evidence-based decision-making processes were generally followed, with a critical role played by working-group data syntheses and assessments. NITAGs were seen as well integrated with ministry of health (MoH) decision-making and MoH interviewees were positive about NITAG contributions, indicating NITAGs had an important role. Collaboration with other bodies was more limited, but mitigated by NITAG members' cross-membership in other bodies.

CONCLUSIONS

NITAGs have an important and valued role within national immunisation decision-making. However, their position remains insecure, with the need for sustainable technical and financial support.