How Are New Vaccines Prioritized in Low-Income Countries? A Case Study of Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine and Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Uganda

A global comparative analysis of the the inclusion of priority setting in national COVID-19 pandemic plans: A reflection on the methods and the accessibility of the plans

BACKGROUND

Despite the swift governments' response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains a paucity of literature assessing the degree to which; priority setting (PS) was included in the pandemic plans and the pandemic plans were publicly accessible. This paper reflects on the methods employed in a global comparative analysis of the degree to which countries integrated PS into their COVID-19 pandemic plans based on Kapiriri & Martin's framework. We also assessed if the accessibility of the plans was related to the country's transparency index.

METHODS

Through a three stage search strategy, we accessed and reviewed 86 national COVID-19 pandemic plans (and 11 Canadian provinces and territories). Secondary analysis assessed any alignment between the readily accessible plans and the country's transparency index.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

71 national plans were readily accessible while 43 were not. There were no systematic differences between the countries whose plans were readily available and those whose plans were 'missing'. However, most of the countries with 'missing' plans tended to have a low transparency index. The framework was adapted to the pandemic context by adding a parameter on the need to plan for continuity of priority routine services. While document review may be the most feasible and appropriate approach to conducting policy analysis during health emergencies, interviews and follow up document review would assess policy implementation.

Planning, implementation, and sustaining high coverage of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs: What works in the context of low-resource countries?

Cervical cancer due to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a leading cause of mortality among women in low-resource settings. Many Sub-Saharan African countries have introduced HPV vaccination programs at the national level in the last few years. However, countries are struggling to maintain sustainable coverage. This study focuses on the introduction and sustainability challenges, context-specific key lessons learned, and mechanisms of action to achieve high sustainable coverage from low and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs) that have introduced HPV vaccination programs by collating evidence from a literature review and key informant interviews. Local data availability was a challenge across countries, with the lack or absence of registries, data collection and reporting mechanisms. Multi-sectoral coordination and early involvement of key stakeholders were cited as an integral part of HPV programs and facilitators for sustainable coverage. Key informants identified periodic sensitization and training as critical due to high staff turnover. Health workforce mobilization was fundamental to ensure that the health workforce is aware of the disease etiology, eligibility requirements, and can dispel misinformation. Schools were reported to be an ideal sustainable platform for vaccination. However, this required teachers to be trained, which was often not considered in the programs. District-level staff were often poorly informed and lacked the technical and logistic capacity to support vaccination rounds and data collection. To improve the sustainability of HPV vaccination programs, there is a need for timely microplanning, efficient preparedness assessment, assessing training approaches, periodic training, finding innovative ways to achieve equity and adoption of a bottom-up approach to ensure that processes between districts and central level are well-connected and resources are distributed efficiently.

Priority setting for pandemic preparedness and response: A comparative analysis of COVID-19 pandemic plans in 12 countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted health systems and exacerbated pre-existing resource gaps in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (WHO-EMRO). Active humanitarian and refugee crises have led to mass population displacement and increased health system fragility, which has implication for equitable priority setting (PS). We examine whether and how PS was included in national COVID-19 pandemic plans within EMRO.

Methods

An analysis of COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of 12/22 countries in WHO-EMRO. We assessed the degree to which documented PS processes adhere to twenty established quality parameters of effective PS.

Results

While all reviewed plans addressed some aspect of PS, none included all quality parameters. Yemen's plan included the highest number (9) of quality parameters, while Egypt's addressed the lowest (3). Most plans used evidence in their planning processes. While no plans explicitly identify equity as a criterion to guide PS; many identified vulnerable populations - a key component of equitable PS. Despite high concentrations of refugees, migrants, and IDPs in EMRO, only a quarter of the plans identified them as vulnerable.

Conclusion

PS setting challenges are exacerbated by conflict and the resulting health system fragmentation. Systematic and quality PS is essential to tackle long-term health implications of COVID-19 for vulnerable populations in this region, and to support effective PS and equitable resource allocation.

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.

Decision-making process for introduction of maternal vaccines in Kenya, 2017-2018

BACKGROUND

Maternal immunization is a key strategy for reducing morbidity and mortality associated with infectious diseases in mothers and their newborns. Recent developments in the science and safety of maternal vaccinations have made possible development of new maternal vaccines ready for introduction in low- and middle-income countries. Decisions at the policy level remain the entry point for maternal immunization programs. We describe the policy and decision-making process in Kenya for the introduction of new vaccines, with particular emphasis on maternal vaccines, and identify opportunities to improve vaccine policy formulation and implementation process.

METHODS

We conducted 29 formal interviews with government officials and policy makers, including high-level officials at the Kenya National Immunization Technical Advisory Group, and Ministry of Health officials at national and county levels. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. We analyzed the qualitative data using NVivo 11.0 software.

RESULTS

All key informants understood the vaccine policy formulation and implementation processes, although national officials appeared more informed compared to county officials. County officials reported feeling left out of policy development. The recent health system decentralization had both positive and negative impacts on the policy process; however, the negative impacts outweighed the positive impacts. Other factors outside vaccine policy environment such as rumours, sociocultural practices, and anti-vaccine campaigns influenced the policy development and implementation process.

CONCLUSIONS

Public policy development process is complex and multifaceted by its nature. As Kenya prepares for introduction of other maternal vaccines, it is important that the identified policy gaps and challenges are addressed.

National decision-making for the introduction of new vaccines: A systematic review, 2010-2020

BACKGROUND

Competing priorities make using a transparent and evidence-based approach important when deciding to recommend new vaccines. We conducted a literature review to document the processes and frameworks for national decision-making on new vaccine introductions and explored which key features have evolved since 2010.

METHODS

We searched literature published on policymaking related to vaccine introduction from March 2010 to August 2020 in six databases. We screened articles for eligibility with the following exclusion criteria: non-human or hypothetical vaccines, the sole focus on economic evaluation or decision to adopt rather than policy decision-making. We employed nine broad categories of criteria from the 2012 review for categorization and abstracted data on the country, income level, vaccine, and other relevant criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 3808 unique references screened, 116 met eligibility criteria and were classified as: a) framework of vaccine adoption decision-making (27), b) studies that analyse empirical data on or examples of vaccine adoption decision-making (45), c) theoretical and empirical articles that provide insights into the vaccine policymaking process (44 + 17 already included in the previous categories). Commonly reported criteria for decision-making were the burden of disease; vaccine efficacy/effectiveness, safety; impact on health and non-health outcomes; economic evaluation and cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions. Programmatic and acceptability aspects were not as often considered. Most (50; 82%) of the 61 articles describing the process of vaccine introduction policymaking highlighted the role of country, regional, or global evidence-informed recommendations and a robust national governance as enabling factors for vaccine adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature on vaccine adoption decision-making has expanded since 2010. We found that policymakers and expert advisory committee members (e.g., National Immunization Technical Advisory Group [NITAG]) increasingly value the interventions based on economic evaluations. The results of this review could guide discussions on evidence-informed immunization decision-making among country, sub-regional, and regional stakeholders.

Public-private partnering as a modus operandi: Explaining the Gates Foundation's approach to global health governance

In its first decade, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) focused much of its efforts on enabling the establishment of transnational public-private partnerships (PPPs) oriented towards increasing low-income country (LIC) access to essential health technologies. Critics have argued these efforts further enriched already profitable firms which long ignored the needs of populations with limited purchasing power, while lessening political will to invest in urgently needed public sector capacity to produce essential health technologies independently of market pressures. Missing from these critical analyses were the perspectives of those shaping BMGF's global health programming. Drawing on interviews with senior BMGF staff and external affiliates undertaken between 2010 and 2012, this article seeks to address this gap. We argue that BMGF's embrace of PPPs was adopted out of the belief that neither public agencies nor industry were capable of providing LICs with essential health technologies autonomously, and that their conflicting mandates required an honest broker to initiate and sustain collaboration between the two sectors. The Foundation's comparative advantage in global health governance was thus seen by those informing its work, as its capacity to negotiate such partnerships, which we argue has also been the basis of its agenda-setting influence in this domain.

Priority setting for health system strengthening in low income countries. A qualitative case study illustrating the complexities

Health systems are critical to the realisation of Universal Health Coverage. There has been insufficient attention to the evaluation of priority setting for health system strengthening within low income countries, including evaluation of the local capacity to implement priorities. This study evaluated the extent to which health system strengthening was prioritized in Uganda. The Kapiriri & Martin framework was used to evaluate health system priority setting from 2005-2015. A document analysis was triangulated with interview data (n = 67) from global, national and subnational stakeholders and analysed using content analysis. Health system strengthening was perceived to be circumvented by a lack of resources as well as influential actors with disease focused, rather than system-oriented, interests. There were defined processes with explicit criteria for identifying priorities and evidence was highly valued. But sub-optimal transparency and weak accountability often compromised the integrity of priority setting and contributed to stalling progress on health system strengthening and achieving health system outcomes. The strengths in the current planning processes should be harnessed. In addition, a systematic approach to priority setting, potentially through the establishment of an independent body, and stronger oversight mechanisms, would strengthen health system planning in this setting.

HPV vaccine acceptance is high among adults in Mexico, particularly in people living with HIV

OBJECTIVE

To measure HPV vaccine acceptance in diverse Mexican adult popula-tions, taking into account HIV status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1 329 men and women, with and without HIV, participated in one of three intervention studies, offering HPV vaccination, carried out in the states of Morelos, Tlaxcala and Mexico City; either the bivalent (Morelos n=103, Tlaxcala n=127) or quadrivalent HPV-vaccine (Mexico City n=1 099) was offered.

RESULTS

HPV vaccine was accepted by 80.3% of participants; acceptance was higher in people living with HIV than those without (84.4 vs. 78%, p=0.004). Women had greater HPV infection knowledge (p<0.0001) than men and slightly higher (p=0.4) vaccine acceptance. The main reason for vaccine non-acceptance among HIV-positive participants was their doctor recommended they not get vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance of HPV-vaccine was high in men and women regardless of HIV status. Even higher rates of acceptability may be achieved by educating healthcare providers to recommend HPV vaccine to their patients.

Priority setting for maternal, newborn and child health in Uganda: a qualitative study evaluating actual practice

Background

Despite continued investment, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) indicators in low and middle income countries have remained relatively poor. This could, in part, be explained by inadequate resources to adequately address these problems, inappropriate allocation of the available resources, or lack of implementation of the most effective interventions. Systematic priority setting and resource allocation could contribute to alleviating these limitations. There is a paucity of literature that follows through MNCH prioritization processes to implementation, making it difficult for policy makers to understand the impact of their decision-making on population health. The overall objective of this paper was to describe and evaluate priority setting for maternal, newborn and child health interventions in Uganda.

Methods

Fifty-four key informant interviews and a review of policies and media reports were used to describe priority setting for MNCH in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin’s conceptual framework was used to evaluate priority setting for MNCH.

Results

There were three main prioritization exercises for maternal, newborn and child health in Uganda. The processes were participatory and were guided by explicit tools, evidence, and criteria, however, the public and the districts were insufficiently involved in the priority setting process. While there were conducive contextual factors including strong political support, implementation was constrained by the presence of competing actors, with varying priorities, an unequal allocation of resources between child health and maternal health interventions, limited financial and human resources, a weak health system and limited institutional capacity.

Conclusions

Stronger institutional capacity at the Ministry of Health and equitable engagement of key stakeholders in decision-making processes, especially the public, and implementers, would improve understanding, satisfaction and compliance with the priority setting process. Availability of financial and human resources that are appropriately allocated would facilitate the implementation of well-developed policies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4170-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introducing new vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: challenges and approaches

INTRODUCTION

The number of new vaccine introductions (NVIs) in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) has markedly increased since 2010, raising challenges to often overstretched and underfunded health care systems.

AREAS COVERED

We present an overview of some of these challenges, focusing on programmatic decisions, delivery strategy, information and communication, pharmacovigilance and post-licensure evaluation. We also highlight field-based initiatives that may facilitate NVI.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Some new vaccines targeting populations other than infants require alternative delivery strategies. NVIs impact upon existing supply chain management, in particular vaccines with novel characteristics. A lack of understanding about immunization and misconceptions may be detrimental to NVI, as well as insufficient or poorly trained health care workforce. Many barriers exist to achieving good vaccination coverage. Real-world evaluation of vaccine safety, effectiveness and impact in LMICs may be limited by lack of robust demographic and disease epidemiology data, as well as limited health care and surveillance infrastructure. A thorough planning phase is crucial to define the most suitable delivery strategy based on the vaccine's and country's specificities. A communication plan and social mobilization are essential. Implementation research and innovative approaches applied to logistics, delivery, communication and program evaluation can facilitate NVI.

Priority setting for disease outbreaks in Uganda: A case study evaluating the process

Priority setting (PS) and resource allocation during health emergencies are key factors influencing an effective response. However, there is limited understanding of how priorities and resource allocation during disease outbreaks occur and the extent to which these processes are successful. This paper, based on 23 in-depth interviews with policy makers and a review of policy and emergency preparedness documents, used a PS evaluation framework to evaluate PS for disease outbreaks in Uganda. With regard to PS for disease outbreaks in Uganda, we identified a conducive socio-political-economical context, credible institutions, formal participatory prioritisation processes, evidence informed the processes, demonstrated implementation capacity, institutional strengthening and positive health outcomes. Factors that compromised the success of PS included limited resources - especially in between disease outbreaks and unfair processes. Investment in sustaining the established prioritisation infrastructure to oversee preparedness activities between the outbreaks would strengthen the prioritisation process. This should be supported with health system strengthening. The framework enabled us to evaluate some aspects of PS during disease outbreaks. The framework's inability to evaluate all aspects, and reported as opposed to actual PS calls for the integration of evaluation throughout the planning and implementation process to ensure validity and continuous implementation of improvement strategies.

The unfunded priorities: an evaluation of priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda

BACKGROUND

The double burden of infectious diseases coupled with noncommunicable diseases poses unique challenges for priority setting and for achieving equitable action to address the major causes of disease burden in health systems already impacted by limited resources. Noncommunicable disease control is an important global health and development priority. However, there are challenges for translating this global priority into local priorities and action. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of national, sub-national and global factors on priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda and examine the extent to which priority setting was successful.

METHODS

A mixed methods design that used the Kapiriri & Martin framework for evaluating priority setting in low income countries. The evaluation period was 2005-2015. Data collection included a document review (policy documents (n = 19); meeting minutes (n = 28)), media analysis (n = 114) and stakeholder interviews (n = 9). Data were analysed according to the Kapiriri & Martin (2010) framework.

RESULTS

Priority setting for noncommunicable diseases was not entirely fair nor successful. While there were explicit processes that incorporated relevant criteria, evidence and wide stakeholder involvement, these criteria were not used systematically or consistently in the contemplation of noncommunicable diseases. There were insufficient resources for noncommunicable diseases, despite being a priority area. There were weaknesses in the priority setting institutions, and insufficient mechanisms to ensure accountability for decision-making. Priority setting was influenced by the priorities of major stakeholders (i.e. development assistance partners) which were not always aligned with national priorities. There were major delays in the implementation of noncommunicable disease-related priorities and in many cases, a failure to implement.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation revealed the challenges that low income countries are grappling with in prioritizing noncommunicable diseases in the context of a double disease burden with limited resources. Strengthening local capacity for priority setting would help to support the development of sustainable and implementable noncommunicable disease-related priorities. Global support (i.e. aid) to low income countries for noncommunicable diseases must also catch up to align with NCDs as a global health priority.