Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Buffardi AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7178973 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Buffardi Anne L AL Njambi-Szlapka Susan S

Health research policy and systems 20200422 1

<h4>Background</h4>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 (NIT ...[more]

PMID: 32321521

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:Summary This report compiles and summarizes all recommendations from CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of meningococcal vaccines in the United States. As a comprehensive summary and update of previously published recommendations, it replaces all previously published reports and policy notes. This report also contains new recommendations for administration of booster doses of serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccine for persons at increased risk for serogroup B meningococcal disease. These guidelines will be updated as needed on the basis of availability of new data or licensure of new meningococcal vaccines. ACIP recommends routine vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) for adolescents aged 11 or 12 years, with a booster dose at age 16 years. ACIP also recommends routine vaccination with MenACWY for persons aged ?2 months at increased risk for meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y, including persons who have persistent complement component deficiencies; persons receiving a complement inhibitor (e.g., eculizumab [Soliris] or ravulizumab [Ultomiris]); persons who have anatomic or functional asplenia; persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection; microbiologists routinely exposed to isolates of Neisseria meningitidis; persons identified to be at increased risk because of a meningococcal disease outbreak caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y; persons who travel to or live in areas in which meningococcal disease is hyperendemic or epidemic; unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated first-year college students living in residence halls; and military recruits. ACIP recommends MenACWY booster doses for previously vaccinated persons who become or remain at increased risk. In addition, ACIP recommends routine use of MenB vaccine series among persons aged ?10 years who are at increased risk for serogroup B meningococcal disease, including persons who have persistent complement component deficiencies; persons receiving a complement inhibitor; persons who have anatomic or functional asplenia; microbiologists who are routinely exposed to isolates of N. meningitidis; and persons identified to be at increased risk because of a meningococcal disease outbreak caused by serogroup B. ACIP recommends MenB booster doses for previously vaccinated persons who become or remain at increased risk. In addition, ACIP recommends a MenB series for adolescents and young adults aged 16–23 years on the basis of shared clinical decision-making to provide short-term protection against disease caused by most strains of serogroup B N. meningitidis.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets