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: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.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge translation platforms (KTPs), which are partnerships between policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers, are being established in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to enhance evidence-informed health policymaking (EIHP). This study aims to gain a better understanding of the i) activities conducted by KTPs, ii) the way in which KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders perceive these activities and their outputs, iii) facilitators that support KTP work and challenges, and the lessons learned for overcoming such challenges, and iv) factors that can help to ensure the sustainability of KTPs.MethodsThis paper triangulated qualitative data from: i) 17 semi-structured interviews with 47 key informants including KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders from 10 KTPs; ii) document reviews, and iii) observation of deliberations at the International Forum on EIHP in LMICs held in Addis Ababa in August 2012. Purposive sampling was used and data were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsDeliberative dialogues informed by evidence briefs were identified as the most commendable tools by interviewees for enhancing EIHP. KTPs reported that they have contributed to increased awareness of the importance of EIHP and strengthened relationships among policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers. Support from policymakers and international funders facilitated KTP activities, while the lack of skilled human resources to conduct EIHP activities impeded KTPs. Ensuring the sustainability of EIHP initiatives after the end of funding was a major challenge for KTPs. KTPs reported that institutionalization within the government has helped to retain human resources and secure funding, whereas KTPs hosted by universities highlighted the advantage of autonomy from political interests.ConclusionsThe establishment of KTPs is a promising development in supporting EIHP. Real-time lesson drawing from the experiences of KTPs can support improvements in the functioning of KTPs in the short term, while making the case for sustaining their work in the long term. Lessons learned can help to promote similar EIHP initiatives in other countries.

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