Dataset Information

Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand.

ABSTRACT: Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the Total System Effectiveness (TSE) framework to assist national policy-makers in prioritizing vaccines. The pilot was launched in Thailand to explore the potential use of TSE in a country with established governance structures and accountable decision-making processes for immunization policy. While the existing literature informs vaccine adoption decisions in GAVI-eligible countries, this study attempts to address a gap in the literature by examining the policy process of a non-GAVI eligible country.

Methods: A rotavirus vaccine (RVV) test case was used to compare the decision criteria made by the existing processes (Expanded Program on Immunization [EPI], and National List of Essential Medicines [NLEM]) for vaccine prioritization and the TSE-pilot model, using Thailand specific data.

Results: The existing decision-making processes in Thailand and TSE were found to offer similar recommendations on the selection of a RVV product.

Conclusion: The authors believe that TSE can provide a well-reasoned and step by step approach for countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to develop a systematic and transparent decision-making process for immunization policy.

SUBMITTER: Rattanavipapong W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7719214 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand.

Rattanavipapong Waranya W Kapoor Ritika R Teerawattananon Yot Y Luttjeboer Jos J Botwright Siobhan S Archer Rachel A RA Giersing Birgitte B Hutubessy Raymond C W RCW

International journal of health policy and management 20201001 10

<h4>Background</h4>The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the Total System Effectiveness (TSE) framework to assist national policy-makers in prioritizing vaccines. The pilot was launched in Thailand to explore the potential use of TSE in a country with established governance structures and accountable decision-making processes for immunization policy. While the existing literature informs vaccine adoption decisions in GAVI-eligible countries, this study attempts to address a gap in th ...[more]

PMID: 32610741

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Patients with serious illnesses are often encouraged to actively deliberate about the desirability of life support. Yet it is unknown whether deliberation changes the substance or quality of such decisions. Objective:To identify differences in decisions about life support interventions and goals of care made intuitively vs deliberatively by patients with serious illnesses. Design, Setting, and Participants:Randomized clinical trial in which patients were asked to express treatment preferences in a series of clinical scenarios. Participants were 199 hospitalized patients aged 60 years and older with serious oncologic, cardiac, and pulmonary illnesses treated in a large, urban academic hospital from July 1, 2015, through March 15, 2016. Interventions:Patients in the intuitive group were subjected to a cognitive load and instructed to answer each question immediately based on gut instinct. Patients in the deliberative group were not cognitively loaded, were instructed to think carefully about their answers, and were required to explain their answers. Main Outcomes and Measures:Choices regarding life support (4 scenarios) and goals of care (1 scenario), concordance of these choices with patients' valuations of health states that could follow from them, and decisional uncertainty. Results:Of 199 patients, 132 (66%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 67.2 (5.0) years. Similar proportions of patients in the intuitive group (n = 97) and the deliberative group (n = 102) said they would accept a feeding tube for chronic aspiration (42% vs 44%, respectively; difference, -2%; 95% CI, -16% to 12%; P = .79), antibiotics for life-threatening infection in the event of terminal illness (39% vs 43%, respectively; difference, -4%; 95% CI, -18% to 10%; P = .57), a trial of mechanical ventilation (59% vs 60%, respectively; difference,-1%; 95% CI, -15% to 13%; P = .88), and a tracheostomy tube (37% vs 41%, respectively; difference, -4%; 95% CI, -22% to 13%; P = .64). Patients in the deliberative group were slightly more likely than patients in the intuitive group to choose a palliative approach to treatment in the event of serious illness (45% vs 30%, respectively; difference, 15%; 95% CI, 1%-29%; P = .04). Across scenarios, decisional uncertainty was similar between the 2 groups (all P > .05), and intuitive decisions were either equally or more closely aligned with patients' health state valuations than deliberative decisions. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, encouraging hospitalized patients with serious illnesses to deliberate on end-of-life decisions did not change the content or improve the quality of these decisions. It is important to evaluate whether decision aids and structured communication interventions improve seriously ill patients' choices. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02487810.

Project description:We know that patient care can be improved by implementing evidence-based innovations and applying research findings linked to good practice. Successfully implementing innovations in complex organisations, such as the UK's National Health Service (NHS), is often challenging as multiple contextual dynamics mediate the process. Research studies have explored the challenges of introducing innovations into healthcare settings and have contributed to a better understanding of why potentially useful innovations are not always implemented in practice, even if backed by strong evidence. Mediating factors include health policy and health system influences, organisational factors, and individual and professional attitudes, including decision makers' perceptions of innovation evidence. There has been limited research on how different forms of evidence are accessed and utilised by organisational decision makers during innovation adoption. We also know little about how diverse healthcare professionals (clinicians, administrators) make sense of evidence and how this collective sensemaking mediates the uptake of innovations.The study will involve nine comparative case study sites of acute care organisations grouped into three regional clusters across England. Each of the purposefully selected sites represents a variety of trust types and organisational contexts. We will use qualitative methods, in-depth interviews, observation of key meetings, and systematic analysis of relevant secondary data to understand the rationale and challenges involved in sourcing and utilising innovation evidence in the empirical setting of infection prevention and control. We will use theories of innovation adoption and sensemaking in organisations to interpret the data. The research will provide lessons for the uptake and continuous use of innovations in the English and international health systems.Unlike most innovation studies, which involve single-level analysis, our study will explore the innovation-adoption process at multiple embedded levels: micro (individual), meso (organisational), and macro (interorganisational). By comparing and contrasting across the nine sites, each with different organisational contexts, local networks, leadership styles, and different innovations considered for adoption, the findings of the study will have wide relevance. The research will produce actionable findings responding to the political and economic need for healthcare organisations to be innovation-ready.

Project description:Background and Objectives:Numerous technology applications are available that have the potential to improve the quality of life (QoL) of older adults. However, older adults are less likely to adopt new and emerging technologies and reap the potential benefits. This study examines factors that influence older adults' decisions about the adoption of new technology. Research Design and Methods:Fifty-two older adults participated in a mixed-method procedure, which entailed: (1) observing presentations detailing nine differing technologies, (2) assessing the technologies using tailored questionnaires, and (3) participating in focus group discussions. Participants were assigned into one of seven groups separated by age (65-74, 75+) and language (English, Spanish). The outcome was willingness to adopt technology. Predictors included self-assessed abilities (e.g., numeric ability), computer/Internet skills and knowledge, technology readiness, age, language, and technology ratings (e.g., perceived value). Analyses included Spearman's ?, t-tests, and regression analysis. Focus group discussions were examined for supportive examples. Results:Self-assessed abilities and computer/Internet skills were predictive of willingness to adopt technologies although the relationship varied according to the technology examined. Technology readiness, age, and language group showed weak associations with the outcome. Of the technology ratings, perceived value, confidence in ability to learn the technology, and the perceived impact on QoL were the most robust predictors of willingness to adopt technology. Discussion and Implications:Findings indicate that various stakeholders in technology adoption among older adults must be cognizant of a technology's functionality and complexity as well as the characteristics and abilities of older adults. However, certain factors such as perceptions about the value of the technology and potential impact on QoL are also critically important to decisions regarding technology adoption among older people.

Dataset Information

Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand.

Publications

Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets