Literature DB >> 16616803

Developing a vaccination evaluation model to support evidence-based decision making on national immunization programs.

Tjeerd G Kimman1, Hein J Boot, Guy A M Berbers, Patricia E Vermeer-de Bondt, G Ardine de Wit, Hester E de Melker.   

Abstract

Among all public health provisions national immunization programs (NIPs) are beyond doubt one of the most effective in reducing mortality, morbidity, and costs associated with major infectious diseases. To maintain their success, NIPs have to modernize in response to many new and old demands regarding efficacy, safety, availability of new vaccines, emerging and evolving pathogens, waning immunity, altered epidemiological situations, and the public's trust in the program. In this paper we present an evaluation model in the form of a checklist that may help in collecting relevant scientific information that is necessary for evaluation and decision making when considering changes in a NIP. Such a checklist points to relevant information on the vaccine-preventable disease, the pathogen causing it, the vaccine, and the cost-effectiveness ratio of the vaccine. However, the final judgment on a potential change in the NIP cannot be based on a simple algorithm, as the relevant information reflects factors of a very different kind and magnitude, to which different value judgements may be added, and which may have certain degrees of uncertainty. Because any change in the NIP may be accompanied by more or less unforeseen changes in the vaccine's efficacy, evolutionary consequences, including the antigenic composition of the pathogen, and the vaccine's safety profile, an intensive surveillance program should accompany any NIP. Elements thereof include clinical-epidemiological surveillance, surveillance of vaccination coverage, immune surveillance, surveillance of microbial population dynamics, and surveillance of adverse events and safety issues. We emphasize that the decision to introduce a vaccine in the NIP should be taken as seriously, both scientifically and ethically, as the decision to withhold a vaccine from the NIP. In the latter case one might be responsible for vaccine-preventable disease and mortality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16616803     DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.03.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vaccine        ISSN: 0264-410X            Impact factor:   3.641


  12 in total

1.  Economic Evaluation of Vaccination Programmes in Older Adults and the Elderly: Important Issues and Challenges.

Authors:  Sevan Dirmesropian; James G Wood; C Raina MacIntyre; Philippe Beutels; Anthony T Newall
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Assessing the potential effects and cost-effectiveness of programmatic herpes zoster vaccination of elderly in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Alies van Lier; Albert Jan van Hoek; Wim Opstelten; Hein J Boot; Hester E de Melker
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  Will dengue vaccines be used in the public sector and if so, how? Findings from an 8-country survey of policymakers and opinion leaders.

Authors:  Don L Douglas; Denise A DeRoeck; Richard T Mahoney; Ole Wichmann
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2013-03-14

4.  Stakeholders' perception on including broader economic impact of vaccines in economic evaluations in low and middle income countries: a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Ingeborg M van der Putten; Silvia M A A Evers; Rohan Deogaonkar; Mark Jit; Raymond C W Hutubessy
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  What criteria do decision makers in Thailand use to set priorities for vaccine introduction?

Authors:  Siriporn Pooripussarakul; Arthorn Riewpaiboon; David Bishai; Charung Muangchana; Sripen Tantivess
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community.

Authors:  Bernhard Ultsch; Oliver Damm; Philippe Beutels; Joke Bilcke; Bernd Brüggenjürgen; Andreas Gerber-Grote; Wolfgang Greiner; Germaine Hanquet; Raymond Hutubessy; Mark Jit; Mirjam Knol; Rüdiger von Kries; Alexander Kuhlmann; Daniel Levy-Bruhl; Matthias Perleth; Maarten Postma; Heini Salo; Uwe Siebert; Jürgen Wasem; Ole Wichmann
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  The role of health determinants in the influenza vaccination uptake among older adults (65+): a scope review.

Authors:  Regina Roller-Wirnsberger; Sonja Lindner; Lea Kolosovski; Elisabeth Platzer; Peter Dovjak; Holger Flick; Chariklia Tziraki; Maddalena Illario
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 3.636

Review 8.  Assessment of vaccine candidates for persons aged 50 and older: a review.

Authors:  Renske Eilers; Paul F M Krabbe; Ted G A van Essen; Anita Suijkerbuijk; Alies van Lier; Hester E de Melker
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 3.921

9.  Determinants of HPV vaccination intentions among Dutch girls and their mothers: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Hilde M van Keulen; Wilma Otten; Robert A C Ruiter; Minne Fekkes; Jim van Steenbergen; Elise Dusseldorp; Theo W G M Paulussen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Characterizing mothers and children at risk of being under-immunized in India: A latent class analysis approach.

Authors:  Taylor A Holroyd; Brian Wahl; Madhu Gupta; Molly Sauer; Madeleine Blunt; Amelia K Gerste; Daniel J Erchick; Mathuram Santosham; Rupali J Limaye
Journal:  Int J Infect Dis       Date:  2020-08-27       Impact factor: 3.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.