Literature DB >> 25764188

Characteristics and practices of National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups in Europe and potential for collaboration, April 2014.

A Takla1, O Wichmann, P Carrillo-Santisteve, S Cotter, D Levy-Bruhl, I Paradowska-Stankiewicz, P Valentiner-Branth, F D'Ancona.   

Abstract

In many countries, national vaccination recommendations are developed by independent expert committees, so-called national immunisation technical advisory groups (NITAG). Since the evaluation of vaccines is complex and resource-demanding, collaboration between NITAGs that evaluate the same vaccines could be beneficial. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among 30 European countries in February 2014, to explore basic characteristics and current practices of European NITAGs and identify potential modes and barriers for collaboration. Of 28 responding countries, 26 reported to have a NITAG or an equivalent expert group. Of these, 20 apply a systematic approach in the vaccine decision-making process, e.g. by considering criteria such as country-specific disease epidemiology, vaccine efficacy/effectiveness/safety, health economics, programme implementation/logistics or country-specific values/preferences. However, applied frameworks and extent of evidence review differ widely. The use of systematic reviews is required for 15 of 26 NITAGs, while results from transmission modelling and health economic evaluations are routinely considered by 18 and 20 of 26 NITAGs, respectively. Twenty-five countries saw potential for NITAG-collaboration, but most often named structural concerns, e.g. different NITAG structures or countries’ healthcare systems. Our survey gathered information that can serve as an inventory on European NITAGs, allowing further exploration of options and structures for NITAG collaboration.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25764188     DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.es2015.20.9.21049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Euro Surveill        ISSN: 1025-496X


  5 in total

1.  Rotavirus immunization: Global coverage and local barriers for implementation.

Authors:  Andrea Lo Vecchio; Ilaria Liguoro; Jorge Amil Dias; James A Berkley; Chris Boey; Mitchell B Cohen; Sylvia Cruchet; Eduardo Salazar-Lindo; Samir Podder; Bhupinder Sandhu; Philip M Sherman; Toshiaki Shimizu; Alfredo Guarino
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 3.641

2.  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

3.  Divergent approaches in the vaccination of recently arrived migrants to Europe: a survey of national experts from 32 countries, 2017.

Authors:  Sally Hargreaves; Laura B Nellums; Sofanne J Ravensbergen; Jon S Friedland; Ymkje Stienstra
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2018-10

4.  Structural barriers to knowledge transfer and exchange among men and women in low-, middle- and high-income countries: an international cross-sectional study with vaccine researchers in 44 countries.

Authors:  Soha El-Halabi; Ronan McCabe; Birger C Forsberg; Devy L Elling; Ziad El-Khatib
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2021-04-12

5.  Selection and Interpretation of Scientific Evidence in Preparation for Policy Decisions: A Case Study Regarding Introduction of Rotavirus Vaccine Into National Immunization Programs in Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark.

Authors:  Gry St-Martin; Ann Lindstrand; Synne Sandbu; Thea Kølsen Fischer
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2018-05-14
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.