Conceptual frameworks and key dimensions to support coverage decisions for vaccines

• Published in: Vaccine 2015-02, Vol.33 (9), p.1206-1217
• Main Authors: González-Lorenzo, Marien, Piatti, Alessandra, Coppola, Liliana, Gramegna, Maria, Demicheli, Vittorio, Melegaro, Alessia, Tirani, Marcello, Parmelli, Elena, Auxilia, Francesco, Moja, Lorenzo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Allergy and Immunology; Bibliographic data bases; Costs; Decision aid; Decision making; Decision Support Techniques; Framework; Health Policy; Humans; Immunisation programmes; Immunization; Immunization - utilization; Methods; Mortality; Public health; Studies; Vaccination; Vaccines; Vaccines - administration & dosage
• ISSN: 0264-410X; 1873-2518
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.020

Abstract Background Health policy makers often have to face decisions on whether and how to incorporate new vaccines into immunisation plans. This study aims to review and catalogue the relevant current frameworks and taxonomies on vaccines and connect these to the DECIDE Evidence to Decision framework (EtD), a general framework based on evidence-based criteria to guide decision-making on intervention adoption. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and funding agency websites from 1990 to 2013. We included systematic reviews and primary studies presenting decision-making tools for community vaccine adoption. We qualitatively summarised the reports by purpose, targeted country, principal results, and decisional models. We then extracted and compared the dimensions adopted by vaccine frameworks across studies. Results Fourteen studies (five systematic reviews and nine primary studies) were included. Several factors frequently influenced decision-makers’ views on vaccines: the most frequent political-context factors considered were Importance of illness or problem, Vaccine characteristics, Resource use , and Feasibility . Others such as Values and preferences and Acceptability were less consistently reported. We did not find evidence on the reasons why a framework for vaccine adoption differs from that for decisions on the adoption of an intervention in general, such as the EtD. There are limited data on how dimensions are explained in practical factors and directly linked to coverage decisions. Conclusions This review summarises conceptual models and taxonomy of a heterogeneous and evolving area in health policy decisions. A shared and comprehensive framework on vaccine coverage remains to be achieved with its single dimensions (epidemiologic, effectiveness, economic, and social) valued differently across studies. A generic tool such as the EtD conceptualises all relevant dimensions, and might reduce inconsistencies.