Conceptual frameworks and key dimensions to support coverage decisions for vaccines

Marien González-Lorenzo, Alessandra Piatti, Liliana Coppola, Maria Gramegna, Vittorio Demicheli, Alessia Melegaro, Marcello Tirani, Elena Parmelli, Francesco Auxilia, Lorenzo Moja, Vanna Pistotti, Alessandro Zanetti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1206-1217
Number of pages12
JournalVaccine
Volume33
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 25 2015

Fingerprint

Vaccines
vaccines
health policy
systematic review
Health Policy
Decision Making
taxonomy
decision support systems
Politics
Administrative Personnel
funding
MEDLINE
Libraries
decision making
Immunization
immunization
Economics
economics

Keywords

  • Decision aid
  • Decision-making
  • Framework
  • Health policy
  • Immunisation programmes
  • Model
  • Vaccination

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Microbiology(all)
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • veterinary(all)
  • Molecular Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

González-Lorenzo, M., Piatti, A., Coppola, L., Gramegna, M., Demicheli, V., Melegaro, A., ... Zanetti, A. (2015). Conceptual frameworks and key dimensions to support coverage decisions for vaccines. Vaccine, 33(9), 1206-1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.020

Conceptual frameworks and key dimensions to support coverage decisions for vaccines. / González-Lorenzo, Marien; Piatti, Alessandra; Coppola, Liliana; Gramegna, Maria; Demicheli, Vittorio; Melegaro, Alessia; Tirani, Marcello; Parmelli, Elena; Auxilia, Francesco; Moja, Lorenzo; Pistotti, Vanna; Zanetti, Alessandro.

In: Vaccine, Vol. 33, No. 9, 25.02.2015, p. 1206-1217.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

González-Lorenzo, M, Piatti, A, Coppola, L, Gramegna, M, Demicheli, V, Melegaro, A, Tirani, M, Parmelli, E, Auxilia, F, Moja, L, Pistotti, V & Zanetti, A 2015, 'Conceptual frameworks and key dimensions to support coverage decisions for vaccines', Vaccine, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1206-1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.020
González-Lorenzo M, Piatti A, Coppola L, Gramegna M, Demicheli V, Melegaro A et al. Conceptual frameworks and key dimensions to support coverage decisions for vaccines. Vaccine. 2015 Feb 25;33(9):1206-1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.020
González-Lorenzo, Marien ; Piatti, Alessandra ; Coppola, Liliana ; Gramegna, Maria ; Demicheli, Vittorio ; Melegaro, Alessia ; Tirani, Marcello ; Parmelli, Elena ; Auxilia, Francesco ; Moja, Lorenzo ; Pistotti, Vanna ; Zanetti, Alessandro. / Conceptual frameworks and key dimensions to support coverage decisions for vaccines. In: Vaccine. 2015 ; Vol. 33, No. 9. pp. 1206-1217.
@article{a81a4941b75b4ef6b7c3b6ed00a597b2,
title = "Conceptual frameworks and key dimensions to support coverage decisions for vaccines",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Decision aid, Decision-making, Framework, Health policy, Immunisation programmes, Model, Vaccination",
author = "Marien Gonz{\'a}lez-Lorenzo and Alessandra Piatti and Liliana Coppola and Maria Gramegna and Vittorio Demicheli and Alessia Melegaro and Marcello Tirani and Elena Parmelli and Francesco Auxilia and Lorenzo Moja and Vanna Pistotti and Alessandro Zanetti",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.020",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "1206--1217",
journal = "Vaccine",
issn = "0264-410X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conceptual frameworks and key dimensions to support coverage decisions for vaccines

AU - González-Lorenzo, Marien

AU - Piatti, Alessandra

AU - Coppola, Liliana

AU - Gramegna, Maria

AU - Demicheli, Vittorio

AU - Melegaro, Alessia

AU - Tirani, Marcello

AU - Parmelli, Elena

AU - Auxilia, Francesco

AU - Moja, Lorenzo

AU - Pistotti, Vanna

AU - Zanetti, Alessandro

PY - 2015/2/25

Y1 - 2015/2/25

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Decision aid

KW - Decision-making

KW - Framework

KW - Health policy

KW - Immunisation programmes

KW - Model

KW - Vaccination

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922925115&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922925115&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.020

DO - 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 25533328

AN - SCOPUS:84922925115

VL - 33

SP - 1206

EP - 1217

JO - Vaccine

JF - Vaccine

SN - 0264-410X

IS - 9

ER -