González-Lorenzo Marien, Piatti Alessandra, Coppola Liliana, Gramegna Maria, Demicheli Vittorio, Melegaro Alessia, Tirani Marcello, Parmelli Elena, Auxilia Francesco, Moja Lorenzo
Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy.
Direzione Generale Salute, UO Governo della Prevenzione e Tutela Sanitaria, Regione Lombardia, Milano, Italy.
Vaccine. 2015 Feb 25;33(9):1206-17. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.020. Epub 2014 Dec 19.
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.
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.
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.
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.
卫生政策制定者常常需要面对是否以及如何将新疫苗纳入免疫计划的决策。本研究旨在回顾和梳理当前有关疫苗的相关框架和分类法,并将其与DECIDE循证决策框架(EtD)相联系,EtD是一个基于循证标准的通用框架,用于指导干预措施采用的决策。
我们系统检索了1990年至2013年期间的MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆以及资助机构网站。我们纳入了呈现社区疫苗采用决策工具的系统评价和原始研究。我们按目的、目标国家、主要结果和决策模型对报告进行了定性总结。然后我们提取并比较了各研究中疫苗框架所采用的维度。
纳入了14项研究(5项系统评价和9项原始研究)。几个因素经常影响决策者对疫苗的看法:最常考虑的政治背景因素有疾病或问题的重要性、疫苗特性、资源利用和可行性。其他因素如价值观和偏好以及可接受性的报告则不太一致。我们没有找到关于疫苗采用框架与一般干预措施采用决策框架(如EtD)不同原因的证据。关于维度如何在实际因素中得到解释并直接与覆盖率决策相关的数据有限。
本综述总结了卫生政策决策中一个异质且不断发展领域的概念模型和分类法。关于疫苗覆盖率的一个共享且全面的框架仍有待实现,其单一维度(流行病学、有效性、经济和社会)在不同研究中的重要性各异。像EtD这样的通用工具对所有相关维度进行了概念化,可能会减少不一致性。