Suppr超能文献

我们对疫苗政策如何影响健康公平性是否有共同的理解?评估免疫实践咨询委员会公平性评估中的差异。

Do We Have a Common Understanding of How Vaccine Policy Affects Health Equity? Evaluating Variability in the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Equity Assessment.

作者信息

Dooling Kathleen, Alyanak Elif, Hewlett Dial, Payne Haley, Snow Vincenza, Finkel Mitchell, Burns Maura, Hauber Brett, Coulter Joshua, Alexander-Parrish Ronika

机构信息

Pfizer, Collegeville, PA 19426, USA.

Avalere Health, Washington, DC 20005, USA.

出版信息

Vaccines (Basel). 2025 Feb 21;13(3):214. doi: 10.3390/vaccines13030214.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' (ACIP) Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework has assessed vaccine equity, in addition to clinical and epidemiological data, since 2020. The domain's use has not yet been evaluated.

METHODS

Authors assessed web-published, Equity domain-inclusive ACIP Work Group EtR presentations occurring between October 2020 and October 2023. Domain judgments were scored and assigned variability ratings based on the number and spread of domain categories selected. Equity domain trends were evaluated using sample statistics and one- and two-way analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Of the 44 assessed EtRs, 27 (61.4%) had variable judgments for at least one domain; 9 (20.4%) had variable Equity judgments. Across domains, Values had the greatest variability, followed by Equity. Across disease targets, EtRs assessing products for RSV prevention were most variable. Pediatric product EtRs had greater variability than adult products, and EtRs resulting in shared clinical decision-making (SCDM) recommendations had greater variability than those resulting in routine recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Values and Equity domains judgment imprecision highlights a need for additional clarity to support consistent assessment.

摘要

背景/目的:自2020年以来,免疫实践咨询委员会(ACIP)的证据到建议(EtR)框架除了评估临床和流行病学数据外,还对疫苗公平性进行了评估。该领域的使用尚未得到评估。

方法

作者评估了2020年10月至2023年10月期间在网上发布的、包含公平性领域的ACIP工作组EtR报告。根据所选领域类别的数量和分布,对领域判断进行评分并赋予变异性评级。使用样本统计以及单因素和双因素方差分析来评估公平性领域的趋势。

结果

在44份评估的EtR中,27份(61.4%)至少有一个领域的判断存在变异性;9份(20.4%)有可变的公平性判断。在各个领域中,价值观领域的变异性最大,其次是公平性领域。在各种疾病目标中,评估用于预防呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)产品的EtR变异性最大。儿科产品的EtR比成人产品的变异性更大,而导致共同临床决策(SCDM)建议的EtR比导致常规建议的EtR变异性更大。

结论

价值观和公平性领域的判断不精确突出表明需要进一步明确,以支持一致性评估。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

1
Defining equity, its determinants, and the foundations of equity science.
Soc Sci Med. 2024 Jun;351:116940. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116940. Epub 2024 May 6.
2
Defining Health Equity.
J Natl Med Assoc. 2022 Dec;114(6):593-600. doi: 10.1016/j.jnma.2022.08.004. Epub 2022 Sep 24.
3
A more practical guide to incorporating health equity domains in implementation determinant frameworks.
Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Jun 5;2(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s43058-021-00146-5.
4
Shared clinical decision making on vaccines: Nothing has really changed for pharmacists.
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2020 Nov-Dec;60(6):e91-e94. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2020.06.027. Epub 2020 Jul 27.
5
Disparities in healthcare providers' interpretations and implementations of ACIP's meningococcal vaccine recommendations.
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020 Apr 2;16(4):933-944. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1682845. Epub 2019 Nov 11.
6
Updated Framework for Development of Evidence-Based Recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Nov 16;67(45):1271-1272. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6745a4.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验