Indicators to assess National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs)

Blau, Julia J. C.; Sadr-Azodi, Nahad; Clementz, Marine; Abeysinghe, Nihal; Cakmak, Niyazi; Duclos, Philippe; Janusz, Cara Bess; Jaúregui, Bárbara; Mihigo, Richard; Mosina, Liudmila; Takashima, Yusuke; Senouci, Kamel

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.01.047

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To assess the general strength of routine immunization we used JRF data indicating whether countries had achieved Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) goals of maternal and neonatal tetanus elimination (MNTE) (<1 case of neonatal tetanus per 1,000 live births in every district of a country), and we used the WHO UNICEF estimates of national immunization coverage to assess if countries had achieved global goals of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis containing vaccine third dose coverage (DTP3) ⩾95% nationally [21], [22]. Finally, to assess the strength of a country to make decisions about vaccine interventions, we used JRF data to determine whether countries achieved the indicators defining well-functioning National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) [21], [23]. We did not have data regarding whether a country participated in a well-functioning subregional Technical Advisory Group (TAG), which is recommended as an option for small countries.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A global review of national influenza immunization policies: Analysis of the 2014 WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form on immunization

Ortiz

Perut

Dumolard

et al. 2016

Vaccine

152

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe WHO recommends annual influenza vaccination to prevent influenza illness in high-risk groups. Little is known about national influenza immunization policies globally.Material and MethodsThe 2014 WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form (JRF) on Immunization was adapted to capture data on influenza immunization policies. We combined this dataset with additional JRF information on new vaccine introductions and strength of immunization programmes, as well as publicly available data on country economic status. Data from countries that did not complete the JRF were sought through additional sources. We described data on country influenza immunization policies and used bivariate analyses to identify factors associated with having such policies.ResultsOf 194 WHO Member States, 115 (59%) reported having a national influenza immunization policy in 2014. Among countries with a national policy, programmes target specific WHO-defined risk groups, including pregnant women (42%), young children (28%), adults with chronic illnesses (46%), the elderly (45%), and health care workers (47%). The Americas, Europe, and Western Pacific were the WHO regions that had the highest percentages of countries reporting that they had national influenza immunization policies. Compared to countries without policies, countries with policies were significantly more likely to have the following characteristics: to be high or upper middle income (p < 0.0001); to have introduced birth dose hepatitis B virus vaccine (p < 0.0001), pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (p = 0.032), or human papilloma virus vaccine (p = 0.002); to have achieved global goals for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine coverage (p < 0.0001); and to have a functioning National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe 2014 revision of the JRF permitted a global assessment of national influenza immunization policies. The 59% of countries reporting that they had policies are wealthier, use more new or under-utilized vaccines, and have stronger immunization systems. Addressing disparities in public health resources and strengthening immunization systems may facilitate influenza vaccine introduction and use.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A global review of national influenza immunization policies: Analysis of the 2014 WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form on immunization

Ortiz

Perut

Dumolard

et al. 2016

Vaccine

152

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research on NITAGs and other efforts to strengthen evidence-informed policy has characterised ways of working [25][26][27][28], compared differences across national contexts [5,12,13,20,[29][30][31][32][33], and retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness of specific programmes [9,16,21,22,34]. A recent evaluation of NITAGs in LMICs indicated that NITAGs were perceived as valuable instruments of nationally owned decision-making, which drew on local evidence when possible and could tailor global and regional recommendations to national contexts.…”

Section: Previous Efforts To Strengthen Evidence-informed Health Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Questions for future evidence-informed policy initiatives: insights from the evolution and aspirations of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups

Buffardi

Njambi-Szlapka

2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Attention to evidence-informed policy has grown; however, efforts to strengthen the quality and use of evidence are not starting from a blank slate. Changes in health architectures and financing pose different considerations for investments in evidence-informed policy than in the past. We identify major trends that have shifted the environment in which health policies are made, and use the evolution and future aspirations of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in low-and middle-income countries to identify questions the sector must confront when determining how best to structure and strengthen evidence-informed health policy.Discussion: Trends over the last two decades have resulted in a dense arena with many issue-specific groups, discrete initiatives to strengthen evidence-informed policy and increasing responsibility for subnational institutions. Many countries face a shifting resource base, which for some reduces the amount of resources for health. There is global momentum around universal health coverage, reflecting a broader systems approach, but few examples of how the vast array of stakeholders relate within it are available. NITAG aspirations reflect four interconnected themes related to their scope, their integration in national policy processes, health financing and relationships with ministries of finance, and NITAG positioning relative to other domestic and international entities, raising questions such as, What are the bounds of issue-specific groups and their relationship to allocation decision-making processes across health areas? How do technical advisory groups interface with what are inherently political processes? When are finances considered, by whom and how? What is the future of existing groups whose creation was intended to enhance national ownership but who need continued external support to function? When should new entities be created, in what form and with what mandate?Conclusions: Countries must determine who makes decisions about resources, when, using what criteria, and how to do so in a robust yet efficient way given the existing and future landscape. While answers to these questions are necessarily country specific, they are collective matters that cannot be addressed by specialised groups alone and have implications for new investments in evidence-informed policy.

show abstract

“…The functioning of the committee has improved with the reform, and a self-assessment of its effectiveness (based on WHO indicators) is planned for 2014 [4].…”

Section: Developed Countries Reported a Positive Impact From Sivac Acmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This assessment can be performed by the MoH itself or an external consultant using the 17 output and outcome indicators defined by WHO [4]. SIVAC and partners used these criteria to develop a full evaluation protocol, including guidance for the desk review of NITAG documents, and an analysis plan.…”

Section: Build Technical Capacity Within Nitag Secretariats and Evalumentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supporting countries in establishing and strengthening NITAGs: Lessons learned from 5 years of the SIVAC initiative

Adjagba¹,

Senouci²,

Biellik³

et al. 2015

Vaccine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To empower governments to formulate rational policies without pressure from any group, and to increase the use of evidence-based decision-making to adapt global recommendations on immunization to their local context, the WHO has recommended on multiple occasions that countries should establish National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs). The World Health Assembly (WHA) reinforced those recommendations in 2012 when Member States endorsed the Decade of Vaccines Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP). NITAGs are multidisciplinary groups of national experts responsible for providing independent, evidence-informed advice to health authorities on all policy-related issues for all vaccines across all populations. In 2012, according to the WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Form, among 57 countries eligible for immunization program financial support from the GAVI Alliance, only 9 reported having a functional NITAG. Since 2008, the Supporting Independent Immunization and Vaccine Advisory Committees (SIVAC) Initiative (at the Agence de Médecine Préventive or AMP) in close collaboration with the WHO and other partners has been working to accelerate and systematize the establishment of NITAGs in low- and middle-income countries. In addition to providing direct support to countries to establish advisory groups, the initiative also supports existing NITAGs to strengthen their capacity in the use of evidence-based processes for decision-making aligned with international standards. After 5 years of implementation and based on lessons learned, we recommend that future efforts should target both expanding new NITAGs and strengthening existing NITAGs in individual countries, along three strategic lines: (i) reinforce NITAG institutional integration to promote sustainability and credibility, (ii) build technical capacity within NITAG secretariats and evaluate NITAG performance, and (iii) increase networking and regional collaborations. These should be done through the development and dissemination of tools and guidelines, and information through a variety of adapted mechanisms.

show abstract

Indicators to assess National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs)

Cited by 28 publications

References 14 publications

A global review of national influenza immunization policies: Analysis of the 2014 WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form on immunization

A global review of national influenza immunization policies: Analysis of the 2014 WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form on immunization

Questions for future evidence-informed policy initiatives: insights from the evolution and aspirations of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups

Supporting countries in establishing and strengthening NITAGs: Lessons learned from 5 years of the SIVAC initiative

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About