Charting the evolution of approaches employed by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) to address inequities in access to immunization: a systematic qualitative review of GAVI policies, strategies and resource allocation mechanisms through an equity lens (1999–2014)

Abstract

BackgroundGAVI’s focus on reducing inequities in access to vaccines, immunization, and GAVI funds, − both between and within countries - has changed over time. This paper charts that evolution.MethodsA systematic qualitative review was conducted by searching PubMed, Google Scholar and direct review of available GAVI Board papers, policies, and program guidelines. Documents were included if they described or evaluated GAVI policies, strategies, or programs and discussed equity of access to vaccines, utilization of immunization services, or GAVI funds in countries currently or previously eligible for GAVI support. Findings were grouped thematically, categorized into time periods covering GAVI’s phases of operations, and assessed depending on whether the approaches mediated equity of opportunity or equity of outcomes between or within countries.ResultsSerches yielded 2816 documents for assessment. After pre-screening and removal of duplicates, 552 documents underwent detailed evaluation and pertinent information was extracted from 188 unique documents. As a global funding mechanism, GAVI responded rationally to a semi-fixed funding constraint by focusing on between-country equity in allocation of resources. GAVI’s predominant focus and documented successes have been in addressing between-country inequities in access to vaccines comparing lower income (GAVI-eligible) countries with higher income (ineligible) countries. GAVI has had mixed results at addressing between-country inequities in utilization of immunization services, and has only more recently put greater emphasis and resources towards addressing within-country inequities in utilization to immunization services. Over time, GAVI has progressively added vaccines to its portfolio. This expansion should have addressed inter-country, inter-regional, inter-generational and gender inequities in disease burden, however, evidence is scant with respect to final outcomes.ConclusionIn its next phase of operations, the Alliance can continue to demonstrate its strength as a highly effective multi-partner enterprise, capable of learning and innovating in a world that has changed much since its inception. By building on its successes, developing more coherent and consistent approaches to address inequities between and within countries and by monitoring progress and outcomes, GAVI is well-positioned to bring the benefits of vaccination to previously unreached and underserved communities towards provision of universal health coverage.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2521-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introducing new vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: challenges and approaches

“…Recommendations from the WHO and the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) play an important role [27,28]. Other global key players include for instance Gavi, which has facilitated access to new and under-utilized vaccines in the poorest countries since its creation in 2000, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World bank [16,29].…”

Determinants of full vaccination status in children aged 12–23 months in Gurùé and Milange districts, Mozambique: results of a population-based cross-sectional survey

“…2 , 3 Addressing these inequalities with a focus that targets interventions at a more regional and local level may help to reduce the disparities in childhood mortality that remain in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) today. 4 , 5 …”

Further exploration of dissemination bias in qualitative research required to facilitate assessment within qualitative evidence syntheses

“…A growing number of qualitative evidence syntheses are reporting consideration of the impacts of dissemination bias on the studies identified for the synthesis and, to some extent, on the review findings as a whole [25][26][27][28][29][30]. This is an important first step in relation to documenting possible dissemination bias and identifying examples of its potential impacts.…”