» Articles » PMID: 27484123

What Criteria Do Decision Makers in Thailand Use to Set Priorities for Vaccine Introduction?

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2016 Aug 4
PMID 27484123
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: There is a need to identify rational criteria and set priorities for vaccines. In Thailand, many licensed vaccines are being considering for introduction into the Expanded Program on Immunization; thus, the government has to make decisions about which vaccines should be adopted. This study aimed to set priorities for new vaccines and to facilitate decision analysis.

Methods: We used a best-worst scaling study for rank-ordering of vaccines. The candidate vaccines were determined by a set of criteria, including burden of disease, target age group, budget impact, side effect, effectiveness, severity of disease, and cost of vaccine. The criteria were identified from a literature review and by in-depth, open-ended interviews with experts. The priority-setting model was conducted among three groups of stakeholders, including policy makers, healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators. The vaccine data were mapped and then calculated for the probability of selection.

Results: From the candidate vaccines, the probability of hepatitis B vaccine being selected by all respondents (96.67 %) was ranked first. This was followed, respectively, by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 (95.09 %) and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (90.87 %). The three groups of stakeholders (policy makers, healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators) showed the same ranking trends. Most severe disease, high fever rate and high disease burden showed the highest coefficients for criterion levels being selected by all respondents. This result can be implied that a vaccine which can prevent most severe disease with high disease burden and has low safety has a greater chance of being selected by respondents in this study.

Conclusions: The priority setting of vaccines through a multiple-criteria approach could contribute to transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. This is a step forward in the development of an evidence-based approach that meets the need of developing country. The methodology is generalizable but its application to another country would require the criteria as relevant to that country.

Citing Articles

A decision-making framework for COVID-19 infodemic management strategies evaluation in spherical fuzzy environment.

Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi S, Bonab S, Ghiaci A Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 2023; 37(4):1635-1648.

PMID: 36714449 PMC: 9857902. DOI: 10.1007/s00477-022-02355-3.


Priority setting of vaccine introduction in Bangladesh: a multicriteria decision analysis study.

Haider M, Youngkong S, Thavorncharoensap M, Thokala P BMJ Open. 2022; 12(2):e054219.

PMID: 35228286 PMC: 8886403. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054219.


Identification and prioritization of strategies to tackle COVID-19 outbreak: A group-BWM based MCDM approach.

Ahmad N, Hasan M, Barbhuiya R Appl Soft Comput. 2021; 111:107642.

PMID: 34230822 PMC: 8252723. DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107642.


National decision-making for the introduction of new vaccines: A systematic review, 2010-2020.

Donadel M, Panero M, Ametewee L, Shefer A Vaccine. 2021; 39(14):1897-1909.

PMID: 33750592 PMC: 10370349. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.02.059.


Evaluation of the COVID-19 Pandemic Intervention Strategies with Hesitant F-AHP.

Samanlioglu F, Kaya B J Healthc Eng. 2020; 2020:8835258.

PMID: 32850105 PMC: 7441437. DOI: 10.1155/2020/8835258.


References
1.
Peacock S, Mitton C, Bate A, McCoy B, Donaldson C . Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy. 2009; 92(2-3):124-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.02.006. View

2.
Muangchana C, Warinsatian P . Incorporation of private demand into cost-benefit analysis of a universal Hib vaccination program in Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2011; 42(2):376-87. View

3.
Ngcobo N, Cameron N . The decision making process on new vaccines introduction in South Africa. Vaccine. 2012; 30 Suppl 3:C9-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.04.027. View

4.
Barnighausen T, Bloom D, Cafiero-Fonseca E, OBrien J . Valuing vaccination. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(34):12313-9. PMC: 4151736. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1400475111. View

5.
Erickson L, De Wals P, Farand L . An analytical framework for immunization programs in Canada. Vaccine. 2005; 23(19):2470-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.10.029. View