Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 1;9(10):439-447.
doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2020.01.

Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand

Waranya Rattanavipapong  1 , Ritika Kapoor  2 , Yot Teerawattananon  1   2 , Jos Luttjeboer  3 , Siobhan Botwright  4 , Rachel A Archer  1 , Birgitte Giersing  4 , Raymond C W Hutubessy  4
Affiliations

Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand

Waranya Rattanavipapong et al. Int J Health Policy Manag. .

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the Total System Effectiveness (TSE) framework to assist national policy-makers in prioritizing vaccines. The pilot was launched in Thailand to explore the potential use of TSE in a country with established governance structures and accountable decision-making processes for immunization policy. While the existing literature informs vaccine adoption decisions in GAVI-eligible countries, this study attempts to address a gap in the literature by examining the policy process of a non-GAVI eligible country.

Methods: A rotavirus vaccine (RVV) test case was used to compare the decision criteria made by the existing processes (Expanded Program on Immunization [EPI], and National List of Essential Medicines [NLEM]) for vaccine prioritization and the TSE-pilot model, using Thailand specific data.

Results: The existing decision-making processes in Thailand and TSE were found to offer similar recommendations on the selection of a RVV product.

Conclusion: The authors believe that TSE can provide a well-reasoned and step by step approach for countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to develop a systematic and transparent decision-making process for immunization policy.

Keywords: Health Technology Assessment; Priority Setting; Thailand; Universal Health Coverage; Vaccine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 2
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pooripussarakul S, Riewpaiboon A, Bishai D, Muangchana C, Tantivess S. What criteria do decision makers in Thailand use to set priorities for vaccine introduction? BMC Public Health. 2016;16:684. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3382-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Burchett HE, Mounier-Jack S, Griffiths UK. et al. New vaccine adoption: qualitative study of national decision-making processes in seven low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy Plan. 2012;27 Suppl 2:ii5–16. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czs035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Howard N, Bell S, Walls H. et al. The need for sustainability and alignment of future support for National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in low and middle-income countries. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018;14(6):1539–1541. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1444321. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mantel C, Wang SA. The privilege and responsibility of having choices: decision-making for new vaccines in developing countries. Health Policy Plan. 2012;27 Suppl 2:ii1–4. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czs041. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wallace L, Kapirir L. How are new vaccines prioritized in low-income countries? a case study of human papilloma virus vaccine and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in Uganda. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(12):707–720. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.37. - DOI - PMC - PubMed