Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand

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.

[1]  S. Tantivess,et al.  Health Technology Assessment in Thailand: Institutionalization and Contribution to Healthcare Decision Making: Review of Literature , 2019, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[2]  K. Hanson,et al.  Strategic purchasing and health system efficiency: A comparison of two financing schemes in Thailand , 2018, PloS one.

[3]  M. Jit,et al.  The need for sustainability and alignment of future support for National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in low and middle-income countries , 2018, Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics.

[4]  B. Giersing,et al.  Exploring new packaging and delivery options for the immunization supply chain. , 2017, Vaccine.

[5]  L. Wallace,et al.  How Are New Vaccines Prioritized in Low-Income Countries? A Case Study of Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine and Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Uganda , 2017, International journal of health policy and management.

[6]  David Bishai,et al.  What criteria do decision makers in Thailand use to set priorities for vaccine introduction? , 2016, BMC Public Health.

[7]  S. Resch,et al.  ProVac Global Initiative: a vision shaped by ten years of supporting evidence-based policy decisions. , 2015, Vaccine.

[8]  A. Culyer.  Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program , 2014 .

[9]  A. Culyer.  International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment , 2014 .

[10]  S. Wang,et al.  The privilege and responsibility of having choices: decision-making for new vaccines in developing countries. , 2012, Health policy and planning.

[11]  J. Uddin,et al.  New vaccine adoption: qualitative study of national decision-making processes in seven low- and middle-income countries. , 2012, Health policy and planning.

[12]  Y. Teerawattananon,et al.  Using health technology assessment for informing coverage decisions in Thailand. , 2012, Journal of comparative effectiveness research.

[13]  S. Chichareon,et al.  Economic Evaluation of Policy Options for Prevention and Control of Cervical Cancer in Thailand , 2011, PharmacoEconomics.

[14]  Charung Muangchana,et al.  Immunization policy development in Thailand: the role of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice. , 2010, Vaccine.

[15]  R. Baltussen,et al.  Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis , 2006, Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E.

[16]  Y. Teerawattananon,et al.  The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. , 2014, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen.