The International Finance Facility for Immunisation: stakeholders' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate stakeholders' understanding and opinions of the International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm); to identify factors affecting funding levels; and to explore the future use of IFFIm. METHODS: Between July and September 2015, we interviewed 33 individuals from 25 organizations identified as stakeholders in IFFIm. In total 22.5 hours of semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a framework method. FINDINGS: Stakeholders' understanding of IFFIm's financing mechanism and its outcomes varied and many stakeholders wanted more information. Participants highlighted that the change in the macro-economic environment following the 2008 financial crisis affected national policy in donor countries and subsequently the number of new commitments IFFIm received. Since Gavi is now seen as a successful and mature organization, participants stated that donors prefer to donate directly to Gavi. The pharmaceutical industry valued IFFIm for providing funding stability and flexibility. Other stakeholders valued IFFIm's ability to access funds early and enable Gavi to increase vaccine coverage. Overall, stakeholders thought IFFIm was successful, but they had divergent views about IFFIm's on-going role. Participants listed two issues where bond financing mechanisms may be suitable: emergency preparedness and outcome-based time-limited interventions. CONCLUSION: The benefit of pledging funds through IFFIm needs to be re-evaluated. There are potential uses for bond financing to raise funds for other global health issues, but these must be carefully considered against criteria to establish effectiveness, with quantifiable pre-defined outcome indicators to evaluate performance

Value and effectiveness of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups in low- and middle-income countries : A qualitative study of global and national perspectives

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.The Global Vaccine Action Plan proposes that every country establish or have access to a National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) by 2020. The NITAG role is to produce evidence-informed recommendations that incorporate local context, to guide national immunization policies and practice. This study aimed to explore the value and effectiveness of NITAGs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), identifying areas in which NITAGs may require further support to improve their functionality and potential barriers to global investment. A multi-methods study design was used, comprising 134 semi-structured interviews and 82 literature review sources that included 38 countries. Interviews were conducted with 53 global/regional and 81 country-level participants able to provide insight into NITAG effectiveness, including NITAG members, national immunization programme staff, and global agency representatives (e.g. the World Health Organisation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi the Vaccine Alliance). The review, including published and unpublished sources on NITAGs in LMICs, was conducted to supplement and corroborate interview findings. Data were analysed thematically. NITAGs were described as valuable in promoting evidence-informed vaccination decision-making, with NITAG involvement enhancing national immunization programme strength and sustainability. Challenges to NITAG effectiveness included: (1) unreliable funding; (2) insufficient diversity of member expertise; (3) inadequate conflicts of interest management procedures; (4) insufficient capacity to access and use evidence; (5) lack of transparency; and (6) limited integration with national decision-making processes that reduced the recognition and incorporation of NITAG recommendations. LMIC NITAGs have developed significantly in the past decade. Well-functioning NITAGs were trusted national resources that enhanced country ownership of immunization provision. However, many LMIC NITAGs require additional technical and funding support to strengthen quality and effectiveness, while maintaining impartiality and ensuring sufficient integration with national decision-making processes. Barriers to sustainable global support need to be addressed for LMIC NITAGs to both continue and develop further.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Vaccination uptake and health service access amongst Polish and Romanian communities in England: a qualitative interview study – research summary

At the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, we are conducting a study to explore vaccination uptake and health service access amongst Polish and Romanian communities in England. In this summary, we provide the rationale for conducting this research and an overview of the study design

How to and how not to develop a theory of change to evaluate a complex intervention: reflections on an experience in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Theories of change (ToCs) describe how interventions can bring about long-term outcomes through a logical sequence of intermediate outcomes and have been used to design and measure the impact of public health programmes in several countries. In recognition of their capacity to provide a framework for monitoring and evaluation, they are being increasingly employed in the development sector. The construction of a ToC typically occurs through a consultative process, requiring stakeholders to reflect on how their programmes can bring about change. ToCs help make explicit any underlying assumptions, acknowledge the role of context and provide evidence to justify the chain of causal pathways. However, while much literature exists on how to develop a ToC with respect to interventions in theory, there is comparatively little reflection on applying it in practice to complex interventions in the health sector. This paper describes the initial process of developing a ToC to inform the design of an evaluation of a complex intervention aiming to improve government payments to health workers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Lessons learnt include: the need for the ToC to understand how the intervention produces effects on the wider system and having broad stakeholder engagement at the outset to maximise chances of the intervention's success and ensure ownership. Power relationships between stakeholders may also affect the ToC discourse but can be minimised by having an independent facilitator. We hope these insights are of use to other global public health practitioners using this approach to evaluate complex interventions

A process evaluation of how the routine vaccination programme is implemented at GP practices in England.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the incidence of several pathogens of public health importance (measles, mumps, pertussis and rubella) has increased in Europe, leading to outbreaks. This has included England, where GP practices implement the vaccination programme based on government guidance. However, there has been no study of how implementation takes place, which makes it difficult to identify organisational variation and thus limits the ability to recommend interventions to improve coverage. The aim of this study is to undertake a comparative process evaluation of the implementation of the routine vaccination programme at GP practices in England. METHODS: We recruited a sample of geographically and demographically diverse GP practices through a national research network and collected quantitative and qualitative data as part of a Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing analysis between May 2017 and February 2018. We conducted semi-structured interviews with practice staff involved in vaccination, who then completed an activity log for 2 weeks. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a framework method. RESULTS: Nine practices completed data collection from diverse geographic and socio-economic contexts, and 52 clinical and non-clinical staff participated in 26 interviews. Information relating to 372 vaccination appointments (233 childhood and 139 adult appointments) was captured using activity logs. We have defined a 14-stage care delivery value chain and detailed process map for vaccination. Areas of greatest variation include the method of reminder and recall activities, structure of vaccination appointments and task allocation between staff groups. For childhood vaccination, mean appointment length was 15.9 min (range 9.0-22.0 min) and 10.9 min for adults (range 6.8-14.1 min). Non-clinical administrative activities comprised 59.7% total activity (range 48.4-67.0%). Appointment length and total time were not related to coverage, whereas capacity in terms of appointments per eligible patient may improve coverage. Administrative tasks had lower fidelity of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: There is variation in how GP practices in England implement the delivery of the routine vaccination programme. Further work is required to evaluate capacity factors in a wider range of practices, alongside other contextual factors, including the working culture within practices

The role of National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in strengthening national vaccine decision-making: A comparative case study of Armenia, Ghana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Senegal and Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Improving evidence informed decision-making in immunisation is a global health priority and many low and middle-income countries have established National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) as independent technical advisory bodies for this purpose. NITAG development and strengthening has received financial and technical support over the past decade, but relatively little evaluation. This study examined NITAGs in six low and middle-income countries (i.e. Armenia, Ghana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda), to examine functionality, quality of recommendation development, and integration with national decision-making bodies and processes. METHODS: A mixed-method case-series design, used semi-structured interviews, NITAG meeting observations, and document review. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Five NITAGs had been legally established with terms of reference and appeared well functioning, with Ghana's in development. All NITAGs had standard operating procedures and nomination procedures to ensure a range of expertise, generally comprising 10-15 core, 1-5 secretariat, and several ex-officio members. Aside from economics, NITAGs reported a wide range of member expertise. Newer NITAGs had particular concerns about funding. Four used formal conflict of interest procedures, although some commented that implications were not always understood. NITAGs valued local data, and limited evidence suggested NITAG presence might reinforce data production through surveillance and local research studies. All observed meetings demonstrated due process and evidence-based decision-making processes were generally followed, with a critical role played by working-group data syntheses and assessments. NITAGs were seen as well integrated with ministry of health (MoH) decision-making and MoH interviewees were positive about NITAG contributions, indicating NITAGs had an important role. Collaboration with other bodies was more limited, but mitigated by NITAG members' cross-membership in other bodies. CONCLUSIONS: NITAGs have an important and valued role within national immunisation decision-making. However, their position remains insecure, with the need for sustainable technical and financial support

Integrated care: learning between high-income, and low- and middle-income country health systems.

Over the past decade, discussion of integrated care has become more widespread and prominent in both high- and low-income health care systems (LMICs). The trend reflects the mismatch between an increasing burden of chronic disease and local health care systems which are still largely focused on hospital-based treatment of individual clinical episodes and also the long-standing proliferation of vertical donor-funded disease-specific programmes in LMICs which have disrupted horizontal, or integrated, care. Integration is a challenging concept to define, in part because of its multiple dimensions and varied scope: from integrated clinical care for individual patients to broader systems integration-or linkage-involving a wide range of interconnected services (e.g. social services and health care). In this commentary, we compare integrated care in high- and lower-income countries. Although contexts may differ significantly between these settings, there are many common features of how integration has been understood and common challenges in its implementation. We discuss the different approaches to, scope of, and impacts of, integration including barriers and facilitators to the processes of implementation. With the burden of disease becoming more alike across settings, we consider what gains there could be from comparative learning between these settings which have constituted two separate strands of research until now

Human papillomavirus vaccine communication materials for young people in English-speaking countries:A content analysis

Objective: To undertake a content analysis of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine communication materials available to young people. Design: Content analysis. Setting: Majority English-speaking countries. Methods: Between March and April 2020, a web engine was utilised to search for and retrieve relevant communication materials. Content analysis was used to describe how the following key issues were covered: (1) side effects, (2) safety, (3) practicalities related to receiving the HPV vaccine and (4) gender-specific information. Results: A total of 44 separate communication materials were retrieved, predominantly videos, webpages and leaflets. There was a focus on mild side effects of the vaccine (43.2%), with less frequent reference being made to moderate or serious side effects (22.7%). Reassurance concerning the safety profile of vaccine was communicated by referencing the widespread use of the HPV vaccine (31.8%). Information regarding formal criteria for entry into the vaccination programme emphasised country-specific eligibility criteria (59.1%), the setting in which vaccination was offered (38.6%) and the number of doses required (38.6%). Content intended to improve young people’s experiences of receiving the HPV vaccine was less often provided (22.7%). Gender-specific content usually related to specific HPV-related diseases (52.3%) and/or the availability of cervical cancer screening programmes (52.3%). Conclusion: A variety of different communication tools were retrieved encompassing a wide variety of formats and content, reflective of different vaccination programmes and the varied priorities of organisations producing the materials. Findings will inform the co-production of a tailored educational package to improve access to information by populations of young people identified as having lower HPV vaccine uptake

Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage.

BACKGROUND: The vaccine system in England underwent radical changes in 2013 following the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act. There have since been multi-year decreases in coverage of many vaccines. Healthcare professionals have reported finding the new system fragmented and challenging. This study aims to produce a logic model of the new system and evaluate the available evidence for interventions to improve coverage. METHODS: We undertook qualitative document analysis to develop the logic model using process evaluation methods. We performed a systematic review by searching 12 databases with a broad search strategy to identify interventions studied in England conducted between 2006 and 2016 and evaluated their effectiveness. We then compared the evidence base to the logic model. RESULTS: We analysed 83 documents and developed a logic model describing the core inputs, processes, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of the new vaccination system alongside the programmatic assumptions for each stage. Of 9,615 unique articles, we screened 624 abstracts, 45 full-text articles, and included 16 studies: 8 randomised controlled trials and 8 quasi-experimental studies. Four studies suggest that modifications to the contracting and incentive systems can increase coverage, but changes to other programme inputs (e.g. human or capital resources) were not evaluated. Four multi-component intervention studies modified activities and outputs from within a GP practice to increase coverage, but were part of campaigns or projects. Thus, many potentially modifiable factors relating to routine programme implementation remain unexplored. Reminder/recall systems are under-studied in England; incentive payments to adolescents may be effective; and only two studies evaluated carer information. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for interventions to increase immunisation coverage in the new system in England are limited by a small number of studies and by significant risk of bias. Several areas important to primary care remain unexplored as targets for interventions, especially modification to organisational management

Measuring the health systems impact of disease control programmes: a critical reflection on the WHO building blocks framework.

BACKGROUND: The WHO health systems Building Blocks framework has become ubiquitous in health systems research. However, it was not developed as a research instrument, but rather to facilitate investments of resources in health systems. In this paper, we reflect on the advantages and limitations of using the framework in applied research, as experienced in three empirical vaccine studies we have undertaken. DISCUSSION: We argue that while the Building Blocks framework is valuable because of its simplicity and ability to provide a common language for researchers, it is not suitable for analysing dynamic, complex and inter-linked systems impacts. In our three studies, we found that the mechanical segmentation of effects by the WHO building blocks, without recognition of their interactions, hindered the understanding of impacts on systems as a whole. Other important limitations were the artificial equal weight given to each building block and the challenge in capturing longer term effects and opportunity costs. Another criticism is not of the framework per se, but rather how it is typically used, with a focus on the six building blocks to the neglect of the dynamic process and outcome aspects of health systems.We believe the framework would be improved by making three amendments: integrating the missing "demand" component; incorporating an overarching, holistic health systems viewpoint and including scope for interactions between components. If researchers choose to use the Building Blocks framework, we recommend that it be adapted to the specific study question and context, with formative research and piloting conducted in order to inform this adaptation. SUMMARY: As with frameworks in general, the WHO Building Blocks framework is valuable because it creates a common language and shared understanding. However, for applied research, it falls short of what is needed to holistically evaluate the impact of specific interventions on health systems. We propose that if researchers use the framework, it should be adapted and made context-specific