Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

What criteria do decision makers in Thailand use to set priorities for vaccine introduction?

Authors: Siriporn Pooripussarakul, Arthorn Riewpaiboon, David Bishai, Charung Muangchana, Sripen Tantivess

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Chen RT, Orenstein WA. Epidemiologic methods in immunization programs. Epidemiol Rev. 1996;18:99–117.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Burchett HE, Mounier-Jack S, Griffiths UK, Mills AJ. National decision-making on adopting new vaccines: a systematic review. Health Policy Plann. 2012;27 Suppl 2:ii62–76.
3.
4.
Bärnighausen T, Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, O’Brien JC. Economic evaluation of vaccination: capturing the full benefits, with an application to human papillomavirus. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18 Suppl 5:70–6.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Uddin J, Sarma H, Bari TI, Koehlmoos TP. Introduction of new vaccines: decision-making process in Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr. 2013;31(2):1–7.CrossRef
6.
Kimman TG, Boot HJ, Berbers GA, Vermeer-de Bondt PE, de Wit GA, de Melker HE. Developing a vaccination model to support evidence-based decision making on national immunization programs. Vaccine. 2006;24:4769–78.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, Aikins M. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ. 2006;15(7):689–96.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Gilca V, Sauvageau C, McNeil S, Gemmill IM, Dionne M, Dobson S, Ouakki M, Lavoie F, Duval B. Setting priorities for new vaccination programs by using public health officers and immunization managers opinions. Vaccine. 2008;26:4204–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Beutels P, Scuffham PA, MacIntyre CR. Funding of drugs: do vaccines warrant a different approach? Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:727–33.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Piso B, Zechmeister I, Geiger-Gritsch S. Criteria for vaccine introduction: results of a DELPHI discussion among international immunisation experts on a stepwise decision-making procedure. J Public Health. 2011;19:73–80.CrossRef
11.
Houweling H, Verweij M, Ruitenberg EJ. Criteria for inclusion of vaccinations in public programmes. Vaccine. 2010;28:2924–31.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Erickson LJ, De Wals P, Farand L. An analytical framework for immunization programs in Canada. Vaccine. 2005;23:2470–6.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
15.
Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Muangchana C, Thamapornpilas P, Karnkawinpong O. Immunization policy development in Thailand: the role of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice. Vaccine. 2010;28S:A104–9.CrossRef
17.
Chunsuttiwat S, Biggs BA, Maynard JE, Thammapormpilas P, Prasertsawat M. Comparative evaluation of a combined DTP–HB vaccine in the EPI in Chiangrai Province, Thailand. Vaccine. 2002;21(3–4):188–93.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Baltussen R, Youngkong S, Paolucci F, Niessen L. Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: capitalizing on first experiences. Health Policy. 2010;96:262–4.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Peacock S, Mitton C, Bate A, McCoy B, Donaldson C. Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy. 2009;92:124–32.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Jehu-Appiah C, Baltussen R, Acquah C, Aikins M, d’Almeida S, Bosu W, Koolman X, Laure J, Osei D, Adjei S. Balancing equity and efficiency in health priorities in Ghana: the use of multicriteria decision analysis. Value Helath. 2008;11(7):1081–7.CrossRef
21.
22.
Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, Bridges J. A community-engaged Approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36:624–37.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Bekker-Grob E, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Molassiotis A, Emsley R, Ashcroft D, Caress A, Ellis J, Wagland R, Bailey CD, Haines J, Williams ML, Lorigan P, Smith J, Tishelman C, Blackhall F. Applying best–worst scaling methodology to establish delivery preferences of a symptom supportive care intervention in patients with lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2012;77:199–204.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: Comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Najafzadeh M, Lynd L, Davis J, Bryan S, Anis A, Marra M, Marra C. Barriers to integrating personalized medicine into clinical practice: a best-worst scaling choice experiment. Genet Med. 2012;14:520–6.CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
29.
Defechereux T, Paolucci F, Mirelman A, Youngkong S, Botten G, Hagen TP, Niessen LW. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Youngkong S, Kapiriri L, Baltussen R. Setting priorities for health interventions in developing countries: a review of empirical studies. Trop Med Int Health. 2009;14(8):930–9.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Vargas V, Poblete S. Health prioritization: the case of Chile. Health Aff. 2008;27(3):782–92.CrossRef
32.
Ngcobo NJ, Cameron NA. The decision making process on new vaccines introduction in South Africa. Vaccine. 2012;30 Suppl 3:C9–13.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Deogaonkar R, Hutubessy R, van der Putten I, Evers S, Jit M. Systematic review of studies evaluating the broader economic impact of vaccination in low and middle income countries. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:878.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
35.
Bridges J, Hauber B, Marshall D, Llyod A, Prosser L, Regier D, Johnson R, Mauskopf J. Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Helath. 2011;14:403–13.CrossRef
36.
Lanscar E, Louviere JJ. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform health decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77.CrossRef
37.
Muangchana C, Henprasertthae N, Nurach K, Theppang K, Yoocharoen P, Varinsathien P, Techathawat S, Sanohsieng S, Anantapreecha S. Effectiveness of mouse brain-derived inactivated Japanese encephalitis vaccine in Thai National Immunization Program: a case–control study. Vaccine. 2012;30:361–7.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Siraprapasiri T, Sawaddiwudhipong W, Rojanasuphot S. Cost benefit analysis of Japanese encephalitis vaccination program in Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1997;28(1):143–8.PubMed
39.
40.
Prempree P, Tiprat K, Wagas U, Warinsathien P, Charoenkunnatham W, Toanan R, Akarapanon P. Surveillance and investigation of adverse events following immunization (AEFI). Nonthaburi: Bureau of Epidemiology, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health; 2008.
41.
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):376–86.PubMed
42.
Rerks-Ngarm S, Treleaven SC, Chunsuttiwat S, Muangchana C, Jolley D, Brooks A, et al. Prospective population-based incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis in Thailand. Vaccine. 2004;22:975–83.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Chotivitayatarakorn P, Chotivitayatarakorn P, Poovorawan Y. Cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination as part of the national immunization program for Thai children. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2010;41(1):114–25.PubMed
44.
Muangchana C, Riewpaiboon A, Jiamsiri S, Thamapornpilas P, Warinsatian P. Economic analysis for evidence-based policy-making on a national immunization program: a case of rotavirus vaccine in Thailand. Vaccine. 2012;30(18):2839–47.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Wongsawat J, Chokephaibulkit K. Implication of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines to public health: Thailand perspective. J Med Assoc Thai. 2010;93 Suppl 5:S53–60.PubMed
46.
Baggett HC, Peruski LF, Olsen SJ, Thamthitiwat S, Rhodes J, Dejsirilert S, et al. Incidence of pneumococcal bacteremia requiring hospitalization in rural Thailand. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48 Suppl 2:S65–74.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
What criteria do decision makers in Thailand use to set priorities for vaccine introduction?
Authors
Siriporn Pooripussarakul
Arthorn Riewpaiboon
David Bishai
Charung Muangchana
Sripen Tantivess
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3382-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Public Health 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Comparison of body mass index (BMI) with the CUN-BAE body adiposity estimator in the prediction of hypertension and type 2 diabetes

Research article

Smoking on the margins: a comprehensive analysis of a municipal outdoor smoke-free policy

Research article

Principals’ reports of adults’ alcohol use in Australian secondary schools

Research article

The indirect association of job strain with long-term sickness absence through bullying: a mediation analysis using structural equation modeling

Research article

Cost-effectiveness of providing patients with information on managing mild low-back symptoms in an occupational health setting

Research article

The connection between the primary care and the physical activity sector: professionals’ perceptions