Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand

2 Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

3 Asc Academics, Groningen, The Netherlands

4 World Health Organization (WHO), Genève, Switzerland

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.

Highlights

Supplementary File 1 (Download)

Supplementary File 2 (Download)

Keywords


  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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Muangchana C, Thamapornpilas P, Karnkawinpong O. Immunization policy development in Thailand: the role of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice. Vaccine. 2010;28 Suppl 1:A104-109. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.02.043
  7. Expanded Programme on Immunization. Division of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Ministry of Public Health website. http://dvpd.ddc.moph.go.th/.  Accessed December 27, 2018.
  8. Patcharanarumol W, Panichkriangkrai W, Sommanuttaweechai A, Hanson K, Wanwong Y, Tangcharoensathien V. Strategic purchasing and health system efficiency: a comparison of two financing schemes in Thailand. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195179. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195179
  9. Praditsitthikorn N, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, et al. Economic evaluation of policy options for prevention and control of cervical cancer in Thailand. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(9):781-806. doi:10.2165/11586560-000000000-00000
  10. Tantivess S, Yothasamut J, Putchong C, Sirisamutr T, Teerawattananon Y. The role of health technology assessment evidence in decision making: the case of human papillomavirus vaccination policy in Thailand. Nonthaburi: The Graphico Systems Co., Ltd; 2009.
  11. Mohara A, Youngkong S, Velasco RP, et al. Using health technology assessment for informing coverage decisions in Thailand. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(2):137-146. doi:10.2217/cer.12.10
  12. Leelahavarong P, Doungthipsirikul S, Kumluang S, et al. Health Technology Assessment in Thailand: Institutionalization and Contribution to Healthcare Decision Making: Review of Literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019:1-7. doi:10.1017/s0266462319000321
  13. HTA glossary. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) website.  http://www.inahta.org/.   Accessed August 8, 2019.
  14. Teerawattananon Y, Tritasavit N, Suchonwanich N, Kingkaew P. The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108(7):397-404. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2014.06.017 
  15. Botwright S, Hutubessy R, Kahn A, Giersing B. A novel approach to evaluate the value of vaccines from the perspective of low and middle income countries: a conceptual framework and pilot project experience. Unpublished manuscript. World Health Organization; 2019.
  16. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-4-14
  17. National Vaccine Institute Web site. http://www.nvi.go.th/.  Accessed July 4, 2018.
  18. National Drug Information. Thai Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health Web site. http://ndi.fda.moph.go.th/.  Accessed July 4, 2018.
  19. Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program. Minutes of stakeholder meeting on 17 May 2018: Introduction to Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) pilot project in Thailand. Nonthaburi: Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program; 2018.
  20. Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program. Stakeholder Dissemination Meeting: Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) Pilot Project in Thailand. Nonthaburi: Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program; 2018.
  21. Jauregui B, Janusz CB, Clark AD, et al. ProVac Global Initiative: a vision shaped by ten years of supporting evidence-based policy decisions. Vaccine. 2015;33 Suppl 1:A21-27. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.080
  22. Zehrung D, Jarrahian C, Giersing B, Kristensen D. Exploring new packaging and delivery options for the immunization supply chain. Vaccine. 2017;35(17):2265-2271. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.11.095
  23. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) Tool. Geneva: WHO; 2012.
  24. The Health Economic Working Group. Meeting of the Health Economic Working Group on 22 May 2013. Nonthaburi: Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health; 2013.