ArticleBMC public health2016
What criteria do decision makers in Thailand use to set priorities for vaccine introduction?
Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- National decision-making for the introduction of new vaccines: A systematic review, 2010-2020.Vaccine · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- A decision-making framework for COVID-19 infodemic management strategies evaluation in spherical fuzzy environment.Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment : research journal · 2023Article
- Priority setting of vaccine introduction in Bangladesh: a multicriteria decision analysis study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Identification and prioritization of strategies to tackle COVID-19 outbreak: A group-BWM based MCDM approach.Applied soft computing · 2021Article
- Pathway towards an ideal and sustainable framework agreement for the public procurement of vaccines in Spain: a multi-criteria decision analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2020Article
- Seroprevalence and factors associated with hepatitis B infection among the hill tribe adult population in Thailand: a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the COVID-19 Pandemic Intervention Strategies with Hesitant F-AHP.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Influenza Intervention Strategies in Turkey with Fuzzy AHP-VIKOR.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2019Article
- Etiology, Treatment, and Outcome of Children Aged 3 to 36 Months With Fever Without a Source at a Community Hospital in Southern Thailand.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsFrom 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.