ArticleVaccine2019
Strengthening national vaccine decision-making: Assessing the impact of SIVAC Initiative support on national immunisation technical advisory group (NITAG) functionality in 77 low and middle-income countries.
Article in Vaccine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The association between routine immunisation and COVID-19 vaccination in small Island developing states.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- The Ethiopian National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (E-NITAG): Establishment, Achievements and the Future.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2024Article
- Functionality of technical working groups in enabling evidence-informed decision-making within Malawi's Ministry of Health: a cross-sectional qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Evaluating the functionality and effectiveness of ZITAG and related expanded programme on immunisation technical committees in Zambia.Vaccine: X · 2022Article
- Article
- Questions for future evidence-informed policy initiatives: insights from the evolution and aspirations of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) are multi-disciplinary expert groups that provide policy-makers with independent, evidence-based advice on vaccination. Between 2008 and 2017, the SIVAC Initiative supported establishment and strengthening of NITAGs in low and lower-middle income countries though its impact was never assessed quantitatively.
aimTo quantitatively assess whether SIVAC support is associated with a faster rate at which NITAGs became functional based on six performance indicators.
methodsData from the World Health Organization/Unicef Joint Reporting Form (JRF) from 77 low and lower-middle-income countries were used to examine the time delay between the start of SIVAC support and NITAG functionality using a Cox proportional hazards model.
resultsCountries receiving SIVAC support took a mean of 2.00 (95% CI 1.40-2.60) years to reported functionality compared to 2.82 (95% CI 2.05-3.59) years for countries without SIVAC support. We found evidence that SIVAC support is associated with reduced time until NITAG functionality, and this association cannot fully be explained by GDP per capita, percentage of GDP spent on healthcare, or NITAG functionality score at the start of the study period. However, quality of JRF data for the questions used to calculate NITAG functionality were poor, particularly for countries not receiving SIVAC support.
conclusionSIVAC support is likely to have enabled many countries to more rapidly achieve NITAG functionality.
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.