ArticleVaccine: X2022
Evaluating the functionality and effectiveness of ZITAG and related expanded programme on immunisation technical committees in Zambia.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of Zambia's expansive Inter-agency Coordinating Committee (ICC) in supporting evidence-based vaccine and health sector programming.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- The Ethiopian National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (E-NITAG): Establishment, Achievements and the Future.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Zambia Immunisation Technical Advisory Group (ZITAG) was established in 2016 as an advisory body to provide evidence-based recommendations on vaccine policy. As part of the Gave Full Country Evaluation, we evaluated the functionality and effectiveness of ZITAG and related EPI committees through an online stakeholder survey of Interagnecy Coordinating Committee (ICC), ZITAG and Extended programme on Immunisation Technical Working Group (EPI-TWG) members, document review and key informant interviews. The survey was sent out via SurveyMonkey between May and July 2020 to 69 members of ZITAG, ICC or the EPI TWG. A total of 52 individuals responded (75%). Eight key informant interviews were also carried out at the national and global level in September 2020 to elaborate further on some of the quantitative findings and for triangulation. Findingsrevealed that the EPI committees were reasonably functional and effective entities, each with its unique role, though some overlaps occurred. Functionality was shown by having a broad membership with wide expertise and long-serving members; sub-committees existed and meetings were occurring regularly. Leadership and coordination structures also existed and were largely felt to be working well. Funding challenges however persisted, in particular for ZITAG operations and functionality of its subcommittees. Effectiveness and value addition fo the committees to the EPI was illustrated through decision-making processes and evidence use as well as relatively good country ownership in terms of commitment, legitimacy, capacity and accountability. Full independence and ownership may however be compromised by funding challenges. Recent changes to ICC terms of reference and focus beyond immunisation side-lined the EPI and weakened the linkage between ICC and ZITAG with many ZITAG recommendations not having been followed through by ICC as the ultimate endorsing entity.
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.