ReviewFrontiers in public health2022
Country score tool to assess readiness and guide evidence generation of immunization programs in aging adults in Europe.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Role of new vaccinators/pharmacists in life-course vaccination.Annals of medicine · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Delaying of policies for immunization of aging adults, low vaccine uptake, and the lack of supportive evidence at the national level could diminish the value in health and economics of such programs. This study aims to develop a "country score tool" to assess readiness and to facilitate evidence generation for aging adult immunization programs in Europe, and examine the comprehensiveness, relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of the tool. Methods: The tool was developed in two phases. First, a modified Delphi process was used to construct the tool. The process included a literature review, stakeholder consultations, and a three-round Delphi study. The Delphi panel included researchers, supra-national and national decision-makers of immunization programs recruited from five countries, using snowball sampling method. The consensus was predefined at the agreement rate of 70%. Pilot testing of the tool was conducted in the Netherlands, Germany, Serbia, and Hungary involving researchers in the field of health technology assessment. After assessing the countries' readiness, researchers evaluated four features, namely comprehensiveness, relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of the tool Results: The review identified 16 tools and frameworks that formed the first version of our tool with 14 items. Eight experts were involved in the Delphi panel. Through three Delphi rounds, four items were added, one was dropped, and all others were amended. The consensus was achieved on the tool with 17 items divided into decision-making and implementation parts. Each item has a guiding question, corresponding to explanations and rationales to inform assessment with readiness scores. Eight researchers completed the pilot testing. The tool was rated as comprehensive (75%), relevant (100%), acceptable (75%), and feasible (88%) by participants. Conclusion: Through a thorough and transparent process, a country score tool was developed helping to identify strengths, weaknesses, and evidential requirements for decision-making and implementation of immunization programs of aging adults. The tool is relevant for different European contexts and shows good comprehensiveness, acceptability, and feasibility.
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.