ArticleHealth policy and planning2026
Examining evidence use in vaccine policymaking in Kenya: a qualitative case study.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Although evidence-informed health policymaking is widely promoted, evidence use in vaccine policymaking and the institutional and actor dynamics shaping it remain poorly understood. This study investigates what types of evidence was used and how it was used in vaccine policymaking in Kenya. Using a qualitative case study design, we focused on the introduction and roll-out of HPV and malaria vaccines. Data collection included 34 in-depth interviews with national Ministry of Health officials, Kenya National Immunization Technical Advisory Group members, County Expanded Programme of Immunization logisticians, international partners, and local civil society organizations; 417 hr of observation of vaccine-related policy and planning meetings; and a review of relevant policy and planning documents. Framework analysis was used to analyse the data, guided by two analytical frameworks: (i) a spectrum approach for categorizing evidence along two dimensions-scientific to tacit and global to local-and (ii) Weiss's models of research use, which interpret patterns of evidence utilization in policymaking. The findings show that international actors, through their financial and technical authority, substantially influenced national policymakers' adoption of global guidance and scientific evidence. Local programmatic expertise played a crucial role in validation and contextualization of global guidance and scientific evidence to fit local contexts. The dominance of medical and public health professionals in decision-making spaces led to the prioritization of evidence on vaccines' public health benefits over socio-political considerations. Local civil society's influence in vaccine policymaking was limited, with its community-based experiential knowledge primarily informing advocacy, communication, and social mobilization, rather than vaccine prioritization and policy decisions. We conclude that strengthening evidence-informed policymaking requires more inclusive approaches that value diverse evidence types. Addressing power imbalances that shape what counts as credible evidence and integrating local civil society perspectives throughout the policymaking process can enhance the legitimacy, acceptability, and effectiveness of policy decisions.
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.