Cargando…
A framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations
For the successful implementation of population-level recommendations, it is critical to consider the full spectrum of public health science, including clinical and programmatic factors. Current frameworks may identify various factors that should be examined when making evidence-informed vaccine-rel...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7283073/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32532544 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.051 |
_version_ | 1783544222110973952 |
---|---|
author | Ismail, Shainoor J. Hardy, Kendra Tunis, Matthew C. Young, Kelsey Sicard, Nadine Quach, Caroline |
author_facet | Ismail, Shainoor J. Hardy, Kendra Tunis, Matthew C. Young, Kelsey Sicard, Nadine Quach, Caroline |
author_sort | Ismail, Shainoor J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | For the successful implementation of population-level recommendations, it is critical to consider the full spectrum of public health science, including clinical and programmatic factors. Current frameworks may identify various factors that should be examined when making evidence-informed vaccine-related recommendations. However, while most immunization guidelines systematically assess clinical factors, such as efficacy and safety of vaccines, there is no published framework outlining how to systematically assess programmatic factors, such as the ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability of recommendations. We have addressed this gap with the development of the EEFA (Ethics, Equity Feasibility, Acceptability) Framework, supported by evidence-informed tools, including Ethics Integrated Filters, Equity Matrix, Feasibility Matrix, and an Acceptability Matrix. The Framework and tools are based on five years of environmental scans, systematic reviews and surveys, and refined by expert and stakeholder consultations and feedback. For each programmatic factor, the EEFA Framework summarizes the minimum threshold for consideration and when further in-depth analysis may be required, which aspects of the factor should be considered, how to assess the factor using the supporting evidence-informed tools, and who should be consulted to complete the assessment. Research, particularly in the fields of vaccine acceptability and equity, has validated the utility and comprehensiveness of the tools. The Framework has been successfully used in Canada for clear, timely, transparent vaccine guidance with positive stakeholder feedback on its comprehensiveness, relevance and appropriateness. Applying the EEFA Framework allows for the systematic consideration of the spectrum of public health science without a delay in recommendations, complementing existing decision-making frameworks. This Framework will therefore be useful for advisory groups worldwide to integrate critical factors that could impact the successful and timely implementation of comprehensive, transparent recommendations, and will further the global objective of developing practical and evidence-informed immunization policies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7283073 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72830732020-06-10 A framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations Ismail, Shainoor J. Hardy, Kendra Tunis, Matthew C. Young, Kelsey Sicard, Nadine Quach, Caroline Vaccine Article For the successful implementation of population-level recommendations, it is critical to consider the full spectrum of public health science, including clinical and programmatic factors. Current frameworks may identify various factors that should be examined when making evidence-informed vaccine-related recommendations. However, while most immunization guidelines systematically assess clinical factors, such as efficacy and safety of vaccines, there is no published framework outlining how to systematically assess programmatic factors, such as the ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability of recommendations. We have addressed this gap with the development of the EEFA (Ethics, Equity Feasibility, Acceptability) Framework, supported by evidence-informed tools, including Ethics Integrated Filters, Equity Matrix, Feasibility Matrix, and an Acceptability Matrix. The Framework and tools are based on five years of environmental scans, systematic reviews and surveys, and refined by expert and stakeholder consultations and feedback. For each programmatic factor, the EEFA Framework summarizes the minimum threshold for consideration and when further in-depth analysis may be required, which aspects of the factor should be considered, how to assess the factor using the supporting evidence-informed tools, and who should be consulted to complete the assessment. Research, particularly in the fields of vaccine acceptability and equity, has validated the utility and comprehensiveness of the tools. The Framework has been successfully used in Canada for clear, timely, transparent vaccine guidance with positive stakeholder feedback on its comprehensiveness, relevance and appropriateness. Applying the EEFA Framework allows for the systematic consideration of the spectrum of public health science without a delay in recommendations, complementing existing decision-making frameworks. This Framework will therefore be useful for advisory groups worldwide to integrate critical factors that could impact the successful and timely implementation of comprehensive, transparent recommendations, and will further the global objective of developing practical and evidence-informed immunization policies. The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2020-08-10 2020-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7283073/ /pubmed/32532544 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.051 Text en © 2020 The Authors Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Ismail, Shainoor J. Hardy, Kendra Tunis, Matthew C. Young, Kelsey Sicard, Nadine Quach, Caroline A framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations |
title | A framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations |
title_full | A framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations |
title_fullStr | A framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations |
title_full_unstemmed | A framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations |
title_short | A framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations |
title_sort | framework for the systematic consideration of ethics, equity, feasibility, and acceptability in vaccine program recommendations |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7283073/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32532544 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.051 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ismailshainoorj aframeworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT hardykendra aframeworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT tunismatthewc aframeworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT youngkelsey aframeworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT sicardnadine aframeworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT quachcaroline aframeworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT ismailshainoorj frameworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT hardykendra frameworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT tunismatthewc frameworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT youngkelsey frameworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT sicardnadine frameworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations AT quachcaroline frameworkforthesystematicconsiderationofethicsequityfeasibilityandacceptabilityinvaccineprogramrecommendations |