Logo of Robert Koch InstituteLogo of Robert Koch Institute
Publication Server of Robert Koch Instituteedoc
de|en
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
2015-03-05Zeitschriftenartikel DOI: 10.25646/1969
Characteristics and practices of National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups in Europe and potential for collaboration, April 2014
Takla, Anja
Wichmann, Ole
Carrillo-Santisteve, P.
Cotter, S.
Lévy-Bruhl, D.
Paradowska-Stankiewicz, I.
Valentiner-Branth, P.
D’Ancona, F.
Group, VENICE III NITAG Survey
In many countries, national vaccination recommendations are developed by independent expert committees, so-called national immunisation technical advisory groups (NITAG). Since the evaluation of vaccines is complex and resource-demanding, collaboration between NITAGs that evaluate the same vaccines could be beneficial. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among 30 European countries in February 2014, to explore basic characteristics and current practices of European NITAGs and identify potential modes and barriers for collaboration. Of 28 responding countries, 26 reported to have a NITAG or an equivalent expert group. Of these, 20 apply a systematic approach in the vaccine decision-making process, e.g. by considering criteria such as country-specific disease epidemiology, vaccine efficacy/effectiveness/safety, health economics, programme implementation/logistics or country-specific values/preferences. However, applied frameworks and extent of evidence review differ widely. The use of systematic reviews is required for 15 of 26 NITAGs, while results from transmission modelling and health economic evaluations are routinely considered by 18 and 20 of 26 NITAGs, respectively. Twenty-five countries saw potential for NITAG-collaboration, but most often named structural concerns, e.g. different NITAG structures or countries’ healthcare systems. Our survey gathered information that can serve as an inventory on European NITAGs, allowing further exploration of options and structures for NITAG collaboration.
Files in this item
Thumbnail
207ynqJvFmgPQ.pdf — Adobe PDF — 307.6 Kb
MD5: 8238ef9efb547f35e78b729ff804a957
Cite
BibTeX
EndNote
RIS
No license information
Details
Terms of Use Imprint Policy Data Privacy Statement Contact

The Robert Koch Institute is a Federal Institute

within the portfolio of the Federal Ministry of Health

© Robert Koch Institute

All rights reserved unless explicitly granted.

 
DOI
10.25646/1969
Permanent URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.25646/1969
HTML
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.25646/1969">http://dx.doi.org/10.25646/1969</a>