How do national immunization technical advisory groups assess and use evidence: Findings from the SYSVAC survey

IF 4.5 3区医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY

Vaccine Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126538

Antonia Pilic , Louise Henaff , Christoph Steffen , Ole Wichmann , Vanessa Piechotta , Thomas Harder

{"title":"How do national immunization technical advisory groups assess and use evidence: Findings from the SYSVAC survey","authors":"Antonia Pilic , Louise Henaff , Christoph Steffen , Ole Wichmann , Vanessa Piechotta , Thomas Harder","doi":"10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop evidence-based vaccination recommendations. Systematic reviews (SRs) are important tools in that process, but conducting them is very resource-intensive. Given the considerable number of immunization-related SRs published and to minimize duplication of effort, a more practical approach for NITAGs is to use existing SRs. Among multiple initiatives and resources to strengthen NITAGs, the freely accessible SYSVAC registry supports NITAGs in identifying suitable SRs when developing vaccination recommendations. Additional SYSVAC courses provide step-by-step training on how to use SRs.</div><div>This cross-sectional survey was conducted online and involved 108 participants globally. The aim was to explore NITAGs user experience with evidence retrieval, to assess impact and use of the SYSVAC resources and training needs. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire.</div><div>Most of the respondents were > 45 years old (75.9%) and represented 50 NITAGs from all six World Health Organization (WHO) regions. In total, 13/50 NITAGs (26.0%) had ease accessing full text publications. The preferred data sources to search for evidence were peer reviewed literature via PubMed and the WHO website (Strategic Advisory Group of Experts – SAGE – on Immunization). When developing vaccination recommendations, respondents stated using SRs mostly conducted by SAGE, other institutions or NITAGs (83.2%), recommendations of other countries (79.4%) and primary studies (73.8%). Respondents from 35 NITAGs stated to use the SYSVAC registry to search for evidence, leading to ≥69 recommendations being developed by NITAGs globally with its support. Aside existing SYSVAC courses on SR use, there was great interest in training on SR use in the development of vaccination recommendations.</div><div>Our survey gathered information on evidence use and training needs. Survey results serve as a starting point to improve support of NITAGs in developing recommendations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23491,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine","volume":"43 ","pages":"Article 126538"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24012209","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop evidence-based vaccination recommendations. Systematic reviews (SRs) are important tools in that process, but conducting them is very resource-intensive. Given the considerable number of immunization-related SRs published and to minimize duplication of effort, a more practical approach for NITAGs is to use existing SRs. Among multiple initiatives and resources to strengthen NITAGs, the freely accessible SYSVAC registry supports NITAGs in identifying suitable SRs when developing vaccination recommendations. Additional SYSVAC courses provide step-by-step training on how to use SRs.

This cross-sectional survey was conducted online and involved 108 participants globally. The aim was to explore NITAGs user experience with evidence retrieval, to assess impact and use of the SYSVAC resources and training needs. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire.

Most of the respondents were > 45 years old (75.9%) and represented 50 NITAGs from all six World Health Organization (WHO) regions. In total, 13/50 NITAGs (26.0%) had ease accessing full text publications. The preferred data sources to search for evidence were peer reviewed literature via PubMed and the WHO website (Strategic Advisory Group of Experts – SAGE – on Immunization). When developing vaccination recommendations, respondents stated using SRs mostly conducted by SAGE, other institutions or NITAGs (83.2%), recommendations of other countries (79.4%) and primary studies (73.8%). Respondents from 35 NITAGs stated to use the SYSVAC registry to search for evidence, leading to ≥69 recommendations being developed by NITAGs globally with its support. Aside existing SYSVAC courses on SR use, there was great interest in training on SR use in the development of vaccination recommendations.

Our survey gathered information on evidence use and training needs. Survey results serve as a starting point to improve support of NITAGs in developing recommendations.

查看原文本刊更多论文

国家免疫技术咨询组如何评估和使用证据：SYSVAC 调查的结果。

国家免疫技术咨询组 (NITAG) 制定以证据为基础的疫苗接种建议。系统综述 (SR) 是这一过程中的重要工具，但进行系统综述非常耗费资源。鉴于已出版的与免疫接种相关的系统综述数量可观，为尽量减少重复劳动，NITAG 更为实用的方法是利用现有的系统综述。在加强 NITAG 的多种举措和资源中，可免费访问的 SYSVAC 注册表可帮助 NITAG 在制定疫苗接种建议时识别合适的 SR。此外，SYSVAC 课程还提供如何使用 SR 的分步培训。这项横断面调查在网上进行，全球共有 108 人参与。目的是了解 NITAGs 用户在证据检索方面的经验，评估 SYSVAC 资源的影响和使用情况以及培训需求。数据采用结构化问卷收集。大多数受访者年龄在 45 岁以上（75.9%），代表了来自世界卫生组织（WHO）所有六个地区的 50 个 NITAG。总共有 13/50 个 NITAG（26.0%）难以获取全文出版物。搜索证据的首选数据来源是通过 PubMed 和世卫组织网站（免疫战略专家咨询组）进行的同行评审文献。在制定疫苗接种建议时，受访者表示主要使用由 SAGE、其他机构或 NITAG（83.2%）开展的 SR、其他国家的建议（79.4%）和初级研究（73.8%）。来自 35 个 NITAG 的受访者表示使用 SYSVAC 登记册搜索证据，在其支持下，全球 NITAG 制定了≥69 项建议。除了现有的关于SR使用的SYSVAC课程外，人们对在制定疫苗接种建议时使用SR的培训也非常感兴趣。我们的调查收集了有关证据使用和培训需求的信息。调查结果可作为改善 NITAG 在制定建议方面的支持的起点。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Vaccine 医学-免疫学

CiteScore

8.70

自引率

5.50%

发文量

992

审稿时长

131 days

期刊介绍： Vaccine is unique in publishing the highest quality science across all disciplines relevant to the field of vaccinology - all original article submissions across basic and clinical research, vaccine manufacturing, history, public policy, behavioral science and ethics, social sciences, safety, and many other related areas are welcomed. The submission categories as given in the Guide for Authors indicate where we receive the most papers. Papers outside these major areas are also welcome and authors are encouraged to contact us with specific questions.