Carsten Mantel

Experiences with provider and parental attitudes and practices regarding the administration of multiple injections during infant vaccination visits: lessons for vaccine introduction.

INTRODUCTION An increasing proportion of childhood immunization visits include administration of multiple injections. Future introduction of vaccines to protect against multiple diseases will further increase the number of injections at routine immunization childhood visits, particularly in developing countries that are still scaling up introductions. Parental and healthcare provider attitudes toward multiple injections may affect acceptance of recommended vaccines, and understanding these attitudes may help to inform critical decisions about vaccine introduction. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of the literature to examine factors underlying reported parental and healthcare provider concerns and practices related to administration of multiple injections during childhood vaccination visits. RESULTS Forty-four articles were identified; 42 (95%) were from high income countries, including 27 (61%) from the USA. Providers and parents report concerns about multiple injections, which tend to increase with increasing numbers of injections. Common parental and provider concerns included apprehension about the pain experienced by the child, worry about potential side effects, and uncertainty about vaccine effectiveness. Multiple studies reported that a positive provider recommendation to the parent and a high level of concern about the severity of the target disease were significantly associated with parental acceptance of all injections. Providers often significantly overestimated parental concerns about multiple injections. DISCUSSION Providers may play a critical role in the decision for a child to receive all recommended injections. Their overestimation of parental concerns may lead them to postpone recommended vaccinations, which may result in extra visits and delayed vaccination. More research is needed on interventions to overcome provider and parental concern about multiple injections, particularly in developing countries.

Rotavirus vaccines in developing countries: the potential impact implementation challenges and remaining questions.

Diarrhoeal disease is one of the commonest causes of death in children, especially in developing countries in Africa and Asia. Rotavirus has been consistently identified as the commonest pathogen associated with severe diarrhoea. Hence, the availability of vaccines against this organism provides the opportunity to reduce child mortality. Data from efficacy trials in developing countries in Africa and Asia showed that the vaccine efficacy was lower than that observed in other countries. Nevertheless, the vaccines are expected to be of significant benefit in high mortality countries in these regions. While the reports published in this supplement add to our understanding about the performance of these vaccines in developing countries in these regions, questions remain over the overall impact of these vaccines when used in national programmes of developing countries in Africa and Asia, the optimal vaccination schedules and the impact of age restrictions for vaccine use on immunization coverage. Additional research is required to improve understanding on the performance of these vaccines in developing countries in Africa and Asia and measures that may improve performance. Data that will assist in the definition of the optimal immunization schedule and possibly allow relaxation of the age restrictions for vaccine use may help in enhancing the impact of the vaccines in these countries. Finally, disease surveillance and studies are required to document the impact of vaccination and monitor changes in disease epidemiology.

Status of New Vaccine Introduction - Worldwide, September 2016.

Since the global Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) was launched in 1974, vaccination against six diseases (tuberculosis, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and measles) has prevented millions of deaths and disabilities (1). Significant advances have been made in the development and introduction of vaccines, and licensed vaccines are now available to prevent 25 diseases (2,3). Historically, new vaccines only became available in low-income and middle-income countries decades after being introduced in high-income countries. However, with the support of global partners, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Childrens Fund, which assist with vaccine prequalification and procurement, as well as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi) (4), which provides funding and shapes vaccine markets through forecasting and assurances of demand in low-income countries in exchange for lower vaccine prices, vaccines are now introduced more rapidly. Based on data compiled in the WHO Immunization Vaccines and Biologicals Database* (5), this report describes the current status of introduction of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), hepatitis B, pneumococcal conjugate, rotavirus, human papillomavirus, and rubella vaccines, and the second dose of measles vaccine. As of September 2016, a total of 191 (99%) of 194 WHO member countries had introduced Hib vaccine, 190 (98%) had introduced hepatitis B vaccine, 132 (68%) had introduced pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), and 86 (44%) had introduced rotavirus vaccine into infant vaccination schedules. Human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) had been introduced in 67 (35%) countries, primarily targeted for routine use in adolescent girls. A second dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV2) had been introduced in 161 (83%) countries, and rubella vaccine had been introduced in 149 (77%). These efforts support the commitment outlined in the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), 2011-2020 (2), endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 2012, to extend the full benefits of immunization to all persons.

Ending preventable child deaths from pneumonia and diarrhoea by 2025. Development of the integrated Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Pneumonia and Diarrhoea

Despite the existence of low-cost and effective interventions for childhood pneumonia and diarrhoea, these conditions remain two of the leading killers of young children. Based on feedback from health professionals in countries with high child mortality, in 2009, WHO and Unicef began conceptualising an integrated approach for pneumonia and diarrhoea control. As part of this initiative, WHO and Unicef, with support from other partners, conducted a series of five workshops to facilitate the inclusion of coordinated actions for pneumonia and diarrhoea into the national health plans of 36 countries with high child mortality. This paper presents the findings from workshop and postworkshop follow-up activities and discusses the contribution of these findings to the development of the integrated Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Pneumonia and Diarrhoea, which outlines the necessary actions for elimination of preventable child deaths from pneumonia and diarrhoea by 2025. Though this goal is ambitious, it is attainable through concerted efforts. By applying the lessons learned thus far and continuing to build upon them, and by leveraging existing political will and momentum for child survival, national governments and their supporting partners can ensure that preventable child deaths from pneumonia and diarrhoea are eventually eliminated.

The privilege and responsibility of having choices: decision-making for new vaccines in developing countries.

Decisions to introduce new vaccines into national immunization programmes have become a highly complex endeavour. When the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) was established in 1974 through a World Health Assembly resolution to build on the success of the global smallpox eradication programme and to ensure that all children in all countries benefit from life-saving vaccines, the first six diseases targeted by EPI were diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, measles and tuberculosis (WHO 1974). Today, thanks to scientific advancements and renewed global interest in immunization, more than a dozen antigens have been made available through public health services in developing countries, with increasingly reduced time delay compared with introduction in industrialized countries. Country decision-makers can select vaccines from a portfolio of options. This is a privilege and a serious responsibility requiring due consideration, as any decision to select one vaccine will need to be taken in light of the opportunity costs of not investing in another vaccine or another (health) intervention. Moreover, country decision-makers do not form their decisions in a vacuum; the number of immunization stakeholders in both the public and the private sectors has vastly increased and those stakeholders are equipped with varying levels of knowledge and expertise and may have vested interests. The multitude of factors influencing country decisions to introduce new vaccines, and the process for making these decisions is becoming increasingly important. These factors and processes are briefly outlined and discussed below.

Administering Multiple Injectable Vaccines During a Single Visit-Summary of Findings From the Accelerated Introduction of Inactivated Polio Vaccine Globally.

Abstract Background. In 2013, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) recommended that all 126 countries using only oral polio vaccine (OPV) introduce at least 1 dose of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) into their routine immunization schedules by the end of 2015. In many countries, the addition of IPV would necessitate delivery of multiple injectable vaccines (hereafter, “multiple injections”) during a single visit, with infants receiving IPV alongside pentavalent vaccine (which covers diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis; hepatitis B; and Haemophilus influenzae type b) and pneumococcal vaccine. Unanticipated concerns emerged from countries over acceptability of multiple injections, sites of administration, and safety. We contextualized the issues surrounding multiple injections by documenting concerns associated with administration of ≥3 injections, existing evidence in the published literature, and findings of a systematic review on administration practices and techniques. Methods. Concerns associated with multiple-injection visits were documented from meetings and personal communications with immunization program managers. Published literature on the acceptability of multiple injections by providers and caregivers was summarized, and a systematic review of the literature on administration practices was completed on the following topics: spacing between injection sites (ie, vaccine spacing), site of injection, route of injection, and procedural preparedness. WHO and United Nations Children’s Fund data from 2013–2015 were used to assess multiple-injection visits included in national immunization schedules. Results. Healthcare provider and caregiver attitudes and practices indicated concerns about infant pain, potential adverse effects, and uncertainty about vaccine effectiveness with multiple-injection visits. Published literature reinforced the record of safety and acceptance of the recommended schedule of IPV by the SAGE, but the evidence was largely from developed countries. Parental acceptance of multiple injections was associated with a positive provider recommendation to the caregiver. Findings of the systematic review identified that the intramuscular route is preferred over the subcutaneous route for vaccine administration and that the vastus lateralis muscle is preferred over the deltoid muscle for intramuscular injections. Recommendations on vaccine spacing and procedural preparedness were based on practical necessities, but comparative evidence was not identified. During 2013–2015, 85 countries added IPV to their immunization schedules, 46 (55%) of which adopted a schedule resulting in 3 injectable vaccines being administered in a single visit. Conclusion. The multiple-injection experience identified gaps in guidance for future vaccine introductions. Global partner organizations quickly mobilized to assess, document, and communicate the existing global experience on multiple-injection visits. This evidence-based approach provided reassurance to opinion leaders, health workers, and professional societies, thus encouraging uptake of IPV as a second or third injection in an accelerated manner globally.

Improving the efficiency and standards of a National Immunization Program Review: lessons learnt from United Republic of Tanzania

A National Immunization Program Review (NIP Review) is a comprehensive external assessment of the performance of a country’s immunization programme. The number of recommended special-topic NIP assessments, such as those for vaccine introduction or vaccine management, has increased. These assessments often have substantial overlap with NIP reviews, raising concern about duplication. Innovative technical and management approaches, including integrating several assessments into one, were applied in the United Republic of Tanzania’s 2015 NIP Review. These approaches and processes were documented and a post-Review survey and group discussion. The Tanzania Review found that integrating assessments so they can be conducted at one time was feasible and efficient. There are concrete approaches for successfully managing a Review that can be shared and practiced including having a well-planned desk review and nominating topic-leads. The use of tablets for data entry has the potential to improve Review data quality and timely analysis; however, careful team training is needed. A key area to improve was to better coordinate and link findings from the national-level and field teams.