评估欧洲儿科国家免疫计划的全面性:专家论证和未来展望。

IF 5.5 3区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY Expert Review of Vaccines Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1080/14760584.2024.2324939
Ugne Sabale, Janice Murtagh, James Cochrane, Danielle Riley, Richard Perry, Louise Heron, Paolo Bonanni, Jose Navarro Alonso, Juhani Eskola, Valerie Laigle
{"title":"评估欧洲儿科国家免疫计划的全面性:专家论证和未来展望。","authors":"Ugne Sabale, Janice Murtagh, James Cochrane, Danielle Riley, Richard Perry, Louise Heron, Paolo Bonanni, Jose Navarro Alonso, Juhani Eskola, Valerie Laigle","doi":"10.1080/14760584.2024.2324939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The breadth of protection of National Immunisation Programmes (NIPs) across Europe varies, however, this has not been assessed within published literature. Therefore, a framework was developed to assess the comprehensiveness of pediatric NIPs in Europe. This study aimed to validate and further develop criteria used to cluster countries into three tiers.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>Independent Europe-based experts (<i>n</i> = 23) in the field of pediatric vaccination were invited to participate in a double-blinded modified Delphi panel, with two online survey rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of experts rating their agreement/disagreement on a 9-point Likert scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of preventable diseases covered by an NIP, simplification of the vaccination calendar, strengthened protection by increasing serotype, degree of funding and epidemiological factors were considered key concepts for consideration of the comprehensiveness of pediatric NIPs in Europe. Experts highlighted that the framework should be extended to include adolescent vaccines and populations up to 18 years of age. Consensus regarding further amendments to the framework was also reached.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This Delphi panel validated a framework to assess the comprehensiveness of European NIPs. The framework can be used to facilitate discussions to help countries improve and expand the breadth of protection provided by their NIP.</p>","PeriodicalId":12326,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Vaccines","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the comprehensiveness of paediatric national immunisation programmes in Europe: expert validation and future perspectives.\",\"authors\":\"Ugne Sabale, Janice Murtagh, James Cochrane, Danielle Riley, Richard Perry, Louise Heron, Paolo Bonanni, Jose Navarro Alonso, Juhani Eskola, Valerie Laigle\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14760584.2024.2324939\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The breadth of protection of National Immunisation Programmes (NIPs) across Europe varies, however, this has not been assessed within published literature. Therefore, a framework was developed to assess the comprehensiveness of pediatric NIPs in Europe. This study aimed to validate and further develop criteria used to cluster countries into three tiers.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>Independent Europe-based experts (<i>n</i> = 23) in the field of pediatric vaccination were invited to participate in a double-blinded modified Delphi panel, with two online survey rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of experts rating their agreement/disagreement on a 9-point Likert scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of preventable diseases covered by an NIP, simplification of the vaccination calendar, strengthened protection by increasing serotype, degree of funding and epidemiological factors were considered key concepts for consideration of the comprehensiveness of pediatric NIPs in Europe. Experts highlighted that the framework should be extended to include adolescent vaccines and populations up to 18 years of age. Consensus regarding further amendments to the framework was also reached.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This Delphi panel validated a framework to assess the comprehensiveness of European NIPs. The framework can be used to facilitate discussions to help countries improve and expand the breadth of protection provided by their NIP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Vaccines\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Vaccines\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2024.2324939\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Vaccines","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2024.2324939","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:欧洲各国的国家免疫计划(NIPs)的保护范围各不相同,但已发表的文献尚未对此进行评估。因此,我们制定了一个框架来评估欧洲儿科国家免疫计划的全面性。本研究旨在验证并进一步发展用于将各国划分为三个等级的标准:邀请欧洲儿科疫苗接种领域的独立专家(n = 23)参加双盲改良德尔菲小组,包括两轮在线调查和一次虚拟共识会议。共识的定义是:≥ 80% 的专家在 9 点李克特量表上表示同意/不同意:结果:国家免疫计划涵盖的可预防疾病数量、疫苗接种日程的简化、通过增加血清型加强保护、资助程度和流行病学因素被认为是考虑欧洲儿科国家免疫计划全面性的关键概念。专家们强调,该框架应扩展至包括青少年疫苗和 18 岁以下人群。专家们还就进一步修订该框架达成了共识:德尔菲小组验证了评估欧洲国家免疫计划全面性的框架。该框架可用于促进讨论,帮助各国改进和扩大其国家免疫计划提供的保护范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessment of the comprehensiveness of paediatric national immunisation programmes in Europe: expert validation and future perspectives.

Background: The breadth of protection of National Immunisation Programmes (NIPs) across Europe varies, however, this has not been assessed within published literature. Therefore, a framework was developed to assess the comprehensiveness of pediatric NIPs in Europe. This study aimed to validate and further develop criteria used to cluster countries into three tiers.

Research design and methods: Independent Europe-based experts (n = 23) in the field of pediatric vaccination were invited to participate in a double-blinded modified Delphi panel, with two online survey rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of experts rating their agreement/disagreement on a 9-point Likert scale.

Results: The number of preventable diseases covered by an NIP, simplification of the vaccination calendar, strengthened protection by increasing serotype, degree of funding and epidemiological factors were considered key concepts for consideration of the comprehensiveness of pediatric NIPs in Europe. Experts highlighted that the framework should be extended to include adolescent vaccines and populations up to 18 years of age. Consensus regarding further amendments to the framework was also reached.

Conclusions: This Delphi panel validated a framework to assess the comprehensiveness of European NIPs. The framework can be used to facilitate discussions to help countries improve and expand the breadth of protection provided by their NIP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Vaccines
Expert Review of Vaccines 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
3.20%
发文量
136
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Vaccines (ISSN 1476-0584) provides expert commentary on the development, application, and clinical effectiveness of new vaccines. Coverage includes vaccine technology, vaccine adjuvants, prophylactic vaccines, therapeutic vaccines, AIDS vaccines and vaccines for defence against bioterrorism. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The vaccine field has been transformed by recent technological advances, but there remain many challenges in the delivery of cost-effective, safe vaccines. Expert Review of Vaccines facilitates decision making to drive forward this exciting field.
期刊最新文献
Hookworm vaccines: current and future directions. A descriptive review on the real-world impact of Moderna, inc. COVID-19 vaccines. Estimating the time required to reach HPV vaccination targets across Europe. Vaccination strategies for patients under monoclonal antibody and other biological treatments: an updated comprehensive review based on EMA authorizations to January 2024. Comparison of preclinical efficacy of immunotherapies against HPV-induced cancers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1