From Google Scholar & other sources: Selected Journal Articles, Newsletters, Dissertations, Theses, Commentary

From Google Scholar & other sources: Selected Journal Articles, Newsletters, Dissertations, Theses, Commentary

International Journal of Health Policy and Management
ePublished: 8 April 2017
Original Article
How Are New Vaccines Prioritized in Low-Income Countries? A Case Study of Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine and Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Uganda
Lauren Wallace1, Lydia Kapiriri2*
Background: To date, research on priority-setting for new vaccines has not adequately explored the influence of the global, national and sub-national levels of decision-making or contextual issues such as political pressure and stakeholder influence and power. Using Kapiriri and Martin’s conceptual framework, this paper evaluates priority setting for new vaccines in Uganda at national and sub-national levels, and considers how global priorities can influence country priorities. This study focuses on 2 specific vaccines, the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine and the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV).
Methods: This was a qualitative study that involved reviewing relevant Ugandan policy documents and media reports, as well as 54 key informant interviews at the global level and national and sub-national levels in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin’s conceptual framework was used to evaluate the prioritization process.
Results: Priority setting for PCV and HPV was conducted by the Ministry of Health (MoH), which is considered to be a legitimate institution. While respondents described the priority setting process for PCV process as transparent, participatory, and guided by explicit relevant criteria and evidence, the prioritization of HPV was thought to have been less transparent and less participatory. Respondents reported that neither process was based on an explicit priority setting framework nor did it involve adequate representation from the districts (program implementers) or publicity. The priority setting process for both PCV and HPV was negatively affected by the larger political and economic context, which contributed to weak institutional capacity as well as power imbalances between development assistance partners and the MoH.
Conclusion: Priority setting in Uganda would be improved by strengthening institutional capacity and leadership and ensuring a transparent and participatory processes in which key stakeholders such as program implementers (the districts) and beneficiaries (the public) are involved. Kapiriri and Martin’s framework has the potential to guide priority setting evaluation efforts, however, evaluation should be built into the priority setting process a priori such that information on priority setting is gathered throughout the implementation cycle.

Journal of Health Communication
Published online: 27 Apr 2017
Original Articles
Explanations for Not Receiving the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine: An Ontario Canada Based Survey
SB Meyer, R Lum
Despite evidence of the importance of the seasonal influenza vaccine for both individual and population health, only a third of the Ontario population received the vaccine in 2013/2014. The objective of this study was to identify why Ontarians are not getting the seasonal influenza vaccine. Written responses to the question “Why didn’t you get the seasonal flu vaccine in the last flu season?” were deductively analyzed using the Conceptual Model of Vaccine Hesitancy. Inductive coding was also conducted to identify explanations that fall outside of the present model and may be unique to the seasonal influenza vaccine. Data were collected between August and early September, 2014 through a survey in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario. Overall, 91.4% of responses could be explained using the conceptual model and specifically relate to perceived importance of vaccination (46.8%), moral convictions (19.4%), and past experiences with vaccinations services (14.5%). Notably, explanations related to healthcare professional attitudes, risk perceptions and trust, and subjective norms were identified to a much lesser extent than those discussed above. The remaining 8.6% of responses cannot be explained by the model because they do not relate to hesitancy. Our data contribute to the minimal body of Canadian research investigating low uptake of the seasonal flu vaccine, adding to an evidence-base upon which to inform promotional campaigns. Our data also highlight the utility of the Conceptual Model of Vaccine Hesitancy for the design and analysis of research investigating seasonal flu vaccine refusal or delay.