Prioritization strategies for pandemic influenza vaccine in 27countries of the European Union and the Global Health Security Action Group: a review

Straetemans, Masja; Buchholz, Udo; Reiter, Sabine; Haas, Walter; Krause, Gérard
January 2007
BMC Public Health;2007, Vol. 7 Issue 1, p1
Academic Journal
Background: Although there is rapid progress in vaccine research regarding influenza pandemic vaccines it is expected that pandemic influenza vaccine production can only start once the pandemic virus has been recognized. Therefore, pandemic vaccine capacity will be limited at least during the first phase of an influenza pandemic, requiring vaccine prioritization strategies. WHO recommends developing preliminary priorities for pandemic vaccine use. The goal of this review is to provide a thorough overview of pandemic vaccine prioritization concepts in the 27 European Union (EU) member states and the four non-EU countries of the Global Health Security Action Group. Methods: Between September and December 2006 data was collected for each country through two data sources: (i) the national influenza pandemic plan; (ii) contacting key persons involved in pandemic planning by email and/or phone and/or fax Results: Twenty-six (84%) countries had established at least one vaccine priority group. Most common reported vaccine priority groups were health care workers (HCW) (100%), essential service providers (ESP) (92%) and high risk individuals (HRI) (92%). Ranking of at least one vaccine priority group was done by 17 (65%) of 26 countries. Fifteen (88%) of these 17 countries including a ranking strategy, decided that HCW with close contact to influenza patients should be vaccinated first; in most countries followed and/or ranked equally by ESP and subsequently HRI. Rationales for prioritization were provided by 22 (85%) of 26 countries that established vaccine priority groups. There was large variation in the phrasing and level of detailed specification of rationales. Seven (32%) of 22 countries providing rationales clearly associated each vaccine priority group with the specific rationale. Ten (32% of the 31 countries studied) countries have consulted and involved ethical experts to guide decisions related to vaccine prioritization. Conclusion: In the majority of the countries the establishment of vaccine priority groups, ranking and underlying rationales are in line with WHO recommendations. In most public plans the criteria by which prioritized groups are identified are not easily recognizable. Clarity however, may be necessary to assure public acceptability of the prioritization. Ethical experts, results of modelling exercises could play an increasing role in the future decision making process.


Related Articles

  • A Hospital-Based Influenza Immunization Program, 1977-78. Fedson, David S.; Kessler, Harold A. // American Journal of Public Health;Apr1983, Vol. 73 Issue 4, p442 

    Abstract: An influenza immunization program on General Medicine inpatient and outpatient units, immunized a greater proportion of patients than did physicians on medical subspecialty units. Many patients hospitalized with influenza and other respiratory conditions had been discharged earlier in...

  • Pandemic flu prevention challenging.  // PharmacoEconomics & Outcomes News;8/11/2007, Issue 534, p3 

    The article discusses research being done on influenza virus pandemic vaccine. It references a study by Dataminitor published on July 27, 2007 in http://www.datamonitor.com. The study concluded that the development of an effective influenza vaccine remains to be an unmet challenge. Based on the...

  • ELEVATING to ICD-10. Jellish, Angie; Zenner, Patricia; Goetsch, Eric // Managed Healthcare Executive;Dec2007, Vol. 17 Issue 12, p19 

    The article discusses the positive and negative aspects of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)-10 in the health care system in the U.S. It cites that the ICD is intended to facilitate better health care analysis through improved data consistency and...

  • Toward a National Framework for the Secondary Use of Health Data: An American Medical Informatics Association White Paper. Safran, Charles; Bloomrosen, Meryl; Hammond, W. Edward; Labkoff, Steven; Markel-Fox, Suzanne; Tang, Paul C.; Detmer, Don E. // Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association;Jan/Feb2007, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p1 

    Secondary use of health data applies personal health information (PHI) for uses outside of direct health care delivery, it includes such activities as analysis, research, quality and safety measurement, public health, payment, provider certification or accreditation, marketing, and other...

  • Mobile devices give South African nurses access to medical information resources.  // British Journal of Healthcare Computing & Information Management;Nov2010, p40 

    The article reports that Mobile Health Information System (MHIS) project is providing hospital nurses in South Africa with access to medical information resources through Internet capable mobile device pre-loaded with a clinical library. The project is a collaborative effort by participating...

  • Symposium Preview: Mayo's Goal: Avoiding Analytics 'Chaos'. Baldwin, Gary // Health Data Management;Jun2013, Vol. 21 Issue 6, p6 

    The article offers information on the Healthcare Analytics Symposium and Expo sponsored by "Health Data Management," to be held in Chicago, Illinois, on July 15 to 17, 2013.

  • Editor's Message.  // International Journal of Social Health Information Management;Dec2010, Vol. 3 Issue 5, preceding p1 

    An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including the application of clinical care delivery, public health systems and information management in medicine and programs that empower health education.

  • Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania: a realist evaluation. Maluka, Stephen; Kamuzora, Peter; SanSebastián, Miguel; Byskov, Jens; Ndawi, Benedict; Olsen, Øystein E.; Hurtig, Anna-Karin // Implementation Science;2011, Vol. 6 Issue 1, p11 

    Background: Despite the growing importance of the Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) framework in priority setting worldwide, there is still an inadequate understanding of the processes and mechanisms underlying its influence on legitimacy and fairness, as conceived and reflected in service...

  • MOSAIC OUT-PATIENT CLINIC FOR CHRONIC SICK CHILDREN IN AMSTERDAM. Dahhan, Nordin // Ambulatory Surgery;Apr2007 Supplement, Vol. 13, p258 

    The article presents the study on the healthcare system in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The study revealed that the healthcare system in Amsterdam lacks information about the disease, medical intake and diets in the ethnic diverse patient group. It is concluded that the study demonstrated that...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics