Development of Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Recommendations: Relevance and Influence of the Evidence on the Decision-Making Process in France and the Netherlands

Maria-Laura Silva (), John Paget, Anne Mosnier, Valérie Buthion (), Jean Marie Cohen, Lionel Perrier and Hans-Martin Späth
Additional contact information
Maria-Laura Silva: GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - Université de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre Léon Bérard [Lyon]
John Paget: Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research - Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research
Anne Mosnier: Open Rome [Paris]
Valérie Buthion: COACTIS - COnception de l'ACTIon en Situation - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne
Jean Marie Cohen: Open Rome [Paris]
Hans-Martin Späth: UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Background: Target groups for seasonal influenza vaccination are defined at the country level and are based on several factors. However, little is known about the national decision-making procedures. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the evidence used for the development of recommendations and its impact on the choice of target groups in France and the Netherlands. Methods: A preliminary documentary analysis identified institutions to include in the assessment: governmental authorities, research institutions, associations, and manufacturers. At least one expert from each group was invited to our study. Thirty-three semi structured interviews were conducted in 2013 (16 France, 17 the Netherlands). We used NVivo108 to perform a thematic content analysis. Results: Clinical/epidemiological studies were the evidence most used in both countries. Economic models were increasingly being used; these had greater influence on the decision making in the Netherlands than in France, probably because of the presence of a modeler. Generally, the quality of the evidence used was poor, although no systematic use of standard protocol for its assessment was observed. A general protocol was sometimes used in France; however, the personal judgment of the experts was crucial for the assessment in both countries. Conclusions: There were differences in the target groups, for example, pregnant women, recommended only in France. France and the Netherlands use similar evidence for developing vaccination recommendations, although different decisions are sometimes made regarding target groups. This could be associated with the lack of systematic standard appraisals, increasing the influence of the experts' judgment on decision making. The development of standards for the appraisal of evidence is recommended.

Keywords: decision making; influenza vaccination; NITAG; qualitative research (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Published in Value in Health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2016, 19 (5), pp.670-679. ⟨10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.006⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01366179

DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.006

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().