Value Frameworks for Vaccines: Which Dimensions Are Most Relevant?
In addition to more narrow criteria such as safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, vaccines can also be evaluated based on broader criteria such as their economic impact, contribution to disease eradication objectives, caregiver aspects, financial protection offered, equity or social acceptab...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-10-01
|
| Series: | Vaccines |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/8/4/628 |
| _version_ | 1797549585408720896 |
|---|---|
| author | Jeroen Luyten Roselinde Kessels Corinne Vandermeulen Philippe Beutels |
| author_facet | Jeroen Luyten Roselinde Kessels Corinne Vandermeulen Philippe Beutels |
| author_sort | Jeroen Luyten |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In addition to more narrow criteria such as safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, vaccines can also be evaluated based on broader criteria such as their economic impact, contribution to disease eradication objectives, caregiver aspects, financial protection offered, equity or social acceptability. We summarize a survey executed in a sample of the population (<i>n</i> = 1000) in Flanders, Belgium, in which we investigated support for using these broader criteria to evaluate vaccines for funding decisions. By means of both favourable and unfavourable framings of a hypothetical vaccine across 40 value dimensions, we find support for the view that people indeed consider a broad range of medical and socio-economic criteria relevant. Several of these are not incorporated in standard evaluation frameworks for vaccines. The different results we find for different framings highlight the importance of developing a consistent a priori value framework for vaccine evaluation, rather than evaluating vaccines on an ad hoc basis. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T15:17:39Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-3a483e535f3f4052ad76611695c722a8 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-393X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T15:17:39Z |
| publishDate | 2020-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Vaccines |
| spelling | doaj.art-3a483e535f3f4052ad76611695c722a82023-11-20T18:48:08ZengMDPI AGVaccines2076-393X2020-10-018462810.3390/vaccines8040628Value Frameworks for Vaccines: Which Dimensions Are Most Relevant?Jeroen Luyten0Roselinde Kessels1Corinne Vandermeulen2Philippe Beutels3KU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Kapucijnenvoer 35, PO 7001, 3000 Leuven, BelgiumDepartment of Data Analytics and Digitalization, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The NetherlandsKU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leuven University Vaccinology Centre, Kapucijnenvoer 35, PO 7001, 3000 Leuven, BelgiumCentre for Health Economics Research and Modelling Infectious Diseases, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, BelgiumIn addition to more narrow criteria such as safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, vaccines can also be evaluated based on broader criteria such as their economic impact, contribution to disease eradication objectives, caregiver aspects, financial protection offered, equity or social acceptability. We summarize a survey executed in a sample of the population (<i>n</i> = 1000) in Flanders, Belgium, in which we investigated support for using these broader criteria to evaluate vaccines for funding decisions. By means of both favourable and unfavourable framings of a hypothetical vaccine across 40 value dimensions, we find support for the view that people indeed consider a broad range of medical and socio-economic criteria relevant. Several of these are not incorporated in standard evaluation frameworks for vaccines. The different results we find for different framings highlight the importance of developing a consistent a priori value framework for vaccine evaluation, rather than evaluating vaccines on an ad hoc basis.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/8/4/628vaccine evaluationhealth technology assessmentevaluation spacepublic preferencespublic involvement |
| spellingShingle | Jeroen Luyten Roselinde Kessels Corinne Vandermeulen Philippe Beutels Value Frameworks for Vaccines: Which Dimensions Are Most Relevant? Vaccines vaccine evaluation health technology assessment evaluation space public preferences public involvement |
| title | Value Frameworks for Vaccines: Which Dimensions Are Most Relevant? |
| title_full | Value Frameworks for Vaccines: Which Dimensions Are Most Relevant? |
| title_fullStr | Value Frameworks for Vaccines: Which Dimensions Are Most Relevant? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Value Frameworks for Vaccines: Which Dimensions Are Most Relevant? |
| title_short | Value Frameworks for Vaccines: Which Dimensions Are Most Relevant? |
| title_sort | value frameworks for vaccines which dimensions are most relevant |
| topic | vaccine evaluation health technology assessment evaluation space public preferences public involvement |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/8/4/628 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jeroenluyten valueframeworksforvaccineswhichdimensionsaremostrelevant AT roselindekessels valueframeworksforvaccineswhichdimensionsaremostrelevant AT corinnevandermeulen valueframeworksforvaccineswhichdimensionsaremostrelevant AT philippebeutels valueframeworksforvaccineswhichdimensionsaremostrelevant |