To ensure that limited domestic resources are invested in the most effective interventions, immunization programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) must prioritize a growing number of new vaccines while considering opportunities to optimize the vaccine portfolio, as well as other components of the health system. There is a strong impetus for immunization decision-making to engage and coordinate various stakeholders across the health system in prioritization. To address this, national immunization program decision-makers in LMICs collaborated with WHO to structure deliberation among stakeholders and document an evidence-based, context-specific, and transparent process for prioritization or selection among multiple vaccination products, services, or strategies. The output of this effort is the Country-led Assessment for Prioritization on Immunization (CAPACITI) decision-support tool, which supports using multiple criteria and stakeholder perspectives to evaluate trade-offs affecting health interventions, taking into account variable data quality. Here, we describe the user feedback from Indonesia and Ethiopia, two initial countries that piloted the CAPACITI decision-support tool, highlighting enabling and constraining factors. Potential immunization program benefits and lessons learned are also summarized for consideration in other settings.

Background: Microarray patches (MAPs) are innovative, needle-free vaccine delivery systems, suitable for administration by minimally trained health care workers or trained community health workers. Their introduction may transform immunization programmes, particularly for vaccines where high coverage is required for population immunity, such as measles, and where vaccine delivery is challenging, such as in low- and middle-income countries. Recognizing the need to understand how best to tailor these products to reflect country priorities, workshops on measles and rubella MAPs (MR-MAPs) were conducted in multiple regions to collect insights on needs and preferences from relevant stakeholders at country level. Methods: The CAPACITI Innovation Framework was used to structure stakeholder discussions in nine countries in the period from August 2022 to July 2023. The discussions, building on the findings from a situation analysis on the barriers related to measles and rubella vaccine delivery, followed the four-step process outlined in the framework. Results: Key barriers hindering delivery of measles and rubella vaccines across the countries were in the categories of human resource management, service delivery, and demand generation. MR-MAP attributes that stakeholders believed would reduce or eliminate these barriers included ease of preparation and administration, improved thermostability, fewer (ancillary) components, and single-dose presentation. Some attributes such as the site of administration, wear time, and storage volume could exacerbate certain barriers. Based on an understanding of key barriers, product attributes, and underserved populations, stakeholders identified several potential use cases for MR-MAPs: (i) delivery at a fixed health post, (ii) delivery through outreach sessions conducted by health workers, and (iii) administration by community health workers. To enable robust national decision making about the introduction of MR-MAPs and successful implementation, global and national evidence on feasibility and acceptability of MR-MAPs should be generated. To prepare for the potential introduction of MR-MAPs, immunization programmes should evaluate their immunization policies based on their preferred use cases and modify them if needed, for example, to enable community health workers to administer vaccines, along with making programmatic adjustments to waste management and training. Conclusions: MR-MAPs have the potential to reduce key barriers to MR delivery. Yet, their future impact depends on the ability of global stakeholders to steer the development of MR-MAPs to be responsive to country needs and preferences. The generation of evidence to enable robust decision making, timely modification of vaccine policies, and addressing programmatic considerations will be key to successful uptake.

Articulating the wide range of health, social and economic benefits that vaccines offer may help to overcome obstacles in the vaccine development pipeline. A framework to guide the assessment and communication of the value of a vaccine—the Full Value of Vaccine Assessment (FVVA)—has been developed by the WHO. The FVVA framework offers a holistic assessment of the value of vaccines, providing a synthesis of evidence to inform the public health need of a vaccine, describing the supply and demand aspects, its market and its impact from a health, financial and economic perspective. This paper provides a practical guide to how FVVAs are developed and used to support investment in vaccines, ultimately leading to sustained implementation in countries. The FVVA includes a range of elements that can be broadly categorised as synthesis, vaccine development narrative and defining vaccine impact and value. Depending on the features of the disease/vaccine in question, different elements may be emphasised; however, a standardised set of elements is recommended for each FVVA. The FVVA should be developed by an expert group who represent a range of stakeholders, perspectives and geographies and ensure a fair, coherent and evidence-based assessment of vaccine value.