Vaccines for the control of seasonal influenza are recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for use in specific risk groups, but their use requires operational considerations that may challenge immunization programs. Several middle-income countries have recently implemented seasonal influenza vaccination. Early program evaluation following vaccine introduction can help ascertain positive lessons learned and areas for improvement. An influenza vaccine post-introduction evaluation (IPIE) tool was developed jointly by WHO and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide a systematic approach to assess influenza vaccine implementation processes. The tool was used in 2017 in three middle-income countries: Belarus, Morocco and Thailand. Data from the three countries highlighted a number of critical factors: Health workers (HWs) are a key target group, given their roles as key influencers of acceptance by other groups, and for ensuring vaccine delivery and improved coverage. Despite WHO recommendations, pregnant women were not always prioritized and may present unique challenges for acceptance. Target group denominators need to be better defined, and vaccine coverage should be validated with vaccine distribution data, including from the private sector. There is a need for strengthening adverse events reporting and for addressing potential vaccine hesitancy through the establishment of risk communication plans. The assessments led to improvements in the countries' influenza vaccination programs, including a revision of policies, changes in vaccine management and coverage estimation, enhanced strategies for educating HWs and intensified collaboration between departments involved in implementing seasonal influenza vaccination. The IPIE tool was found useful for delineating operational strengths and weaknesses of seasonal influenza vaccination programs. HWs emerged as a critical target group to be addressed in follow-up action. Findings from this study can help direct influenza vaccination programs in other countries, as well as contribute to pandemic preparedness efforts. The updated IPIE tool is available on the WHO website http://www.who.int/immunization/research/development/influenza/en/index1.html.

The Monitoring & Evaluation/Accountability (M&E/A) framework of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) was used to report progress annually to the World Health Assembly (WHA). Stakeholder feedback was obtained through five reviews consisting of surveys and semi-structured interviews conducted from 2017 to 2019. Participants consisted of individuals involved in the development and implementation of GVAP or its M&E/A process, national immunization managers, academics, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and civil society organizations. The feedback was mixed and contradictory for some components, though most participants reported that the M&E/A process was a highlight of GVAP and a step in the right direction. Several of the goals and targets were considered aspirational and unrealistic for many countries. There were mixed responses on whether it promoted accountability, especially at the country level. The mixed and contradictory views on the M&E/A processes and its impact suggested a failure of communication about its scope and intent. Though the process, especially the annual reporting to the WHA, kept immunization high on the global agenda, it failed to fully meet the expectations in promoting accountability. Engaging with countries to capture the local context in setting global goals and targets and promoting local M&E/A processes will be important to achieve accountability in the next decade.

The Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), unanimously endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 2012, defined an ambitious strategy to improve immunization. At the end of the decade, significant progress has been made but four of the five GVAP goals are likely to be missed. This report describes a set of surveys and interviews relating to GVAP, conducted to inform the immunization strategy for the next decade. Three surveys and two sets of semi-structured interviews were conducted from 2017 to 2019. Respondents consisted of immunization stakeholders at global, regional, and country levels, and included individuals who had been involved in the development and implementation of GVAP or its monitoring, evaluation and accountability (M&E/A) process; national immunization managers; academics; and personnel from non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations. The surveys and interviews gave consistent results. They highlighted the value of GVAP in increasing visibility for immunization and the benefits of the GVAP M&E/A framework. The main limitations of GVAP were identified as the limited ownership by countries and other stakeholders leading to incomplete implementation of the strategy and poor accountability for achieving GVAP targets. These results informed the review of GVAP and the development of its successor strategy, the Immunization Agenda 2030. In addition, these surveys and interviews identified two challenges in assessing the value of GVAP: the need to rely exclusively on stakeholder perspectives and difficulties in attributing benefits. These challenges are inherent in evaluating an over-arching strategy such as GVAP and should be factored into interpretation of the results.

There is increasing interest in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) to introduce and scale-up digital health tools like electronic immunization registries (eIR), and electronic logistics management information systems (eLMIS) to support immunization services. An evaluation of the use of these tools was conducted in four LMICs to inform decisions about their further expansion and investments. Purposive sampling of regions, districts, and health facilities was done in each country based on predefined criteria. Primary data were collected between October 2021 and September 2022 in 50 health facilities in Guinea, 88 in Honduras, 36 in Rwanda, and 101 in Tanzania using semi-structured questionnaires, standardized competency assessments and data accuracy checks. Data focused on electronic tool usage, user experience, infrastructure, workforce needs, and decision-making, as well as immunization data quality and perceptions of health workers and vaccine recipients. Data analysis combined both quantitative and qualitative methods. The implementation of eIR and eLMIS was associated with improvements in National Immunization Programme (NIP) processes and outcomes. Users were satisfied with the tools (87 % satisfaction rate), and 95 % of users in the African countries valued the accessibility of information, with 91 % finding it accurate and complete. Some caregivers reported better organization and shorter waiting times in health facilities using the tools. Most eIR users noted improvements in process efficiencies (81 %) and immunization service delivery (89 %). In Rwanda and Tanzania data accuracy was higher in exclusively paper or electronic settings (60 %) compared to dual paper-electronic systems (45 %). eLMIS use was associated with improvements in vaccine stock data quality and reduced stock-outs. While 77 % of health workers were digitally literate, inadequate digital infrastructure was a key barrier to tool use. Interoperability with the Civil Registration and Vital Statistics system (CRVS) was limited, hindering the tracking of unimmunized children. To fully realize the potential of electronic tools in LMICs, full government ownership, targeted infrastructure investments, migration to fully electronic systems, and the integration of eIR with the CRVS will be essential.

Background: Digital health interventions, such as electronic immunization registries (eIRs) and electronic logistic management information systems (eLMIS), have the potential to significantly improve immunization data management and vaccine logistics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite their growing adoption, there is limited evidence of the financial and economic costs associated with their implementation compared to traditional paper-based systems. Objectives: We aimed to measure the costs of implementing eIR and eLMIS systems in LMICs and to estimate their economic costs as compared to the previous paper-based registries. Methods: The study was conducted across four countries—Guinea, Honduras, Rwanda, and Tanzania—which implemented the tools in 2018, 2012, 2019, and 2014, respectively. A combination of primary and secondary data sources was used for the analysis. Retrospective cost data regarding the design, development, and implementation of the tools were directly obtained from implementers and National Immunization Program offices in all countries. Primary survey data were collected to gauge the operational expenses of immunization information systems, both with and without electronic tools, using an activity-based costing approach in 275 facilities. The annual cost of the immunization information system at the national level was then extrapolated and compared to national spending on immunization as a measure of affordability. Costs were reported in 2023 international dollars (I$) Results: The total costs of designing, developing, and deploying eIR, eLMIS, or both were I$ 2.2, 6.4, 6.8, and 44.3 million in Guinea, Honduras, Rwanda, and Tanzania, respectively. Design costs were greatly affected by the degree of customization of the tool, whereas rollout costs were mostly driven by the costs of purchasing hardware and training health workers. Overall, the implementation of the electronic systems was associated with higher costs in Honduras (I$626 per facility, 95% CI 516-821) and Rwanda (I$399, 95% CI I$108-I$691), a cost reduction in Tanzania (−I$2539, 95% CI −I$4290 to −I$789) and no significant cost difference in Guinea. The percentage weight of the cost of managing data with the electronic systems over the total national immunization budgets was estimated at 0.7%, 7.7%, 3.3%, and 4.8% for Guinea, Honduras, Rwanda, and Tanzania, respectively. Conclusions: Digital health interventions such as eIR and eLMIS can potentially reduce costs and improve the efficiency of immunization data management and vaccine logistics in LMICs. However, the extent of cost savings depends on how effectively these digital systems replace traditional paper-based methods and the extent of their use in decision-making, especially at the facility level. Careful planning and investment are essential to unlocking the full economic potential of digital health in LMICs.

To inform the World Health Organization’s full value of vaccine assessment for group B Streptococcus (GBS) vaccines, a rapid literature appraisal was conducted to inform the operationalization of maternal GBS vaccination. We found limited published information on stakeholder perceptions of the public health importance of GBS disease and vaccination, and we therefore undertook a multicountry survey. An online survey was conducted in late 2019 to collect information on stakeholders’ awareness of GBS disease and the priority accorded to vaccination. The survey was distributed by email to 395 representatives of national pediatric, gynecology, and obstetrics associations, national immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs), national regulatory agencies, academia, and United Nations organizations. Among 101 survey respondents from 66 countries, 36% were pediatricians, 25% obstetricians/gynecologists, 21% immunization specialists, and 18% other public health specialists. More than half (58%) of respondents reported being familiar with GBS disease as a public health problem; familiarity decreased by country income level. Knowledge of GBS disease was greatest in the Americas (68%) and Europe (66%) and lowest in Asia (13%–38%). Perception of GBS disease as a public health problem was highest among pediatricians (71%) and lowest among public health policy makers and NITAG members (30%) across country groupings. Approximately half of respondents (49%) considered the introduction of a GBS vaccine as a priority. The information obtained will inform the appropriate packaging and presentation of information to address stakeholder perceptions and promote evidence-based decision making on GBS vaccination.