| Titre : | A Narrative Review of Influenza Vaccine Evaluation Criteria and Recommendations by National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups for Older Adults: Insights from Canada, Germany, the United States, and Australia |
| Auteurs : | Assadour Basmajian ; Ecole des hautes études en santé publique (EHESP) (Rennes, FRA) |
| Type de document : | Mémoire |
| Année de publication : | 2025 |
| Description : | 73p. |
| Langues: | Anglais |
| Classement : | MPH/ (Mémoires MPH à partir de 2024) |
| Mots-clés : | Influenza ; Politique vaccination ; Vaccination ; Personne âgée ; Etude comparée ; Etats Unis ; Canada ; Allemagne ; Australie |
| Résumé : |
Context : Seasonal influenza causes high rates of illness and death worldwide, especially in adults aged 65 years and older. Older adults are more vulnerable due to weaker immune system. To better protect this group, many countries recommend enhanced influenza vaccines— such as high-dose, adjuvanted, and recombinant formulations. This project aimed to compare how four high-income countries—Canada, Germany, the United States, and Australia—evaluated and recommended these vaccines for the 2024–2025 influenza season in older adults.
Methods : A narrative review was conducted to collect data from the official websites of national public health authorities, to better understand and compare how countries formulate influenza vaccine recommendations for older adults. Sources included recommendation statements, technical reports, and evidence assessment documents. The review focused on how National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in each country used scientific evidence—particularly GRADE-based frameworks—to guide their decisions. Results : All four countries recommended enhanced influenza vaccines for older adults, but their preferences and justifications varied. Germany exclusively recommended the high-dose vaccine. The United States gave equal preference to high-dose, adjuvanted, and recombinant vaccines. Australia recommended the high-dose and adjuvanted vaccines, while Canada endorsed all three options. Some countries incorporated considerations such as equity, feasibility, and acceptability into their decision-making frameworks, whereas others focused more narrowly on clinical data or supplemented their decisions with more explicit cost-effectiveness evaluations. Even when drawing on largely the same body of evidence, countries reported different results or interpreted findings differently. Conclusion : This study shows that national context strongly shapes vaccine recommendations, even when the scientific evidence is similar. Greater international collaboration, standardized tools, and transparent processes could support more consistent and equitable vaccine policies. Future research should explore how NITAGs make decisions beyond public documentation and how low- and middle-income countries rely on evidence from higher income nations. |
| Diplôme : | Master MPH of public health |
| Plan de classement simplifié : | Master of Public Health - master international de Santé Publique (MPH) |
| En ligne : | https://documentation.ehesp.fr/memoires/2025/mph/assadour_basmajian.pdf |
Documents numériques (1)
Full text URL |
