The WHO Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP) approach: Review of implementation to date. Issue 11 (7th March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dubé, Eve; Leask, Julie; Wolff, Brent; Hickler, Benjamin; Balaban, Victor; Hosein, Everold; Habersaat, Katrine
• Is Part Of: Vaccine. Volume 36:Issue 11(2018)
• Page Start: 1509
• Page End: 1515
• Publication Date: 2018-03-07
• Subjects: Vaccine demand -- Vaccination coverage -- Tailoring immunization programmes -- Behavioural science -- Health-seeking behaviour -- Vaccine hesitancy -- Review; Vaccines -- Periodicals; 615.372
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.12.012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-410X

Abstract

Highlights: This article presents a review of the WHO Tailoring Immunization Programmes approach. Understanding the perspectives of susceptible populations is crucial to improve programmes. TIP provides a framework that successfully facilitated this in four countries consulted in the review. Strengths of TIP are interdisciplinary approach, community engagement and qualitative research. Abstract: Introduction: The WHO Regional Office for Europe developed the Guide to tailoring immunization programmes (TIP), offering countries a process through which to diagnose barriers and motivators to vaccination in susceptible low vaccination coverage and design tailored interventions. A review of TIP implementation was conducted in the European Region. Material and methods: The review was conducted during June to December 2016 by an external review committee and was based on visits in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Sweden and the United Kingdom that had conducted a TIP project; review of national and regional TIP documents and an online survey of the Member States in the WHO European Region that had not conducted a TIP project. A review committee workshop was held to formulate conclusions and recommendations. Results: The review found the most commonly cited strengths of the TIP approach to be the social science research as well as the interdisciplinary approach and community engagement, enhancing the ability of programmes to "listen" and learn, to gain an understanding of community and individual perspectives. National immunization managers in the Region are generally aware that TIP exists and that there is strong demand for the type of research it addresses. Further work is needed to assist countries move towards implementable strategies based on the TIP findings, supported by an emphasis on enhanced local ownership; integrated diagnostic and intervention design; and follow-up meetings, advocacy and incentives for decision-makers to implement and invest in strategies. Conclusions: Understanding the perspectives of susceptible and low-coverage populations is crucial to improving immunization programmes. TIP provides a framework that facilitated this in four countries. In the future, the purpose of TIP should go beyond identification of susceptible groups and diagnosis of challenges and ensure a stronger focus on the design of strategies and appropriate and effective interventions to ensure long-term change.