PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Patel, Cyra
AU  - Sargent, Ginny M
AU  - Tinessia, Adeline
AU  - Mayfield, Helen
AU  - Chateau, Dan
AU  - Ali, Akeem
AU  - Tuibeqa, Ilisapeci
AU  - Sheel, Meru
TI  - Measuring what matters: context-specific indicators for assessing immunisation performance in Pacific Island Countries and Areas
AID  - 10.1101/2024.03.12.24304182
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.03.12.24304182
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/14/2024.03.12.24304182.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/14/2024.03.12.24304182.full
AB  - Increasing countries’ access to data can improve immunisation coverage through evidence-based decision-making. However, data collection and reporting is resource-intensive, so needs to be pragmatic, especially in low-and-middle-income countries. We aimed to identify which indicators are most important for measuring, and improving, national immunisation performance in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). We conducted an expert elicitation study, asking 13 experts involved in delivering immunisation programs, decision-makers, health information specialists, and global development partners across PICs to rate 41 indicators based on their knowledge of the feasibility and relevance of each indicator. We also asked experts their preferences for indicators to be retained or removed from a list of indicators for PICs. Experts participated in two rating rounds, with a discussion on the reasons for ratings before the second round. We calculated mean scores for feasibility and relevance, and ranked indicators based on experts’ preferences and mean scores. We used framework analysis to identify reasons for selecting indicators. Experts agreed that certain indicators were essential to measure (e.g. data use in program planning and measles vaccination coverage), but preferences varied for most indicators. Preferences to include indicators in a set of indicators for PICs moderately correlated with scores for relevance (r=0.68) and feasibility (r=0.56). In discussions, experts highlighted usefulness for decision-making and ease of data collection, reporting and interpretation as the main reasons driving indicator selection. Country-specific factors such as health system factors, roles and influence of various immunisation actors, and macro-level factors (namely population size, distribution and mobility) affected relevance and feasibility, leading us to conclude that a single set of indicators for all PICs is inappropriate. Rather than having a strict set of indicators that all countries must measure and report against, performance indicators should be flexible, country-specific, and selected in consultation with stakeholders who collect and use the data.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementCP is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship. MS was funded by a research fellowship from the Westpac Scholars Trust (2019-2023). The funders had no role in the design, conduct or writing of this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Australian National University Human Research Ethics Committee reviewed and approved the ethical conduct of this study (protocol 2022/368) and amendments to data collection tools.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAggregated data from this study are reported in the results tables, with additional detailed findings reported in the supplementary materials. Individual-level data cannot be released as per the conditions of ethical approval and to which experts agreed when consenting to participate in this study. The authors may be contacted for further information.