Standardizing evaluation process: Necessary for achieving SDGs - A case study of India

A set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015 are to be implemented and achieved in every country from the year 2016 to 2030. In Indian context, all these goals are very relevant and critical, as India missed the target on many components of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The author strongly feels that one of the key reasons was lack of an in-built robust system for measuring the progress and achievements of MDGs. Monitoring and Evaluation of programmes and schemes, aiming at different SDGs, in a robust and regular manner is therefore need of the hour. A National evaluation policy (NEP) would set the tone in the right direction from the very beginning for achieving SDGs. The paper taking India as a case study discusses different critical factors pertinent for having a well laid down national level policy towards standardizing evaluation. Using real examples under different components of an evaluation policy, the paper discusses and questions the credibility and acceptance of the present evaluation system in place. The paper identifies five core mantras or pre-requisites of a national evaluation guideline. The paper emphasizes the importance of an evaluation policy in India and other countries as well, to provide authentic data gathered through a well-designed evaluation process and take corrective measures well on time to achieve SDGs.

What are the roles and valued attributes of a Trial Steering Committee? Ethnographic study of eight clinical trials facing challenges

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials oversight by a Trial Steering Committee (TSC) is mandated by Good Clinical Practice. This study used qualitative methods to explore the role and valued attributes of the TSC to inform planned updates of Medical Research Council guidance and TSC terms of reference.

METHODS

An ethnographic study was conducted during 2013-2014. TSC and Trial Management Group meetings from eight trials were observed and audio-recorded, and semi-structured interviews conducted with purposively sampled key informants: independent and non-independent TSC members, trial sponsor representatives, funder representatives and chief investigators. The selected trials were currently recruiting and dealing with challenging scenarios. Data were analysed thematically and findings triangulated and integrated to give a multi-perspective account of the role and valued attributes of a TSC.

RESULTS

Eight TSC meetings and six Trial Management Group meetings were observed. Sixty-five interviews were conducted with 51 informants. The two main roles played by the TSC were quality assurance and patient advocacy. Quality assurance involved being a 'critical friend' or a provider of 'tough love'. Factors influencing the ability of the TSC to fulfil this role included the TSC Chair, other independent TSC members and the model of the TSC and its fit with the trial subject. The role of the TSC as an advocate for patient well-being was perceived as paramount. Two attributes of TSC members emerged as critical: experience (of running a trial, trial oversight or in a clinical/methodological area) and independence. While independence was valued for giving impartiality, the lack of consensus about its definition and strict requirements of some funders made it difficult to operationalise.

CONCLUSIONS

We found tensions and ambiguities in the roles expected of TSCs and the attributes valued of TSC members. In particular, the requirements of independence and experience could conflict, impacting the TSCs' quality assurance role. Concerns were raised regarding whose interests are served by funders' criteria of independence; in particular, funders' selection of TSC members was thought to potentially inhibit TSCs' ability to fulfil their patient advocacy role. These findings should be incorporated in revising guidance and terms of reference for TSCs.

Comparison of NITAG policies and working processes in selected developed countries

BACKGROUND

Vaccines are specific medicines characterized by two country-specific market access processes: (1) a recommendation by National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG), and (2) a funding policy decision.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare and analyze NITAGs of 13 developed countries by describing vaccination committees' bodies and working processes.

METHODS

Information about NITAGs bodies and working processes was searched from official sources from June 2011 to November 2012. Retrieved information was completed from relevant articles identified through a systematic literature review and by information provided by direct contact with NITAGs or parent organizations. An expert panel was also conducted to discuss, validate, and provide additional input on obtained results.

RESULTS

While complete information, defined as 100%, was retrieved only for the UK, at least 80% of data was retrieved for 9 countries out of the 13 selected countries. Terms of references were identified in 7 countries, and the main mission for all NITAGs was to provide advice for National immunization programs. However, these terms of references did not fully encompass all the actual missions of the NITAGs. Decision analysis frameworks were identified for 10 out of the 13, and all NITAGs considered at least four criteria for decision-making: disease burden, efficacy/effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness. Advices were published by most NITAGs, but few NITAGs published meeting agendas and minutes. Only the United States had open meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports previous findings about the disparities in NITAGs processes which could potentially explain the disparity in access to vaccinations and immunization programs across Europe. With NITAGs recommendations being used by policy decision makers for implementation and funding of vaccine programs, guidances should be well-informed and transparent to ensure National Immunization Programs' (NIP) credibility among the public and health care professionals.