Addressing Unmet Needs in Vaccination for Older Adults in the Asia Pacific: Insights from the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The impact of vaccinating the older population against vaccine-preventable diseases in terms of health, social and economic benefits has been increasingly recognised. However, there is a gap in the utilisation of vaccines worldwide. The population is ageing at an unprecedented pace in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, with the number of persons older than 65 years set to double by 2050 to around 1.3 billion. More than 18% of the population in Japan, Hong Kong, and China is over the age of 65 years. This highlights the importance of prioritising resources to address societal obligations toward the needs of the ageing generation. This review provides an overview of the challenges to adult vaccination in APAC, drivers to increase vaccination coverage, vaccination insights gained through the COVID-19 pandemic, and potential measures to increase the uptake of adult vaccines in the region.

Estimating the full public health value of vaccination.

There is an enhanced focus on considering the full public health value (FPHV) of vaccination when setting priorities, making regulatory decisions and establishing implementation policy for public health activities. Historically, a therapeutic paradigm has been applied to the evaluation of prophylactic vaccines and focuses on an individual benefit-risk assessment in prospective and individually-randomized phase III trials to assess safety and efficacy against etiologically-confirmed clinical outcomes. By contrast, a public health paradigm considers the population impact and encompasses measures of community benefits against a range of outcomes. For example, measurement of the FPHV of vaccination may incorporate health inequity, social and political disruption, disruption of household integrity, school absenteeism and work loss, health care utilization, long-term/on-going disability, the development of antibiotic resistance, and a range of non-etiologically and etiologically defined clinical outcomes. Following an initial conference at the Fondation Mérieux in mid-2015, a second conference (December 2016) was held to further describe the efficacy of using the FPHV of vaccination on a variety of prophylactic vaccines. The wider scope of vaccine benefits, improvement in risk assessment, and the need for partnership and coalition building across interventions has also been discussed during the 2014 and 2016 Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forums and the 2016 Geneva Health Forum, as well as in numerous publications including a special issue of Health Affairs in February 2016. The December 2016 expert panel concluded that while progress has been made, additional efforts will be necessary to have a more fully formulated assessment of the FPHV of vaccines included into the evidence-base for the value proposition and analysis of unmet medical need to prioritize vaccine development, vaccine licensure, implementation policies and financing decisions. The desired outcomes of these efforts to establish an alternative framework for vaccine evaluation are a more robust vaccine pipeline, improved appreciation of vaccine value and hence of its relative affordability, and greater public access and acceptance of vaccines.

Prevention and control of dengue-the light at the end of the tunnel.

Advances in the development of new dengue control tools, including vaccines and vector control, herald a new era of desperately needed dengue prevention and control. The burden of dengue has expanded for decades, and now affects more than 120 countries. Complex, large-scale global forces have and will continue to contribute to the expansion of dengue, including population growth, unplanned urbanisation, and suboptimal mosquito control in urban centres. Although no so-called magic bullets are available, there is new optimism following the first licensure of a dengue vaccine and other promising vaccine candidates, and the development of novel vector control interventions to help control dengue and other expanding mosquito-borne diseases such as Zika virus. Implementation of effective and sustainable immunisation programmes to complement existing methods will add complexity to the health systems of affected countries, which have varying levels of robustness and maturity. Long-term high prioritisation and adequate resources are needed. The way forward is full commitment to addressing a complex disease with a set of solutions integrating vaccination and vector control methods. A whole systems approach is thus needed to integrate these various approaches and strategies for controlling dengue within the goal of universal health coverage. The ultimate objective of these interventions will be to reduce the disease burden in a sustainable and equitable manner.

Evidence for Health II: Overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice.

Even the highest quality evidence will have little impact unless it is incorporated into decision-making for health. It is therefore critical to overcome the many barriers to using evidence in decision-making, including (1) missing the window of opportunity, (2) knowledge gaps and uncertainty, (3) controversy, irrelevant and conflicting evidence, as well as (4) vested interests and conflicts of interest. While this is certainly not a comprehensive list, it covers a number of main themes discussed in the knowledge translation literature on this topic, and better understanding these barriers can help readers of the evidence to be more savvy knowledge users and help researchers overcome challenges to getting their evidence into practice. Thus, the first step in being able to use research evidence for improving population health is ensuring that the evidence is available at the right time and in the right format and language so that knowledge users can take the evidence into consideration alongside a multitude of other factors that also influence decision-making. The sheer volume of scientific publications makes it difficult to find the evidence that can actually help inform decisions for health. Policymakers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, require context-specific evidence to ensure local relevance. Knowledge synthesis and dissemination of policy-relevant local evidence is important, but it is still not enough. There are times when the interpretation of the evidence leads to various controversies and disagreements, which act as barriers to the uptake of evidence. Research evidence can also be influenced and misused for various aims and agendas. It is therefore important to ensure that any new evidence comes from reliable sources and is interpreted in light of the overall body of scientific literature. It is not enough to simply produce evidence, nor even to synthesize and package evidence into a more user-friendly format. Particularly at the policy level, political savvy is also needed to ensure that vested interests do not undermine decisions that can impact the health of individuals and populations.

Evidence for Health I: Producing evidence for improving health and reducing inequities.

In an ideal world, researchers and decision-makers would be involved from the outset in co-producing evidence, with local health needs assessments informing the research agenda and research evidence informing the actions taken to improve health. The first step in improving the health of individuals and populations is therefore gaining a better understanding of what the main health problems are, and of these, which are the most urgent priorities by using both quantitative data to develop a health portrait and qualitative data to better understand why the local population thinks that addressing certain health challenges should be prioritized in their context. Understanding the causes of these health problems often involves analytical research, such as case-control and cohort studies, or qualitative studies to better understand how more complex exposures lead to specific health problems (e.g. by interviewing local teenagers discovering that watching teachers smoke in the school yard, peer pressure, and media influence smoking initiation among youth). Such research helps to develop a logic model to better map out the proximal and distal causes of poor health and to determine potential pathways for intervening and impacting health outcomes. Rarely is there a single 'cure' or stand-alone intervention, but rather, a continuum of strategies are needed from diagnosis and treatment of patients already affected, to disease prevention, health promotion and addressing the upstream social determinants of health. Research for developing and testing more upstream interventions must often go beyond randomized controlled trials, which are expensive, less amenable to more complex interventions, and can be associated with certain ethical challenges. Indeed, a much neglected area of the research cycle is implementation and evaluation research, which often involves quasi-experimental research study designs as well as qualitative research, to better understand how to derive the greatest benefit from existing interventions and ways of maximizing health improvements in specific local contexts. There is therefore a need to alter current incentive structures within the research enterprise to place greater emphasis on implementation and evaluation research conducted in collaboration with knowledge users who are in a position to use the findings in practice to improve health.

Evidence for Health III: Making evidence-informed decisions that integrate values and context.

Making evidence-informed decisions with the aim of improving the health of individuals or populations can be facilitated by using a systematic approach. While a number of algorithms already exist, and while there is no single 'right' way of summarizing or ordering the various elements that should be involved in making such health-related decisions, an algorithm is presented here that lays out many of the key issues that should be considered, and which adds a special emphasis on balancing the values of individual patients and entire populations, as well as the importance of incorporating contextual considerations. Indeed many different types of evidence and value judgements are needed during the decision-making process to answer a wide range of questions, including (1) What is the priority health problem? (2) What causes this health problem? (3) What are the different strategies or interventions that can be used to address this health problem? (4) Which of these options, as compared to the status quo, has an added benefit that outweighs the harms? (5) Which options would be acceptable to the individuals or populations involved? (6) What are the costs and opportunity costs? (7) Would these options be feasible and sustainable in this specific context? (8) What are the ethical, legal and social implications of choosing one option over another? (9) What do different stakeholders stand to gain or lose from each option? and (10) Taking into account the multiple perspectives and considerations involved, which option is most likely to improve health while minimizing harms? This third and final article in the 'Evidence for Health' series will go through each of the steps in the algorithm in greater detail to promote more evidence-informed decisions that aim to improve health and reduce inequities.

Yes we can! The Raffles Dialogue on Human Wellbeing and Security.

The future of human wellbeing and security depends on our ability to deal with the multiple effects of globalisation and on adoption of a new paradigm and philosophy for living and for health that emphasises people's wellbeing and social justice. Such was the topic of the inaugural Raffles Dialogue on Human Wellbeing and Security held in Singapore on Feb 2-3, 2015. Participants agreed that, to achieve these goals, four conditions must be met. First, equity must be integral to the implementation of technology. Second, there is an urgent need for innovations within our global institutions to make them "fit for purpose" in a rapidly changing world. Third, we must find the right balance between the roles of government and markets so that all those in need can access affordable medicine and health care. Finally, we must realise that we live in a small and interdependent "global village", where Asian countries need to assume greater leadership of our global village councils. This is the great imperative of our times.