figshare
Browse
ierv_a_1627208_sm4122.docx (40.82 kB)

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework and the Analysis of Decision-Making Processes Regarding Publicly-Funded Immunization Programs.

Download (40.82 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2019-06-19, 18:09 authored by Philippe De Wals, Maria-Eugenia Espinoza-Moya, Daniel Béland

Introduction: The implementation of a publicly-funded immunization program results from a complex decision-making process. John Kingdon’s ‘Multiple Streams Framework’ has been extensively used to analyze how and why governmental policies were adopted.

Area covered: Ideas that will ultimately end up in a proposal for a new immunization program develop gradually along three main streams: (i) the problem stream, which focuses on a particular vaccine-preventable disease and its perception by stakeholders; (ii) the policy stream, which is centered on experts’ views on the optimal use of available vaccines; and (iii) the politics stream, which consists of socio-political factors, including budgetary constraints. Ideas are progressively shaped by policy entrepreneurs into a proposal with concrete implementation strategies. The three streams then converge within a policy window, during which adoption is especially likely to occur. To survive, the proposed program should be operationally feasible, consistent with mainstream social values, and financially affordable. The timing of the policy window is usually unpredictable and of short duration.

Expert opinion: Analytical frameworks traditionally used to assess immunization programs focus on the technical aspects of the disease, the vaccine, and the program. The ‘Multiple Streams Framework’ brings added analytical value by enlarging the scope of the analysis into the political arena.

Funding

This study was performed thanks to research funds provided by the Sherbrooke University Hospital Clinical Research Centre and Laval University, and unrestricted research grants from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Grants were administered by the Québec Heart and Lung Institute Research Centre. Sponsors had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data. Sponsors were provided the opportunity to review a preliminary version of this manuscript for factual accuracy but the authors are solely responsible for final content and approval.

History