Table 4 Partners who can support country decision making, in collaboration with PDPs
Partner | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
Multilaterals such as WHO | Extensive reach and impartiality | Limited staff and restricted funding; May be overwhelmed by other initiatives and thus lack time and resources to devote to new interventions |
Organizations dedicated to new product access, such as those funded by GAVI (e.g., Hib Initiative, Accelerated Vaccine Introduction Initiative (AVI)) | Dedicated funding for access activities | Typically have a multi-country remit which limits depth of engagement in individual countries |
Local academia, researchers and/or professional organizations | Close to in-country processes, needs and data; Credible with local policy-makers | May not have a broad view of a problem; May be influenced by personal research interests |
NGOs | Some have specific expertise in new product introduction | May require funding specific to the new product to support their activities, and may not be involved in official decision-making bodies |
Pharmaceutical and/or manufacturing partners | Product-specific expertise, regulatory expertise, and in some cases extensive sales networks in some markets | May be seen as a biased source of decision making information; may lack experience in the disease and/or in low and middle income settings |