MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.05.012

Медицинская библиотека · Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2012

The vaccine gap between Japan and the UK.

Shimazawa Rumiko, Ikeda Masayuki

СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

To study and compare the Japanese vaccine policy with the policy in the UK and to discuss factors that may explain the gap in vaccine availability between the two countries.

METHODS

We analysed approval and immunisation programme data from Japan and the UK for 20 common vaccines, all of which were approved and available from the UK National Health Service.

RESULTS

Of these 20 common vaccines, only four were introduced in Japan. Of the 16 unapproved vaccines, 11 were combination vaccines. Indications for the other five unapproved vaccines were the prevention of infection with meningococcus (3 vaccines) and pneumococcus (2 vaccines). Coverage of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and poliomyelitis vaccines was similar between the two countries whereas that of measles and rubella was higher in Japan.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show that there is still a large gap between Japan and the UK regarding access to 20 common vaccines and immunisation programmes. The keys to closing this gap include: (1) revision of vaccine regulations, (2) amendment of vaccine-related laws to secure funding and cooperation between professionals and public health authorities, and (3) improvement in the perception of vaccines among the general public and mass media.

Для цитирования: Shimazawa Rumiko, Ikeda Masayuki. The vaccine gap between Japan and the UK.. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.05.012.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.