Global engagement

Global engagement

Global engagement: Promoting innovative and inclusive approaches to research

An essential part of TDR’s work is to engage with the global health community to promote and facilitate the role of research for development and to advocate for the use of high-quality evidence to inform policy. TDR is at the interface between research and health care delivery and is embedded within the UN family through its cosponsors (UNICEF, UNDP, the World Bank, and WHO). This unique positioning allows TDR to create a bridge from local communities to the World Health Assembly to enable the broadest possible scope of dialogue and debate across the spectrum of health research – from priority setting to evidence-based policy-making at local, national, regional and global levels.

This global engagement includes promoting a broad range of community-based social innovations that are transforming health care delivery, shaping the research agenda, supporting the translation of evidence to policy, and leveraging a global network of more than 7000 scientists and experts who have been associated with TDR.
   

Recent news

Publications

A guide for conducting an Expanded Programme on Immunization(EPI) Review

Overview

An EPI Review, also referred to as National Immunization Programme Review, is the comprehensive assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of an immunization programme at national, subnational and service-delivery levels. The purpose of the Review is to provide evidence for the programme’s strategic directions and priority activities. With this in mind, an EPI Review should be conducted before the immunization programme’s strategic planning cycle, such as the cMYP. Review findings are presented formally to the Ministry of Health (MoH), other relevant ministries, and often the country’s interagency coordinating committee (ICC) for their responses and endorsement for incorporation into the next strategic plan.

There are many ways an EPI Review can be conducted. The purpose of these guidelines is to establish a benchmark against which deviations from the standard can be made explicit. For example, EPI Reviews include external technical experts to provide greater technical depth, promote impartiality and increase the visibility and credibility of the findings. If EPI Review teams are not led by external experts, this should be made clear in the Review reporting process. A second example follows from the fact that EPI Reviews are increasingly being integrated with other assessments; adapting the Review to meet other objectives is encouraged and would also be an element to highlight as a deviation from a standard Review.

WHO Team
WHO Headquarters (HQ)
Reference numbers
ISBN: WHO/IVB/17.17
WHO Reference Number: WHO/IVB/17.17
Copyright
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO