Volume 71, Issue 2_suppl
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645


Recently licensed life-saving vaccines have experienced slow introduction and gradual uptake in the developing world. Policy challenges at the national level contribute to the delay in making new vaccines accessible to people in poor countries. The hurdles that delayed the introduction of other vaccines can provide guidance for navigating the policy challenges that face the introduction of a new malaria vaccine. When a malaria vaccine is licensed, national leaders will rely on available data and analyses to draw conclusions about which malaria interventions have the greatest potential for public health impact. Epidemiologic and economic analyses can help facilitate their decision-making. This article draws attention to the importance of research to inform policy decisions and to minimize delays in the introduction of a new malaria vaccine.


Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aylward B, Kane M, Batson A, McNair R, 1994. A framework for the evaluation of vaccines for use in the Expanded Programme on Immunization. Vaccine 12 : 1155–1159.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Mansoor O, Shin S, Maher C, 2000. Assessing New Vaccines for National Immunization Programmes: A Framework to Assist Decision Makers. Manila: World Health Organization.
  3. WHO, 2002. UNICEF State of the World’s Vaccines and Immunizations. Geneva: World Health Organzation.
  4. Miller MA, McCann L, 2000. Policy analysis of the use of hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b-, Streptococcus pneumoniae-conjugate and rotavirus vaccines in national immunizations schedules. Health Econ 9 : 19–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Miller MA, 1999. Considerations for adding pneumonia and influenza vaccines to public health programmes. Vaccine 17 : S95–S98.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Breman JG, 2001. The ears of the hippopotamus: manifestations, determinants and estimates of the malaria disease burden. Am J Trop Med Hyg 64 (Suppl): 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. WHO, 2002. World Health Report: Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. Geneva: World Health Organization.
  8. Esparza J, Chang M-L, Widdus R, Madrid Y, Walker N, Ghys P, 2002. Estimation of “needs” and “probable uptake” for HIV/ AIDS preventive vaccines based on possible policies and likely acceptance (a WHO/UNAIDS/IAVI study). Vaccine 21 : 2032–2041.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Miller MA, Hinman AR, 1999. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccine policy. Plotkin SA, Orenstein, WA, eds. Vaccines. Third Edition. Philadelphia: W.B, Saunders, 1074–1088.
  10. Genton B, Corradin B, 2002. Malaria vaccines: from laboratory to the field. Curr Drug Targets Immune Endocr Metabol Disord 2 : 255–267.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Engers HD, Godal T, 1998. Malaria vaccine development: current status. Parasitol Today 14 : 56–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. UNICEF, 1999. Rolling Back Malaria Report. New York: UNICEF.
  13. WHO/UNICEF, 2003. Africa Malaria Report. Geneva: World Health Organization.
  14. Goodman C, Coleman P, Mills A, 2000. Economic Analysis of Malaria Control in Sub-Saharan Africa. Geneva: World Health Organization. Global Forum for Health Research.

Data & Media loading...

  • Received : 21 Aug 2003
  • Accepted : 06 Feb 2004
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error