In a field harm-benefit assessment for vaccine deployment, which should be documented and tested?

• A. Publish final results only
• B. Ignore uncertainty
• C. Base decisions on anecdotes
• D. Assumptions and sensitivity analyses

Answer: (D)

Documenting and testing assumptions through sensitivity analyses is essential in field harm-benefit assessments for vaccine deployment. In real-world settings, many inputs are uncertain—from vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection to uptake rates and local disease incidence. Making assumptions explicit ensures transparency about what the conclusions depend on. Sensitivity analyses then explore how changing those inputs within plausible ranges affects the harm-benefit outcome, revealing robustness or fragility of the recommendation and guiding data collection priorities. This approach also communicates uncertainty to stakeholders and supports more informed decision-making. Publishing final results without showing the underpinning assumptions, ignoring uncertainty, or basing decisions on anecdotes do not provide the necessary transparency or rigor for real-world policy decisions.