Parental reminder, recall and educational interventions to improve early childhood immunisation uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review on reminder systems in physical therapy

Background

The main goal of physical therapy is to help the patient gain a better health status. Several studies have investigated the use of reminders to prevent such failures on the patients' side. This article presents a systematic review of the literature concerning reminders in physical therapy.

Methods

Databases were searched until May 2017 and literatures were found from April 1992 until 2017. The literature recruitment strategy was based on applying several keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) combination running against title and abstract, including concepts such as reminder, physical therapy. The finally selected articles were categorized through reminder aspects such as how, who feedback. Data were extracted according to PRISMA guidelines.

Results

In 47% of studies, the reminder was sent to the patients, 29% to the physical therapists and 12% to the caretaker team. In 24% of the studies, paper-based letters were main medium for reminders while the rest were various types of media like emails and SMS mobile text messages. 35% of the articles showed positive effects of the reminders.

Conclusions

Many reminder methods consisted of SMS, phone calls, letters, emails and notices on the wall were used in physical therapy. Reminders may be used to improve patients' adherence to exercise programs.

Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates

BACKGROUND

Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population-based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient-oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various types of patient reminder and recall interventions to improve receipt of immunizations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2017. We also searched grey literature and trial registers to January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating immunization-focused patient reminder or recall interventions in children, adolescents, and adults who receive immunizations in any setting. We included no-intervention control groups, standard practice activities that did not include immunization patient reminder or recall, media-based activities aimed at promoting immunizations, or simple practice-based awareness campaigns. We included receipt of any immunizations as eligible outcome measures, excluding special travel immunizations. We excluded patients who were hospitalized for the duration of the study period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We present results for individual studies as relative rates using risk ratios, and risk differences for randomized trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before-after studies. We present pooled results for randomized trials using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The 75 included studies involved child, adolescent, and adult participants in outpatient, community-based, primary care, and other settings in 10 countries.Patient reminder or recall interventions, including telephone and autodialer calls, letters, postcards, text messages, combination of mail or telephone, or a combination of patient reminder or recall with outreach, probably improve the proportion of participants who receive immunization (risk ratio (RR) of 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.35; risk difference of 8%) based on moderate certainty evidence from 55 studies with 138,625 participants.Three types of single-method reminders improve receipt of immunizations based on high certainty evidence: the use of postcards (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30; eight studies; 27,734 participants), text messages (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; six studies; 7772 participants), and autodialer (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; five studies; 11,947 participants). Two types of single-method reminders probably improve receipt of immunizations based on moderate certainty evidence: the use of telephone calls (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.54; seven studies; 9120 participants) and letters to patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; 27 studies; 81,100 participants).Based on high certainty evidence, reminders improve receipt of immunizations for childhood (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.29; risk difference of 8%; 23 studies; 31,099 participants) and adolescent vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42; risk difference of 7%; 10 studies; 30,868 participants). Reminders probably improve receipt of vaccinations for childhood influenza (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.99; risk difference of 22%; five studies; 9265 participants) and adult influenza (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.43; risk difference of 9%; 15 studies; 59,328 participants) based on moderate certainty evidence. They may improve receipt of vaccinations for adult pneumococcus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other non-influenza vaccinations based on low certainty evidence although the confidence interval includes no effect of these interventions (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.78; four studies; 8065 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient reminder and recall systems, in primary care settings, are likely to be effective at improving the proportion of the target population who receive immunizations.

Addressing barriers to vaccine acceptance: an overview

Addressing the drivers of vaccine hesitancy and the barriers to vaccine acceptance is a complex but important task. While the percentage of hesitant does vary from country to country and in time few, if any, countries are ever free from this problem. Overcoming hesitancy requires detection, diagnosis and tailored intervention as there is no simple strategy that can address all of the barriers to vaccine acceptance. Immunization program managers and health care workers need to become adept at recognizing and tackling hesitancy in all of its incarnations if high levels of vaccine acceptance are to be achieved but must also actively support immunization acceptors in order to build and support vaccine acceptance resiliency. This paper presents evidence-informed strategies to achieve these goals.

Written reminders increase vaccine coverage in Danish children - evaluation of a nationwide intervention using The Danish Vaccination Register, 2014 to 2015

We evaluated a national intervention of sending written reminders to parents of children lacking childhood vaccinations, using the Danish Vaccination Register (DDV). The intervention cohort included the full birth cohort of 124,189 children born in Denmark who reached the age of 2 and 6.5 years from 15 May 2014 to 14 May 2015. The reference cohort comprised 124,427 children who reached the age of 2 and 6.5 years from 15 May 2013 to 14 May 2014. Vaccination coverage was higher in the intervention cohort at 2.5 and 7 years of age. The differences were most pronounced for the second dose of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR2) and the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-polio vaccine DTaP-IPV4 among the 7-year-olds, with 5.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.5-5.4) and 6.4 percentage points (95% CI: 6.0-6.9), respectively. Among the 2.5 and 7-year-olds, the proportion of vaccinations in the preceding 6 months was 46% and three times higher, respectively, in the intervention cohort than the reference cohort. This study indicates a marked effect of personalised written reminders, highest for the vaccines given later in the schedule in the older cohort. In addition, the reminders increased awareness about correct registration of vaccinations in DDV.

Perceptions and experiences of childhood vaccination communication strategies among caregivers and health workers in Nigeria: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Effective vaccination communication with parents is critical in efforts to overcome barriers to childhood vaccination, tackle vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccination coverage. Health workers should be able to provide information to parents and other caregivers and support them in reaching decisions about vaccinating their children. Limited information exists regarding the perceptions of caregivers and health workers on the vaccination communication strategies employed in Nigeria. This study, which forms part of the 'Communicate to vaccinate' (COMMVAC) project, aims to explore the perceptions and experiences of caregivers and health workers in Nigeria on vaccination communication strategies implemented in their settings.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted the study in two States: Bauchi in Northern Nigeria and Cross River in the south. We carried out observations (n = 40), in-depth interviews (n = 14) and focus group discussions (FGDs) (n = 12) amongst 14 purposively selected health workers, two community leaders and 84 caregivers in the two states. We transcribed data verbatim and analysed the data using a framework analysis approach.

RESULTS

Caregivers were informed about vaccination activities through three main sources: health facilities (during health education sessions conducted at antenatal or immunization clinics); media outlets; and announcements (in churches/mosques, communities and markets). Caregivers reported that the information received was very useful. Their preferred sources of information included phone text messages, town announcers, media and church/mosque announcements. Some caregivers perceived the clinic environment, long waiting times and health worker attitudes as barriers to receiving vaccination information.When delivering communication interventions, health workers described issues tied to poor communication skills; poor motivation; and attitudes of community members, including vaccine resistance.

CONCLUSION

Communication about vaccination involves more than the message but is also influenced by the environment and the attitudes of the deliverer and receiver. It is pertinent for health policy makers and programme managers to understand these factors so as to effectively implement communication approaches.

Stakeholder perceptions of communication about vaccination in two regions of Cameroon: A qualitative case study

BACKGROUND

Understanding stakeholders' (parents', communities' and health workers') perspectives of communication about childhood vaccination, including their preferences for its format, delivery and content, is an important step towards designing better communication strategies and ensuring more informed parents. Our objectives were to explore stakeholders' views, experiences and preferences for childhood vaccination communication in Cameroon.

METHODS

In 2014, in the Central and North West Regions of Cameron, we gathered qualitative data for our case study using the following methods: semi structured interviews; observations and informal conversations during routine immunization clinics and three rounds of the National Polio Immunization Campaign; document analysis of reports and mass media communications about vaccination; and a survey of parents. We conducted a thematic analysis of the qualitative data to identify themes relating to views, experiences and perceptions of vaccination information and its delivery. Survey data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

All of the parents interviewed felt that vaccinating their child was important, and trusted the information provided by health workers. However, many parents wanted more information. Parents did not always feel that they could ask questions during vaccination appointments. All participants felt that health workers and vaccination clinics were important sources of information. Social mobilisation activities such as door-to-door visits and announcements during religious services were important and accepted ways of communicating information, especially during vaccination campaigns. Information communicated through mass media and text messages was also seen as important. In general, stakeholders believed that more consistent messaging about routine vaccination through community channels would be helpful to remind parents of the importance of routine vaccination during ongoing rounds of vaccination campaigns against polio.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that parents regard information about childhood vaccination as important, but that health services need to be organized in ways that prioritize and facilitate communication, particularly about routine vaccination.

Beyond "Back to Sleep": Ways to Further Reduce the Risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) remains the leading cause of postneonatal mortality in the United States, despite reduction in rates of more than 50% since the initiation of the "Back to Sleep" (now called "Safe to Sleep") campaign in 1994. In recent years, the rate of decline in SIDS deaths has plateaued, even with the ongoing educational efforts that promote safe sleep and other risk reduction measures. The 2016 American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for reducing the risk of SIDS focus heavily on sleep practices, bedding, and location, but also include factors that often receive less attention (ie, prenatal care, maternal smoking, alcohol and drug use, and childhood vaccinations). This review describes these factors that are less often addressed and identifies interventions that have resulted in positive behavioral changes that not only benefit infants, but also promote the health and well-being of their mothers. [Pediatr Ann. 2017;46(8):e284-e290.].

Immunization, urbanization and slums - a systematic review of factors and interventions

Background

In 2014, over half (54%) of the world’s population lived in urban areas and this proportion will increase to 66% by 2050. This urbanizing trend has been accompanied by an increasing number of people living in urban poor communities and slums. Lower immunization coverage is found in poorer urban dwellers in many contexts. This study aims to identify factors associated with immunization coverage in poor urban areas and slums, and to identify interventions to improve coverage.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review, searching Medline, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Database with broad search terms for studies published between 2000 and 2016.

Results

Of 4872 unique articles, 327 abstracts were screened, leading to 63 included studies: 44 considering factors and 20 evaluating interventions (one in both categories) in 16 low or middle-income countries. A wide range of socio-economic characteristics were associated with coverage in different contexts. Recent rural-urban migration had a universally negative effect. Parents commonly reported lack of awareness of immunization importance and difficulty accessing services as reasons for under-immunization of their children. Physical distance to clinics and aspects of service quality also impacted uptake. We found evidence of effectiveness for interventions involving multiple components, especially if they have been designed with community involvement. Outreach programmes were effective where physical distance was identified as a barrier. Some evidence was found for the effective use of SMS (text) messaging services, community-based education programmes and financial incentives, which warrant further evaluation. No interventions were identified that provided services to migrants from rural areas.

Conclusion

Different factors affect immunization coverage in different urban poor and slum contexts. Immunization services should be designed in collaboration with slum-dwelling communities, considering the local context. Interventions should be designed and tested to increase immunization in migrants from rural areas.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4473-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination is an effective way to prevent serious childhood illnesses, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. There are various reasons for this; some parents lack access because of poor quality health services, long distances or lack of money. Other parents may not trust vaccines or the healthcare workers who provide them, or they may not see the need for vaccination due to a lack of information or misinformation about how vaccinations work and the diseases they can prevent.Communication with parents about childhood vaccinations is one way of addressing these issues. Communication can take place at healthcare facilities, at home or in the community. Communication can be two-way, for example face-to-face discussions between parents and healthcare providers, or one-way, for instance via text messages, posters or radio programmes. Some types of communication enable parents to actively discuss vaccines and their benefits and harms, as well as diseases they can prevent. Other communication types simply give information about vaccination issues or when and where vaccines are available. People involved in vaccine programmes need to understand how parents experience different types of communication about vaccination and how this influences their decision to vaccinate.

OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of the review were to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring: parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences regarding communication about childhood vaccinations and the manner in which it is communicated; and the influence that vaccination communication has on parents' and informal caregivers' decisions regarding childhood vaccination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), MEDLINE In-process and Other Non-Index Citations (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EbscoHOST), and Anthropology Plus (EbscoHost) databases for eligible studies from inception to 30 August 2016. We developed search strategies for each database, using guidelines developed by the Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group for searching for qualitative evidence as well as modified versions of the search developed for three related reviews of effectiveness. There were no date or geographic restrictions for the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on the views and experiences of parents and informal caregivers regarding information about vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where information about childhood vaccinations was communicated or distributed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used maximum variation purposive sampling for data synthesis, using a three-step sampling frame. We conducted a thematic analysis using a constant comparison strategy for data extraction and synthesis. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. High confidence suggests that it is highly likely that the review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest, while very low confidence indicates that it is not clear whether the review finding is a reasonable representation of it. Using a matrix model, we then integrated our findings with those from other Cochrane reviews that assessed the effects of different communication strategies on parents' knowledge, attitudes and behaviour about childhood vaccination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 studies, mostly from high-income countries, many of which explored mothers' perceptions of vaccine communication. Some focused on the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.In general, parents wanted more information than they were getting (high confidence in the evidence). Lack of information led to worry and regret about vaccination decisions among some parents (moderate confidence).Parents wanted balanced information about vaccination benefits and harms (high confidence), presented clearly and simply (moderate confidence) and tailored to their situation (low confidence in the evidence). Parents wanted vaccination information to be available at a wider variety of locations, including outside health services (low confidence) and in good time before each vaccination appointment (moderate confidence).Parents viewed health workers as an important source of information and had specific expectations of their interactions with them (high confidence). Poor communication and negative relationships with health workers sometimes impacted on vaccination decisions (moderate confidence).Parents generally found it difficult to know which vaccination information source to trust and challenging to find information they felt was unbiased and balanced (high confidence).The amount of information parents wanted and the sources they felt could be trusted appeared to be linked to acceptance of vaccination, with parents who were more hesitant wanting more information (low to moderate confidence).Our synthesis and comparison of the qualitative evidence shows that most of the trial interventions addressed at least one or two key aspects of communication, including the provision of information prior to the vaccination appointment and tailoring information to parents' needs. None of the interventions appeared to respond to negative media stories or address parental perceptions of health worker motives.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high or moderate confidence in the evidence contributing to several review findings. Further research, especially in rural and low- to middle-income country settings, could strengthen evidence for the findings where we had low or very low confidence. Planners should consider the timing for making vaccination information available to parents, the settings where information is available, the provision of impartial and clear information tailored to parental needs, and parents' perceptions of health workers and the information provided.

Effects of Phone and Text Message Reminders on Completion of the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Series

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of phone or text message reminders to parents of adolescents on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series completion in Rochester, NY.

METHODS

We performed parallel randomized controlled trials of phone and text reminders for HPV vaccine for parents of 11- to 17-year olds in three urban primary care clinics. The main outcome measures were time to receipt of the third dose of HPV vaccine and HPV vaccination rates.

RESULTS

We enrolled 178 phone intervention (180 control) and 191 text intervention (200 control) participants. In multivariate survival analysis controlling for gender, age, practice, insurance, race, and ethnicity, the time from enrollment to receipt of the third HPV dose for those receiving a phone reminder compared with controls was not significant overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30, p = .12) but was for those enrolling at dose 1 (HR = 1.91, p = .007). There was a significant difference in those receiving a text reminder compared with controls (HR = 2.34, p < .0001; an average of 71 days earlier). At the end of the study, 48% of phone intervention versus 40% of phone control (p = .34), and 49% of text intervention versus 30% of text control (p = .001) adolescents had received 3 HPV vaccine doses.

CONCLUSIONS

In this urban population of parents of adolescents, text message reminders for HPV vaccine completion for those who had already started the series were effective, whereas phone message reminders were only effective for those enrolled at dose 1.

Interventions to reduce inequalities in vaccine uptake in children and adolescents aged <19 years: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In high-income countries, substantial differences exist in vaccine uptake relating to socioeconomic status, gender, ethnic group, geographic location and religious belief. This paper updates a 2009 systematic review on effective interventions to decrease vaccine uptake inequalities in light of new technologies applied to vaccination and new vaccine programmes (eg, human papillomavirus in adolescents).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ASSIA, The Campbell Collaboration, CINAHL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Eppi Centre, Eric and PsychINFO for intervention, cohort or ecological studies conducted at primary/community care level in children and young people from birth to 19 years in OECD countries, with vaccine uptake or coverage as outcomes, published between 2008 and 2015.

RESULTS

The 41 included studies evaluated complex multicomponent interventions (n=16), reminder/recall systems (n=18), outreach programmes (n=3) or computer-based interventions (n=2). Complex, locally designed interventions demonstrated the best evidence for effectiveness in reducing inequalities in deprived, urban, ethnically diverse communities. There is some evidence that postal and telephone reminders are effective, however, evidence remains mixed for text-message reminders, although these may be more effective in adolescents. Interventions that escalated in intensity appeared particularly effective. Computer-based interventions were not effective. Few studies targeted an inequality specifically, although several reported differential effects by the ethnic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Locally designed, multicomponent interventions should be used in urban, ethnically diverse, deprived populations. Some evidence is emerging for text-message reminders, particularly in adolescents. Further research should be conducted in the UK and Europe with a focus on reducing specific inequalities.

Should Pediatric Practices Have Policies to Not Care for Children With Vaccine-Hesitant Parents?

One of the most divisive issues in pediatrics today concerns the proper response by pediatricians to parents who refuse routine childhood immunizations for their children. Many pediatricians refuse to care for such families. Others continue to provide care and continue to try to convince parents that the benefits of immunizations far outweigh the risks. Two of the most powerful arguments in favor of dismissing such parents are as follows: (1) their refusal suggests such lack of trust in the physicians' recommendations that it undermines the basis for a meaningful physician-patient-parent relationship; and (2) unimmunized children present an unacceptable risk to other children in the physicians' waiting rooms. This article examines those arguments.

Vaccination adherence: Review and proposed model

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of childhood vaccine-preventable diseases can be significantly reduced through adherence to confirmed vaccination schedules. However, many barriers to vaccination compliance exist, including a lack of awareness regarding the importance of vaccines, missing due dates, and fear of complications from vaccinations. The aim of this study is to review the existing tools and publications regarding vaccination adherence, and to propose a design for a vaccination adherence application (app) for smartphones.

METHODS

Android and iOS apps designed for vaccination reminders have been reviewed to examine six elements: educational factor; customizing features; reminder tools; peer education facilitations; feedback, and the language of apps' interface and content. The literature from PubMed has been reviewed for studies addressing reminder systems or tools including apps.

RESULTS

The study has revealed insufficient (n=6) technology-based interventions for increasing childhood vaccination rates by reminding parents in comparison to the fast growth in technology, out of which are two publications discussed mobile apps. Ten apps have been found in apps stores; only one out of them was designed for the Saudi vaccination schedule in Arabic language with some weaknesses. The study proposed a design for a vaccination reminder app that includes a number of features in order to overcome the limitations discussed in the studied reminders, apps, and systems. The design supports the Arabic language and the Saudi vaccination schedule; parental education including peer education; a variety of reminder methods, and the capability to track vaccinations and refer to the app as a personal health record.

CONCLUSION

The study discussed a design for a vaccination reminder app that satisfies the specific requirements for better compliance to children's immunization schedules based on reviewing the existing apps and publications. The proposed design includes element to educate parents and answer their concerns about vaccines. It involves their peers and can encourage the exchange of experiences and overcome vaccine fears. In addition, it could form a convenient child personal health record.

Interventions for improving coverage of childhood immunisation in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Immunisation is a powerful public health strategy for improving child survival, not only by directly combating key diseases that kill children but also by providing a platform for other health services. However, each year millions of children worldwide, mostly from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), do not receive the full series of vaccines on their national routine immunisation schedule. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2011 and focuses on interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies to boost and sustain high childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2016, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.cochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 12 May 2016); MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and MEDLINE 1946 to Present, OvidSP (searched 12 May 2016); CINAHL 1981 to present, EbscoHost (searched 12 May 2016); Embase 1980 to 2014 Week 34, OvidSP (searched 2 September 2014); LILACS, VHL (searched 2 September 2014); Sociological Abstracts 1952 - current, ProQuest (searched 2 September 2014). We did a citation search for all included studies in Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, 1975 to present; Emerging Sources Citation Index 2015 to present, ISI Web of Science (searched 2 July 2016). We also searched the two Trials Registries: ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 5 July 2016) SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series conducted in LMICs involving children aged from birth to four years, caregivers, and healthcare providers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently screened the search output, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible articles, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data in duplicate; resolving discrepancies by consensus. We then conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies (10 cluster RCTs and four individual RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. These were conducted in Georgia (one study), Ghana (one study), Honduras (one study), India (two studies), Mali (one study), Mexico (one study), Nicaragua (one study), Nepal (one study), Pakistan (four studies), and Zimbabwe (one study). One study had an unclear risk of bias, and 13 had high risk of bias. The interventions evaluated in the studies included community-based health education (three studies), facility-based health education (three studies), household incentives (three studies), regular immunisation outreach sessions (one study), home visits (one study), supportive supervision (one study), information campaigns (one study), and integration of immunisation services with intermittent preventive treatment of malaria (one study).We found moderate-certainty evidence that health education at village meetings or at home probably improves coverage with three doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines (DTP3: risk ratio (RR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 2.59). We also found low-certainty evidence that facility-based health education plus redesigned vaccination reminder cards may improve DTP3 coverage (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87). Household monetary incentives may have little or no effect on full immunisation coverage (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23, low-certainty evidence). Regular immunisation outreach may improve full immunisation coverage (RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.69 to 5.67, low-certainty evidence) which may substantially improve if combined with household incentives (RR 6.66, 95% CI 3.93 to 11.28, low-certainty evidence). Home visits to identify non-vaccinated children and refer them to health clinics may improve uptake of three doses of oral polio vaccine (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39, low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that integration of immunisation with other services may improve DTP3 coverage (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.59).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing parents and other community members with information on immunisation, health education at facilities in combination with redesigned immunisation reminder cards, regular immunisation outreach with and without household incentives, home visits, and integration of immunisation with other services may improve childhood immunisation coverage in LMIC. Most of the evidence was of low certainty, which implies a high likelihood that the true effect of the interventions will be substantially different. There is thus a need for further well-conducted RCTs to assess the effects of interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.

SMS text message reminders to improve infant vaccination coverage in Guatemala: A pilot randomized controlled trial

•

A novel SMS vaccine reminder platform was created in a LMIC.

•

SMS vaccine reminders were proven feasible to implement in a LMIC.

•

SMS vaccine reminders were acceptable to use in a LMIC with high user satisfaction.

•

SMS vaccine reminders have the potential for widespread scalability at low cost.

Background

Patient reminder systems are an evidence-based way to improve childhood vaccination rates but are difficult to implement in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Short Message Service (SMS) texts may offer a potential low-cost solution, especially in LMICs where mobile phones are becoming more ubiquitous.

Objective

To determine if an SMS-based vaccination reminder system aimed at improving completion of the infant primary immunization series is feasible and acceptable in Guatemala.

Methods

A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted at two public health clinics in Guatemala City. Infants aged 8–14 weeks presenting for the first dose of the primary immunization series were enrolled in March–April 2013. Participants randomized into the intervention received three SMS reminders one week before the second and third dose. A follow-up acceptability survey was administered to both groups.

Results

The participation rate was 86.8% (321/370); 8 did not own a cell phone and 12 could not use SMS. 96.9% of intervention parents were sent at least one SMS reminder prior to visit 2 and 96.3% prior to visit 3. Both intervention and usual care participants had high rates of vaccine and visit completion, with a non-statistically significant higher percentage of children in the intervention completing both visit 2 (95.0% vs. 90.1%, p = .12) and visit 3 (84.4% vs. 80.7%, p = .69). More intervention vs. usual care parents agreed that SMS reminders would be helpful for remembering appointments (p < .0001), agreed to being interested in receiving future SMS reminders (p < .0001), and said that they would be willing to pay for future SMS reminders (p = .01).

Conclusion

This proof of concept evaluation showed that a new application of SMS technology is feasible to implement in a LMIC with high user satisfaction. Larger studies with modifications in the SMS system are needed to determine effectiveness (Clinical Trial Registry NCT01663636).

Electronic and postal reminders for improving immunisation coverage in children: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, suboptimal immunisation coverage causes the deaths of more than one million children under five from vaccine-preventable diseases every year. Reasons for suboptimal coverage are multifactorial, and a combination of interventions is needed to improve compliance with immunisation schedules. One intervention relies on reminders, where the health system prompts caregivers to attend immunisation appointments on time or re-engages caregivers who have defaulted on scheduled appointments. We undertake this systematic review to investigate the potential of reminders using emails, phone calls, social media, letters or postcards to improve immunisation coverage in children under five.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, WHOLIS, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Platform. We will conduct screening of search results, study selection, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment in duplicate, resolving disagreements by consensus. In addition, we will pool data from clinically homogeneous studies using random-effects meta-analysis; assess heterogeneity of effects using the χ(2) test of homogeneity; and quantify any observed heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol does not need approval by an ethics committee because we will use publicly available data, without directly involving human participants. The results will provide updated evidence on the effects of electronic and postal reminders on immunisation coverage, and we will discuss the applicability of the findings to low and middle-income countries. We plan to disseminate review findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at relevant conferences. In addition, we will prepare a policymaker-friendly summary using a validated format (eg, SUPPORT Summary) and disseminate this through social media and email discussion groups.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration number CRD42014012888.