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

Health system barriers and levers in implementation of the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) in Pakistan: an evidence informed situation analysis

Background

In Pakistan, immunization coverage has been quite low since the program’s inception, and the 2012–2013 population-based survey recorded it at 54%. Much has been written about the issues, challenges, and constraints in the implementation of Pakistan’s immunization program. However, there is a need to better understand the health system barriers as well as levers that influence progress. This review aims to bridge the information gaps on system-level barriers that currently impede the optimal delivery and uptake of immunization services to the children of Pakistan through the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI).

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature review, using PubMed and Google Scholar to find peer-reviewed literature, and also reviewed EPI-related international and national reports. Additionally, we consulted government reports, surveys, and publications on the health system. Employing the basic tenets of WHO’s health systems framework for health system strengthening, and a socio-ecological model, this study cataloged the service delivery and the demand side perspective on various pillars of Pakistan’s immunization program.

Results

Themes generated from the literature review included financing, governance, service delivery, human resources, information systems, and supplies and vaccines. Findings suggest that certain areas in the larger health system need to be improved for a more coordinated implementation of EPI in Pakistan. Moreover, it is imperative to understand community behaviors and perceptions as well as demand side issues in order to achieve the desired results.

Conclusion

For better immunization coverage and ultimately a reduction in child mortality due to preventable diseases, EPI operations and performance must be improved. Further systematic implementation research could help to develop an even finer understanding of the system-wide bottlenecks encumbering the coverage and efficiency of the program.

Non-uptake of childhood vaccination among the children of HIV-infected mothers in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel analysis

The aim of this study was to develop and test models for non–uptake of three doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis containing vaccines (DTP3) among children of women living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. The study used demographic and health survey data from 27 sub-Saharan African countries that have the required HIV and immunization data sets. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between individual and contextual factors associated with non-uptake of DTP3 among the children. At the individual level, the odds of non-uptake of DTP3 decreased with formal education, increasing age and access to media. The full model shows that the odds of non-uptake of DTP3 is increased among unemployed women, those living in communities with high illiteracy rate and in countries with low adult literacy level. For a child who moved to another country or community with a higher probability of DTP3 non-uptake, the median increase for the odds of DTP3 non-uptake would be 2.24% and 1.22% respectively for country and community. This study shows that individual and contextual factors contributed significantly to non-uptake of DTP3 among the children of women living with HIV. Interventions should be focused on women living with HIV who are young mothers, unemployed women, those without formal education, individuals living in communities with high illiteracy rate and in countries with low adult literacy rate. The use of mass media tools and creation of more employment opportunities for HIV-infected women could improve vaccination coverage among their children.

What do we know about community-based health worker programs? A systematic review of existing reviews on community health workers

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize current understanding of how community-based health worker (CHW) programs can best be designed and operated in health systems.

METHODS

We searched 11 databases for review articles published between 1 January 2005 and 15 June 2017. Review articles on CHWs, defined as non-professional paid or volunteer health workers based in communities, with less than 2 years of training, were included. We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews according to AMSTAR criteria, and we report our findings based on PRISMA standards.

FINDINGS

We identified 122 reviews (75 systematic reviews, of which 34 are meta-analyses, and 47 non-systematic reviews). Eighty-three of the included reviews were from low- and middle-income countries, 29 were from high-income countries, and 10 were global. CHW programs included in these reviews are diverse in interventions provided, selection and training of CHWs, supervision, remuneration, and integration into the health system. Features that enable positive CHW program outcomes include community embeddedness (whereby community members have a sense of ownership of the program and positive relationships with the CHW), supportive supervision, continuous education, and adequate logistical support and supplies. Effective integration of CHW programs into health systems can bolster program sustainability and credibility, clarify CHW roles, and foster collaboration between CHWs and higher-level health system actors. We found gaps in the review evidence, including on the rights and needs of CHWs, on effective approaches to training and supervision, on CHWs as community change agents, and on the influence of health system decentralization, social accountability, and governance.

CONCLUSION

Evidence concerning CHW program effectiveness can help policymakers identify a range of options to consider. However, this evidence needs to be contextualized and adapted in different contexts to inform policy and practice. Advancing the evidence base with context-specific elements will be vital to helping these programs achieve their full potential.

Incomplete immunization among children aged 12-23 months in Togo: a multilevel analysis of individual and contextual factors

BACKGROUND

Inadequate immunization coverage remains a public health problem in Africa. In Togo, only 62% of children under one year of age were fully immunized in 2013. This study aimed to estimate the immunization coverage among children aged 12-23 months, and to identify factors associated with incomplete immunization status in Togo.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in the six health regions of Togo. Children aged 12 to 23 months who were living with one of their parents or guardians from selected households were recruited for the study. Data was collected using a pre-tested questionnaire through face-to-face interviews. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to assess factors associated with incomplete immunization coverage.

RESULTS

A total of 1261 households were included. Respondents were predominantly women (91.9%) and 22.8% had secondary or higher education level. Immunization cards were available for 85.3% of children. Complete immunization coverage was 72.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI): [69.7-74.8]). After controlling for both individual and contextual level variables, children whose mothers attended secondary school or above were 33% (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 0.67, CI [0.47-0.94]) less likely to have an incomplete immunization coverage compared to those with no education. The likelihood of incomplete immunization in children decreased with the increase in household's income (aOR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.58-0.93]), children who did not have an immunization card (aOR = 13.41, 95% CI [9.19-19.57]) and those whose parents did not know that children immunization was free of charge (aOR = 1.82, 95% CI [1.00-3.30]) were more likely to have an incomplete immunization. Finally, children whose parents had to walk half an hour to one hour to reach a healthcare center were 57% (aOR = 1.57, 95% CI [1.15-2.13]) more likely to have an incomplete immunization coverage than those whose parents had to walk less than half an hour.

CONCLUSION

The goal of 90% coverage at the national level has not been achieved in 2017. Innovative strategies such as using electronic cards and strengthening sensitization activities must be initiated in order to attain a complete immunization coverage in Togo.

Systematic review of the incremental costs of interventions that increase immunization coverage

Achieving and maintaining high vaccination coverage requires investments, but the costs and effectiveness of interventions to increase coverage remain poorly characterized. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify peer-reviewed studies published in English that reported interventions aimed at increasing immunization coverage and the associated costs and effectiveness of the interventions. We found limited information in the literature, with many studies reporting effectiveness estimates, but not providing cost information. Using the available data, we developed a cost function to support future programmatic decisions about investments in interventions to increase immunization coverage for relatively low and high-income countries. The cost function estimates the non-vaccine cost per dose of interventions to increase absolute immunization coverage by one percent, through either campaigns or routine immunization. The cost per dose per percent increase in absolute coverage increased with higher baseline coverage, demonstrating increasing incremental costs required to reach higher coverage levels. Future studies should evaluate the performance of the cost function and add to the database of available evidence to better characterize heterogeneity in costs and generalizability of the cost function.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of educating parents on the benefits and schedules of childhood vaccinations in low and middle-income countries

Public health benefits of childhood vaccinations risk being derailed by low vaccination coverage in low and middle-income countries. One reason for the low coverage is poor parental knowledge of the importance of completing vaccination schedules. We therefore assessed the effects on childhood vaccination coverage, of educating parents and other persons assuming the parental role. We prospectively registered the systematic review, published the protocol, and used standard Cochrane methods to collect and synthesise the evidence. We found six eligible randomised trials with 4248 participants. Three trials assessed health-facility based education of mothers on the importance of completing vaccination schedules; immediately after birth and three months later (one study) or during the first vaccination visit (two studies). The other trials assessed community-based education, including information campaigns on the importance of vaccines using audiotaped presentations and leaflet distributions (one study); structured group discussions on benefits and costs of childhood vaccination and local action plans for improving vaccine uptake (one study); and home-based information sessions using graphic cards showing benefits and costs of childhood vaccinations and location of vaccination centres (one study). Combining the data shows that these interventions lead to substantial improvements in childhood vaccination coverage (relative increase 36%, 95% confidence interval 14% to 62%). There was no difference between the effects of community-based and facility-based education. Therefore, education in communities and health facilities on the importance of childhood vaccinations should be integrated into all vaccination programmes in low and middle-income countries; accompanied by robust monitoring of impacts and use of data for action.

Face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

BACKGROUND

Early childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.All included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).Low-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents' anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents' experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.Face-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.

Impact evaluation of a community engagement intervention in improving childhood immunization coverage: a cluster randomized controlled trial in Assam, India

BACKGROUND

To improve immunization coverage, most interventions that are part of the national immunization program in India address supply-side challenges. But, there is growing evidence that addressing demand-side factors can potentially contribute to improvement in childhood vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries. Participatory engagement of communities can address demand-side barriers while also mobilizing the community to advocate for better service delivery. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of a novel community engagement approach in improving immunization coverage. In our proposed intervention, we go a step beyond merely engaging the community and strive towards increasing 'ownership' by the communities.

METHODS/DESIGN

We adopt a cluster randomized design with two groups to evaluate the intervention in Assam, a state in the northeast region of India. To recruit villages and participants at baseline, we used a two-stage stratified random sampling method. We stratified villages; our unit of randomization, based on census data and randomly selected villages from each of the four strata. At the second-stage, we selected random sub-sample of eligible households (having children in the age group of 6-23 months) from each selected village. The study uses a repeated cross sectional design where we track the same sampled villages but draw independent random samples of households at baseline and endline. Total number of villages required for the study is 180 with 15 eligible HHs from each village. Post-baseline survey, we adopt a stratified randomization strategy to achieve better balance in intervention and control groups, leveraging information from the extensive baseline survey.

DISCUSSION

The proposed intervention can help identify barriers to vaccination at the local level and potentially lead to more sustainable solutions over the long term. Our sampling design, sample size calculation, and randomization strategy address internal validity of our evaluation design. We believe that it would allow us to causally relate any observed changes in immunization coverage to the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered on 7th February, 2017 under the Clinical Trials Registry- India (CTRI), hosted at the ICMR's National Institute of Medical Statistics, having registration number CTRI/2017/02/007792 . This is the original study protocol.

Effect of Mobile Phone Text Message Reminders on Routine Immunization Uptake in Pakistan: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Improved routine immunization (RI) coverage is recommended as the priority public health strategy to decrease vaccine-preventable diseases and eradicate polio in Pakistan and worldwide.

Objective

The objective of this study was to ascertain whether customized, automated, one-way text messaging (short message service, SMS) reminders delivered to caregivers via mobile phones when a child is due for an RI visit can improve vaccination uptake and timelines in Pakistan.

Methods

This was a randomized controlled trial, conducted in an urban squatter settlement area of Karachi, Pakistan. Infants less than 2 weeks of age with at least one family member who had a valid mobile phone connection and was comfortable receiving and reading SMS text messages were included. Participants were randomized to the intervention (standard care + one-way SMS reminder) or control (standard care) groups. The primary outcome was to compare the proportion of children immunized up to date at 18 weeks of age. Vaccine given at 6, 10, and 14 weeks schedule includes DPT-Hep-B-Hib vaccine (ie, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus; hepatitis B; and Haemophilus influenza type b) and oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). Data were analyzed using chi-square tests of independence and tested for both per protocol (PP) and intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses.

Results

Out of those approached, 84.3% (300/356) of the participants were eligible for enrollment and 94.1% (318/338) of the participants had a working mobile phone. Only children in the PP analyses, who received an SMS reminder for vaccine uptake at 6 weeks visit, showed a statistically significant difference (96.0%, 86/90 vs 86.4%, 102/118; P=.03).The immunization coverage was consistently higher in the intervention group according to ITT analyses at the 6 weeks scheduled visit (76.0% vs 71.3%, P=.36). The 10 weeks scheduled visit (58.7% vs 52.7%, P=.30) and the 14 weeks scheduled visit (31.3% vs 26.0%, P=.31), however, were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Automated simple one-way SMS reminders in local languages might be feasible for improving routine vaccination coverage. Whether one-way SMS reminders alone can have a strong impact on parental attitudes and behavior for improvement of RI coverage and timeliness needs to be further evaluated by better-powered studies and by comparing different types and content of text messages in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01859546; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01859546 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xFr57AOc)

Effect and cost-effectiveness of educating mothers about childhood DPT vaccination on immunisation uptake, knowledge, and perceptions in Uttar Pradesh, India: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To assess the effect of health information on immunisation uptake in rural India, we conducted an individually randomised controlled trial of health information messages targeting the mothers of unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated children through home visits in rural Uttar Pradesh, India.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The study tested a brief intervention that provided mothers face-to-face with information on the benefits of the tetanus vaccine. Participants were 722 mothers of children aged 0-36 months who had not received 3 doses of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccine (DPT3). Mothers were randomly assigned in a ratio of 1:1:1 to 1 of 3 study arms: mothers in the first treatment group received information framed as a gain (e.g., the child is less likely to get tetanus and more likely to be healthy if vaccinated), mothers in the second treatment group received information framed in terms of a loss (e.g., the child is more likely to get tetanus and suffer ill health if not vaccinated), and the third arm acted as a control group, with no information given to the mother. Surveys were conducted at baseline (September 2015) and after the intervention (April 2016). The primary outcome was the proportion of children who had received DPT3 measured after 7 months of follow-up. The analysis was by intention to treat. A total of 16 (2.2%) participants were lost to follow-up. The coverage of DPT3 was 28% in the control group and 43% in the pooled information groups, giving a risk difference of 15 percentage points (95% CI: 7% to 22%, p < 0.001) and a relative risk of 1.52 (95% CI: 1.2 to 1.9, p < 0.001). The information intervention increased the rate of measles vaccination by 22 percentage points (risk difference: 22%, 95% CI: 14% to 30%, p < 0.001; relative risk: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.80) and the rate of full immunisation by 14 percentage points (risk difference: 14%, 95% CI: 8% to 21%, p < 0.001; relative risk: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.29 to 2.29). It had a large positive effect on knowledge of the causes, symptoms, and prevention of tetanus but no effect on perceptions of vaccine efficacy. There was no difference in the proportion of children with DPT3 between the group that received information framed as a loss and the group that received information framed as a gain (risk difference: 4%, 95% CI: -5% to 13%; p = 0.352; relative risk: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.36). The cost per disability-adjusted life year averted of providing information was US$186, making the intervention highly cost-effective with respect to the WHO-recommended threshold of once the gross domestic product per capita (US$793 in the case of Uttar Pradesh). Key study limitations include the modest sample size for this trial, limiting power to detect small differences in the framing of information, and the potential for contamination among households.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing mothers of unvaccinated/incompletely vaccinated children with information on tetanus and the benefits of DPT vaccination substantially increased immunisation coverage and was highly cost-effective. The framing of the health information message did not appear to matter.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN84560580.

Evaluation of the Immunization Program in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Possible Modalities for Improvement

INTRODUCTION

Immunization is a lifelong preventive activity that helps prevent/reduce disease, prevent/ reduce mortality and prevent disability from specific infectious diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Authors of this paper researched the WHO extended program of mandatory immunization of children from birth to the age of 18 years and analyzed how it has been implemented in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FB&H), because the guidelines of the specialist physician societies on immunization of adults, elderly people and risk groups of the population are missing.

RESULTS

The paper presents the basic characteristics of the immunization program in the FB&H and the world, points to the most frequent problems that the doctor practitioner has in carrying out immunization, and also presents possible modalities of improving immunization. It is pointed out the need to develop the national guidelines and individual immunization booklets, introduction of electronic registration of immunization, and continuous education of health professionals of all profiles, population, educators, teachers and harmonious partnership relations of health workers, population, social entities and the media with the aim of achieving an appropriate lifelong vaccination.

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.

Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

A key function of health systems is implementing interventions to improve health, but coverage of essential health interventions remains low in low-income countries. Implementing interventions can be challenging, particularly if it entails complex changes in clinical routines; in collaborative patterns among different healthcare providers and disciplines; in the behaviour of providers, patients or other stakeholders; or in the organisation of care. Decision-makers may use a range of strategies to implement health interventions, and these choices should be based on evidence of the strategies' effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on alternative implementation strategies and informing refinements of the framework for implementation strategies presented in the overview.

METHODS

We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of implementation strategies on professional practice and patient outcomes and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the review findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 39 of them in this overview. An additional four reviews provided supplementary information. Of the 39 reviews, 32 had only minor limitations and 7 had important methodological limitations. Most studies in the reviews were from high-income countries. There were no studies from low-income countries in eight reviews.Implementation strategies addressed in the reviews were grouped into four categories - strategies targeting:1. healthcare organisations (e.g. strategies to change organisational culture; 1 review);2. healthcare workers by type of intervention (e.g. printed educational materials; 14 reviews);3. healthcare workers to address a specific problem (e.g. unnecessary antibiotic prescription; 9 reviews);4. healthcare recipients (e.g. medication adherence; 15 reviews).Overall, we found the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects.1.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers: educational meetings, nutrition training of health workers, educational outreach, practice facilitation, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, and tailored interventions.2.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers for specific types of problems: training healthcare workers to be more patient-centred in clinical consultations, use of birth kits, strategies such as clinician education and patient education to reduce antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care settings, and in-service neonatal emergency care training.3. Strategies targeted at healthcare recipients: mass media interventions to increase uptake of HIV testing; intensive self-management and adherence, intensive disease management programmes to improve health literacy; behavioural interventions and mobile phone text messages for adherence to antiretroviral therapy; a one time incentive to start or continue tuberculosis prophylaxis; default reminders for patients being treated for active tuberculosis; use of sectioned polythene bags for adherence to malaria medication; community-based health education, and reminders and recall strategies to increase vaccination uptake; interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening (invitations, education, counselling, access to health promotion nurse and intensive recruitment); health insurance information and application support.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Reliable systematic reviews have evaluated a wide range of strategies for implementing evidence-based interventions in low-income countries. Most of the available evidence is focused on strategies targeted at healthcare workers and healthcare recipients and relates to process-based outcomes. Evidence of the effects of strategies targeting healthcare organisations is scarce.

Immunization delivery in the second year of life in Ghana: the need for a multi-faceted approach

Introduction

in 2012, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), rotavirus vaccine and a second dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV2) were introduced into the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) in Ghana. According to Ghana’s EPI schedule, PCV and rotavirus vaccine are given in the first year of life and MCV2 in the second year of life (2YL) at 18 months. Although coverage with the last doses of PCV and rotavirus vaccine reached almost 90% coverage within four years of introduction, MCV2 coverage did not rise above 70%. The World Health Organization Global Measles and Rubella Strategic Plan established a 2020 milestone to achieve at least 95% coverage with the first and second doses of measles-containing vaccine in each district and nationally. We developed a project to address challenges to delivery of immunizations and other child health services at the 18-month visit and throughout the 2YL.

Methods

from March to April 2016, we conducted a cluster survey of households (HHs) with children 24-35 months of age in three regions in Ghana to assess knowledge, attitudes and beliefs among caregivers about immunization during the 2YL and to collect childhood vaccination history data using vaccination cards. Three independent samples were selected from the Northern (NR), Volta (VR), and Greater Accra (GAR) regions. A survey and direct observations were performed a ta representative sample of health facilities (HFs) providing immunization services in the same regions to further characterize barriers to immunization access, utilization and delivery in the 2YL.

Results

data on a total of 464 children ages 24-35 months were collected in the HH survey: 211 in NR, 153 in VR, and 100 in GAR (response rate > 99%). First dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) coverage was (NR: 87%, VR: 96%, GAR: 99%); however, MCV2 coverage was lower (NR: 60%, VR: 83%, GAR: 70%). MCV1 to MCV2 dropout was 32% in NR, 14% in VR, and 31% in GAR. Caregiver awareness of immunization against measles was 69% in NR, 75% in VR, and 68% in GAR yet less than half knew the recommended ages for receiving the vaccine, (NR: 4%, VR: 9%, GAR: 44%). Among 160 HFs participating in the survey (>50 in each region), most lacked a defaulter tracing system (NR: 94%,VR: 76%,GAR: 85%). A varying proportion of HCWs correctly indicated how to record a catch-up first dose of MCV administered to an 18-month-old child in the 12-23 month immunization register (NR: 38%, VR: 55%, GAR: 67%) and on the vaccination card (NR: 54%, VR: 53%, GAR: 76%). Although more than half of caregivers would accept text messages, (NR: 57%, VR: 78%, GAR: 96%) including reminders, related to their child’s immunizations, < 10% HFs were utilizing this practice.

Conclusion

challenges encountered with the establishment of an immunization visit beyond the first year of life included knowledge gaps among caregivers, high dropout rates between MCV1 and MCV2 in all study regions, and a lack of defaulter tracing systems in most healthcare facilities providing childhood immunizations. Targeted strategies that promote behavioral, cultural, and policy changes are needed to strengthen 2YL child health service delivery and improve vaccination coverage.

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.

The comprehensive 'Communicate to Vaccinate' taxonomy of communication interventions for childhood vaccination in routine and campaign contexts

BACKGROUND

Communication can be used to generate demand for vaccination or address vaccine hesitancy, and is crucial to successful childhood vaccination programmes. Research efforts have primarily focused on communication for routine vaccination. However, vaccination campaigns, particularly in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs), also use communication in diverse ways. Without a comprehensive framework integrating communication interventions from routine and campaign contexts, it is not possible to conceptualise the full range of possible vaccination communication interventions. Therefore, vaccine programme managers may be unaware of potential communication options and researchers may not focus on building evidence for interventions used in practice. In this paper, we broaden the scope of our existing taxonomy of communication interventions for routine vaccination to include communication used in campaigns, and integrate these into a comprehensive taxonomy of vaccination communication interventions.

METHODS

Building on our taxonomy of communication for routine vaccination, we identified communication interventions used in vaccination campaigns through a targeted literature search; observation of vaccination activities in Cameroon, Mozambique and Nigeria; and stakeholder consultations. We added these interventions to descriptions of routine vaccination communication and categorised the interventions according to their intended purposes, building from an earlier taxonomy of communication related to routine vaccination.

RESULTS

The comprehensive taxonomy groups communication used in campaigns and routine childhood vaccination into seven purpose categories: 'Inform or Educate'; 'Remind or Recall'; 'Enhance Community Ownership'; 'Teach Skills'; 'Provide Support'; 'Facilitate Decision Making' and 'Enable Communication'. Consultations with LMIC stakeholders and experts informed the taxonomy's definitions and structure and established its potential uses.

CONCLUSIONS

This taxonomy provides a standardised way to think and speak about vaccination communication. It is categorised by purpose to help conceptualise communication interventions as potential solutions to address needs or problems. It can be utilised by programme planners, implementers, researchers and funders to see the range of communication interventions used in practice, facilitate evidence synthesis and identify evidence gaps.

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.