Engaging traditional barbers to identify and refer newborns for routine immunization services in Sokoto, Nigeria: a mixed methods evaluation

An evaluation of a multi-partner approach to increase routine immunization coverage in six northern Nigerian States

BACKGROUND

Global health partnerships are increasingly being used to improve coordination, strengthen health systems, and incentivize government commitment for public health programs. From 2012 to 2022, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and Aliko Dangote Foundation (ADF) forged Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) partnership agreements with six northern state governments to strengthen routine immunization (RI) systems and sustainably increase immunization coverage. This mixed methods evaluation describes the RI MoUs contribution to improving program performance, strengthening capacity and government financial commitment as well as towards increasing immunization coverage.

METHODS

Drawing from stakeholder interviews and a desk review, we describe the MoU inputs and processes and adherence to design. We assess the extent to which the program achieved its objectives as well as the benefits and challenges by drawing from a health facility assessment, client exit interview and qualitative interviews with service providers, community leaders and program participants. Finally, we assess the overall impact of the MoU by evaluating trends in immunization coverage rates.

RESULTS

We found the RI MoUs across the six states to be mostly successful in strengthening health systems, improving accountability and coordination, and increasing the utilization of services and financing for RI. Across all six states, pentavalent 3 vaccine coverage increased from 2011 to 2021 and in some states, the gains were substantial. For example, in Yobe, vaccination coverage increased from 10% in 2011 to nearly 60% in 2021. However, in Sokoto, the change was minimal increasing from only 4% in 2011 to nearly 8% in 2021. However, evaluation findings indicate that issues pertaining to human resources for health, insecurity that inhibits supportive supervision and vaccine logistics as well as harmful socio-cultural norms remain a persistent challenge in the states. There is also a need for a rigorous monitoring and evaluation plan with well-defined measures collected prior to and throughout implementation.

CONCLUSION

Introducing a multi-partner approach grounded in a MoU agreement provides a promising approach to addressing health system challenges that confront RI programs.

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

BACKGROUND

Immunisation plays a major role in reducing childhood morbidity and mortality. Getting children immunised against potentially fatal and debilitating vaccine-preventable diseases remains a challenge despite the availability of efficacious vaccines, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. With the introduction of new vaccines, this becomes increasingly difficult. There is therefore a current need to synthesise the available evidence on the strategies used to bridge this gap. This is a second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2011 and updated in 2016, and it focuses on interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies to boost demand and supply of childhood vaccines, and sustain high childhood immunisation coverage in low- and middle-income countries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Global Index Medicus (11 July 2022). We searched Embase, LILACS, and Sociological Abstracts (2 September 2014). We searched WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (11 July 2022). In addition, we screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews for potentially eligible studies, and carried out a citation search for 14 of the included studies (19 February 2020).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised RCTs (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series conducted in low- and middle-income countries involving children that were under five years of age, caregivers, and healthcare providers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies involving 100,747 participants are included in the review. Twenty studies were cluster-randomised and 15 studies were individually randomised controlled trials. Six studies were quasi-randomised. The studies were conducted in four upper-middle-income countries (China, Georgia, Mexico, Guatemala), 11 lower-middle-income countries (Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Zimbabwe), and three lower-income countries (Afghanistan, Mali, Rwanda). The interventions evaluated in the studies were health education (seven studies), patient reminders (13 studies), digital register (two studies), household incentives (three studies), regular immunisation outreach sessions (two studies), home visits (one study), supportive supervision (two studies), integration of immunisation services with intermittent preventive treatment of malaria (one study), payment for performance (two studies), engagement of community leaders (one study), training on interpersonal communication skills (one study), and logistic support to health facilities (one study). We judged nine of the included studies to have low risk of bias; the risk of bias in eight studies was unclear and 24 studies had high risk of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that health education (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.62; 6 studies, 4375 participants) and home-based records (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75; 3 studies, 4019 participants) may improve coverage with DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine. Phone calls/short messages may have little or no effect on DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine uptake (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25; 6 studies, 3869 participants; low-certainty evidence); wearable reminders probably have little or no effect on DTP3/Penta 3 uptake (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.07; 2 studies, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Use of community leaders in combination with provider intervention probably increases the uptake of DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.69; 1 study, 2020 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of immunisation outreach on DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine uptake in children under two years of age (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.56; 1 study, 541 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain about the following interventions improving full vaccination of children under two years of age: training of health providers on interpersonal communication skills (RR 5.65, 95% CI 3.62 to 8.83; 1 study, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and home visits (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.45; 1 study, 419 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The same applies to the effect of training of health providers on interpersonal communication skills on the uptake of DTP3/Penta 3 by one year of age (very low-certainty evidence). The integration of immunisation with other services may, however, improve full vaccination (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.44; 1 study, 1700 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Health education, home-based records, a combination of involvement of community leaders with health provider intervention, and integration of immunisation services may improve vaccine uptake. The certainty of the evidence for the included interventions ranged from moderate to very low. Low certainty of the evidence implies that the true effect of the interventions might be markedly different from the estimated effect. Further, more rigorous RCTs are, therefore, required to generate high-certainty evidence to inform policy and practice.

Zero- or missed-dose children in Nigeria: Contributing factors and interventions to overcome immunization service delivery challenges

'Zero-dose' refers to a person who does not receive a single dose of any vaccine in the routine national immunization schedule, while 'missed dose' refers to a person who does not complete the schedule. These peopleremain vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases, and are often already disadvantaged due to poverty, conflict, and lack of access to basic health services. Globally, more 22.7 million children are estimated to be zero- or missed-dose, of which an estimated 3.1 million (∼14 %) reside in Nigeria.We conducted a scoping review tosynthesize recent literature on risk factors and interventions for zero- and missed-dosechildren in Nigeria. Our search identified 127 papers, including research into risk factors only (n = 66); interventions only (n = 34); both risk factors and interventions (n = 18); and publications that made recommendations only (n = 9). The most frequently reported factors influencing childhood vaccine uptake were maternal factors (n = 77), particularly maternal education (n = 22) and access to ante- and perinatal care (n = 19); heterogeneity between different types of communities - including location, region, wealth, religion, population composition, and other challenges (n = 50); access to vaccination, i.e., proximity of facilities with vaccines and vaccinators (n = 37); and awareness about immunization - including safety, efficacy, importance, and schedules (n = 18).Literature assessing implementation of interventions was more scattered, and heavily skewed towards vaccination campaigns and polio eradication efforts. Major evidence gaps exist in how to deliver effective and sustainable routine childhood immunization. Overall, further work is needed to operationalise the learnings from these studies, e.g. through applying findings to Nigeria's next review of vaccination plans, and using this summary as a basis for further investigation and specific recommendations on effective interventions.