The effect of performance-based financing on child vaccinations in northern Nigeria

Exploring the landscape of routine immunization in Nigeria: A scoping review of barriers and facilitators

Background

Despite global efforts to improve vaccination coverage, the number of zero-dose and under-immunized children has increased in Africa, particularly in Nigeria, which has over 2.1 million unvaccinated (zero dose) children, the highest in the continent. This scoping review systematically maps and summarizes existing literature on the barriers and facilitators of immunization in Nigeria, focusing on regional inequalities.

Methods

A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted, encompassing all data from their inception to October 2023, to identify articles on the determinants of routine immunization uptake in Nigeria. Eligible studies were evaluated using predefined criteria, and the data were analyzed and visualized.

Results

The results revealed distinct regional variations in factors influencing immunization practices across Nigeria's six geopolitical zones. Identified barriers include logistical issues, socio-economic factors, cultural influences, and systemic healthcare deficiencies. Key facilitators across multiple zones are health literacy, maternal education, and community leader influence. However, unique regional differences were also identified. In the North-East, significant factors included peer influence, robust reminder systems, provision of additional security, and financial incentives for health facilities. In the North-West, perceived vaccine benefits, fear of non-immunization consequences, urban residence, health literacy, and antenatal care visits were reported as crucial. Perceived benefits of vaccines and trust in healthcare providers were identified as predominant factors in the North-Central zone In the South-East, maternal autonomy, health literacy, and fear of non-immunization consequences were important. In the South-South, peer influence and reminder systems like WhatsApp and SMS were notable, alongside higher maternal education levels. The South-West highlighted maternal autonomy, peer influence, health card usage, high maternal education, and supportive government policies as critical factors.

Conclusion

Our findings underscore the need for region-specific interventions that address these unique barriers to improve immunization coverage across Nigeria. Tailored approaches that consider the socio-economic, cultural, and logistical challenges specific to each region are essential to bridge the immunization gap.

Analyzing the usage of theories of change for routine immunization programs -- a review of impact evaluations from LMICs

BACKGROUND

In this article we analyzed the extent of the usage of Theories of Change (TOCs) and causal pathways in the evaluation of immunization programs to identify the challenges to generating evidence on how interventions improve immunization.

METHODS

We analyzed the use of the TOC in impact evaluations (IEs) of immunization interventions published after 2010, and its associated articles. The review includes studies from Evidence Gap Map and Yale review that were conducted in May and March of 2020, respectively. We synthesized data on six domains using NVIVO - program theory, context, assumptions, usage of TOC, use in evaluation, and description causal pathways.

RESULTS

Our review included 47 large-scale and 45 small-to medium-scale interventions. Of the included studies, 19% used a TOC, 56% described a causal pathway or used a conceptual diagram with varying degrees of detail, and 25% of the IEs did not provide any information on how their intervention was expected to affect change. Only 19 of the 92 IEs explicitly outlined any assumptions associated with the implementation of the interventions. Forty studies measured the outputs or intermediate outcomes leading to improved immunization coverage.

CONCLUSION

Future implementers and evaluators need to develop clear TOCs that are based on established theory and have clearly articulated the underlying assumptions. Large-scale health system strengthening initiatives implemented by governments, also need to build TOCs and integrate them into their results frameworks. Additionally, there is a need to combine both impact and process evaluations to understand the how context affects the causal pathways.

Interventions addressing routine childhood immunization and its behavioral and social drivers

Introduction

Despite the advances in vaccination, there are still several challenges in reaching millions of children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this review, we present an extensive summary of the various strategies used for improving routine immunization in LMICs to aid program implementers in designing vaccination interventions.

Methods

Experimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations conducted in LMICs evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in improving routine immunization of children aged 0-5 years or the intermediate outcomes were included from 3ie's review of systematic reviews. Some additional impact evaluation studies published in recent years in select LMICs with large number of unvaccinated children were also included. Studies were coded to identify interventions and the barriers in the study context using the intervention framework developed in 3ie's Evidence Gap Map and the WHO's Behavioral and Social Drivers (BeSD) of vaccination framework, respectively. Qualitative analysis of the content was conducted to analyze the intervention strategies and the vaccination barriers that they addressed.

Results and conclusion

One hundred and forty-two impact evaluations were included to summarize the interventions. To address attitudinal and knowledge related barriers to vaccination and to motivate caregivers, sensitization and educational programs, media campaigns, and monetary or non-monetary incentives to caregivers, that may or may not be conditional upon certain health behaviors, have been used across contexts. To improve knowledge of vaccination, its place, time, and schedule, automated voice messages and written or pictorial messages have been used as standalone or multicomponent strategies. Interventions used to improve service quality included training and education of health workers and providing monetary or non-monetary perks to them or sending reminders to them on different aspects of provision of vaccination services. Interventions like effective planning or outreach activities, follow-up of children, tracking of children that have missed vaccinations, pay-for-performance schemes and health system strengthening have also been used to improve service access and quality. Interventions aimed at mobilizing and collaborating with the community to impact social norms, attitudes, and empower communities to make health decisions have also been widely implemented.

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.

An Analysis of the Social Impacts of a Health System Strengthening Program Based on Purchasing Health Services

Access to universal health coverage is a fundamental right that ensures that even the most disadvantaged receive health services without financial hardship. The Democratic Republic of Congo is among the poorest countries in the world, yet healthcare is primarily made by direct payment which renders care inaccessible for most Congolese. Between 2017 and 2021 a purchasing of health services initiative (Le Programme de Renforcement de l'Offre et Développement de l'accès aux Soins de Santé or PRO DS), was implemented in Kongo Central and Ituri with the assistance of the non-governmental organization Memisa Belgium. The program provided funding for health system strengthening that included health service delivery, workforce development, improved infrastructure, access to medicines and support for leadership and governance. This study assessed the social and health impacts of the PRO DS Memisa program using a health impact assessment focus. A documentary review was performed to ascertain relevant indicators of program effect. Supervision and management of health zones and health centers, use of health and nutritional services, the population's nutritional health, immunization levels, reproductive and maternal health, and newborn and child health were measured using a controlled longitudinal model. Positive results were found in almost all indicators across both provinces, with a mean proportion of positive effect of 60.8% for Kongo Central, and 70.8% in Ituri. Barriers to the program's success included the arrival of COVID-19, internal displacement of the population and resistance to change from the community. The measurable positive impacts from the PRO DS Memisa program reveal that an adequately funded multi-faceted health system strengthening program can improve access to healthcare in a low-income country such as the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Behavioral interventions for vaccination uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Human behavior and more specifically behavioral insight-based approaches to vaccine uptake have often been overlooked. While there have been a few narrative reviews indexed in Medline on behavioral interventions to increase vaccine uptake, to our knowledge, none have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering not just high but also low-and-middle income countries.

METHODS

We included 613 studies from the Medline database in our systematic review and meta-analysis categorizing different behavioral interventions in 9 domains: education campaigns, on-site vaccination, incentives, free vaccination, institutional recommendation, provider recommendation, reminder and recall, message framing, and vaccine champion. Additionally, considering that there is variability in the acceptance of vaccines among different populations, we assessed studies from both high-income countries (HICs) and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), separately.

FINDINGS

Our results showed that behavioral interventions can considerably improve vaccine uptake in most settings. All domains that we examined improved vaccine uptake with the highest effect size associated with provider recommendation (OR: 3.4 (95%CI: 2.5-4.6); Domain: motivation) and on-site vaccination (OR: 2.9 (95%CI: 2.3-3.7); Domain: practical issues). While the number of studies conducted in LMICs was smaller, the quality of studies was similar with those conducted in HICs. Nevertheless, there were variations in the observed effect sizes.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate that "provider recommendation" and "on-site vaccination" along with other behavioral interventions can be employed to increase vaccination rates globally.

Parental health beliefs, intention, and strategies about covid-19 vaccine for their children: A cross-sectional analysis from five Arab countries in the Middle East

BACKGROUND

The issue around vaccination of children has brought divergent opinions among the populations across the globe and among the Arab population. There has been a low response rate to the calls for vaccination of children and this is reflective of the sentiments which parents may have towards their children being vaccinated. This study aims to explore the parents' health beliefs, intentions, and strategies towards the COVID-19 vaccine for their children among Arab population.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study using an online survey from October to December 2021, was carried out in five Arab countries in the Middle East. A reliable health belief model (HBM) including five domains: severity, susceptibility, benefits, barriers and cues to action, was adopted. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney test, and multivariable logistic regression were performed for data analysis.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 58 % (1154/2000). Only 56 % of Arab parents are intended to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. The mean scores of parental health belief are largely driven by their concern over the vaccine's side effect (p = 0.001) followed by its efficacy, safety (p < 0.001), and scheduling difficulty (p = 0.029). However, strategies that were statistically encouraged parents to vaccinate their children included doctor's recommendation, adequate information being provided, and acceptance of the vaccine by public (p < 0.001). Parents with one child were almost three times most likely to vaccinate their children (OR = 2.660, 95 %CI = 1.572-4.504, p < 0.001). Parents' desire to vaccinate their children is also influenced by other factors such as job loss owing to COVID-19 and the presence of a health worker in the family.

CONCLUSION

Intention of Arab parents to vaccinate their children via COVID-19 vaccine is still limited. Thus, it is essential for health care authorities to avail the information which will debunk the erroneous beliefs which some parents have developed towards the vaccination of children against COVID-19.

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.

Advancing sustainable development goals through immunization: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Immunization directly impacts health (SDG3) and brings a contribution to 14 out of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as ending poverty, reducing hunger, and reducing inequalities. Therefore, immunization is recognized to play a central role in reaching the SDGs, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite continuous interventions to strengthen immunization systems and to adequately respond to emergency immunization during epidemics, the immunization-related indicators for SDG3 lag behind in sub-Saharan Africa. Especially taking into account the current Covid19 pandemic, the current performance on the connected SDGs is both a cause and a result of this.

METHODS

We conduct a literature review through a keyword search strategy complemented with handpicking and snowballing from earlier reviews. After title and abstract screening, we conducted a qualitative analysis of key insights and categorized them according to showing the impact of immunization on SDGs, sustainability challenges, and model-based solutions to these challenges.

RESULTS

We reveal the leveraging mechanisms triggered by immunization and position them vis-à-vis the SDGs, within the framework of Public Health and Planetary Health. Several challenges for sustainable control of vaccine-preventable diseases are identified: access to immunization services, global vaccine availability to LMICs, context-dependent vaccine effectiveness, safe and affordable vaccines, local/regional vaccine production, public-private partnerships, and immunization capacity/capability building. Model-based approaches that support SDG-promoting interventions concerning immunization systems are analyzed in light of the strategic priorities of the Immunization Agenda 2030.

CONCLUSIONS

In general terms, it can be concluded that relevant future research requires (i) design for system resilience, (ii) transdisciplinary modeling, (iii) connecting interventions in immunization with SDG outcomes, (iv) designing interventions and their implementation simultaneously, (v) offering tailored solutions, and (vi) model coordination and integration of services and partnerships. The research and health community is called upon to join forces to activate existing knowledge, generate new insights and develop decision-supporting tools for Low-and Middle-Income Countries' health authorities and communities to leverage immunization in its transformational role toward successfully meeting the SDGs in 2030.

Paying for performance to improve the delivery of health interventions in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in paying for performance (P4P) as a means to align the incentives of healthcare providers with public health goals. Rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies in improving health care and health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is lacking; this is an update of the 2012 review on this topic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of paying for performance on the provision of health care and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 10 other databases between April and June 2018. We also searched two trial registries, websites, online resources of international agencies, organizations and universities, and contacted experts in the field. Studies identified from rerunning searches in 2020 are under 'Studies awaiting classification.'

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized or non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, or interrupted time series studies conducted in LMICs (as defined by the World Bank in 2018). P4P refers to the transfer of money or material goods conditional on taking a measurable action or achieving a predetermined performance target. To be included, a study had to report at least one of the following outcomes: patient health outcomes, changes in targeted measures of provider performance (such as the delivery of healthcare services), unintended effects, or changes in resource use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data as per original review protocol and narratively synthesised findings. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Given diversity and variability in intervention types, patient populations, analyses and outcome reporting, we deemed meta-analysis inappropriate. We noted the range of effects associated with P4P against each outcome of interest. Based on intervention descriptions provided in documents, we classified design schemes and explored variation in effect by scheme design.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies: controlled before-after studies (19), non-randomized (16) or cluster randomized trials (14);  and interrupted time-series studies (9). One study included both an interrupted time series and a controlled before-after study. Studies focused on a wide range of P4P interventions, including target payments and payment for outputs as modified by quality (or quality and equity assessments). Only one study assessed results-based aid. Many schemes were funded by national governments (23 studies) with the World Bank funding most externally funded schemes (11 studies). Targeted services varied; however, most interventions focused on reproductive, maternal and child health indicators. Participants were predominantly located in public or in a mix of public, non-governmental and faith-based facilities (54 studies). P4P was assessed predominantly at health facility level, though districts and other levels were also involved. Most studies assessed the effects of P4P against a status quo control (49 studies); however, some studies assessed effects against comparator interventions (predominantly enhanced financing intended to match P4P funds (17 studies)). Four studies reported intervention effects against both comparator and status quo. Controlled before-after studies were at higher risk of bias than other study designs. However, some randomised trials were also downgraded due to risk of bias. The interrupted time-series studies provided insufficient information on other concurrent changes in the study context. P4P compared to a status quo control For health services that are specifically targeted, P4P may slightly improve health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. P4P may also improve service quality overall (low certainty evidence); and probably increases the availability of health workers, medicines and well-functioning infrastructure and equipment (moderate certainty evidence). P4P may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of services (low certainty evidence) and may have few or no distorting unintended effects on outcomes that were not targeted (low-certainty evidence), but few studies assessed these. For secondary outcomes, P4P may make little or no difference to provider absenteeism, motivation or satisfaction (low certainty evidence); but may improve patient satisfaction and acceptability (low certainty evidence); and may positively affect facility managerial autonomy (low certainty evidence). P4P probably makes little to no difference to management quality or facility governance (low certainty evidence). Impacts on equity were mixed (low certainty evidence). For health services that are untargeted, P4P probably improves some health outcomes (moderate certainty evidence); may improve the delivery, use and quality of some health services but may make little or no difference to others (low certainty evidence); and may have few or no distorting unintended effects (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on the availability of medicines and other resources are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). P4P compared to other strategies For health outcomes and services that are specifically targeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. P4P may improve service quality (low certainty evidence); and may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of health services and on the availability of equipment and medicines (low certainty evidence). For health outcomes and services that are untargeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes and to the delivery and use of health services (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on service quality, resource availability and unintended effects are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). Findings of subgroup analyses Results-based aid, and schemes using payment per output adjusted for service quality, appeared to yield the greatest positive effects on outcomes. However, only one study evaluated results-based aid, so the effects may be spurious. Overall, schemes adjusting both for quality of service and rewarding equitable delivery of services appeared to perform best in relation to service utilization outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base on the impacts of P4P schemes has grown considerably, with study quality gradually increasing. P4P schemes may have mixed effects on outcomes of interest, and there is high heterogeneity in the types of schemes implemented and evaluations conducted. P4P is not a uniform intervention, but rather a range of approaches. Its effects depend on the interaction of several variables, including the design of the intervention (e.g., who receives payments ), the amount of additional funding,  ancillary components (such as technical support) and contextual factors (including organizational context).