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

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.

Trends in Urban Immunization Coverage in India: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

OBJECTIVES

To assess the gaps and trends in child immunization coverage among urban and rural areas in India, and compare the success of immunisation program in each.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Crossref, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on October 9, 2019, and March 21, 2020, for studies that measured and reported immunization coverage indicators in India. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

The authors' search identified 545 studies, and 2 were obtained by expert suggestion. Among these 68 studies and 6 surveys were included. They found that full immunization coverage has grown yearly at 2.65% and 0.82% in rural and urban areas, respectively whereas partial immunization coverage declined by -2.44% and -0.69%, respectively. Percentage of nonimmunized children did not show a statistically significant trend in either.

CONCLUSION

While rural immunization coverage has seen a large increase over the past two decades, the progress in urban areas is weak and negligible. This was largely attributable to a focus on minimizing dropouts in rural areas. However, a lack of significant reduction in unimmunized children may indicate left-out children or pockets in both rural and urban areas. The poor performance of immunization programs in urban areas, coupled with a larger impact of COVID-19, warrants that India urgently adopts urban-sensitive and urban-focused policies and programs.

Childhood vaccination practices and associated factors among mothers/caregivers in Debre Tabor town, Northwest Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Incomplete immunization and non-immunization increase the risk of disease and death among children. This study aims to assess childhood vaccination practices and associated factors among mothers and caregivers in Debre Tabor town, Amhara region, Ethiopia.

METHODS

A community-based cross-sectional study design was conducted between February 30 and April 30, 2022. The study participants were proportionally allocated to all six kebeles found in the town. A systematic random sampling technique was used to select the study participants. The collected data were checked and coded and then entered into EpiData Version 3.1 and exported into SPSS Version 26. The results were organized using frequency tables, graphs, and charts, and bivariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to test the association of covariates with childhood vaccination practices.

RESULT

Approximately 422 study mothers and caregivers participated in the study, with a response rate of 100%. The mean age was 30.63 years (11.74), which ranged from 18 to 58 years. More than half of the study participants (56.4%) expressed fears about the side effects of vaccination. A majority (78.4%) of the study participants availed of counseling services about vaccination, and 71.1% of them received regular antenatal care. This study found that approximately 280 [66.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 61.8-70.6] mothers/caregivers had a history of good childhood vaccination practices. The factors of the fear of side effects [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.34; 95% CI: 1.72-6.49], no workload (AOR = 6.08; 95% CI: 1.74-21.22), medium workload (AOR = 4.80; 95% CI: 1.57-14.71), being a mother of child/children (AOR = 2.55; 95% CI: 1.27-5.13), positive attitude (AOR = 2.25; 95% CI: 1.32-3.82), and sound knowledge (AOR = 3.88; 95% CI: 2.26-6.68) were significantly associated with childhood vaccination practices.

CONCLUSION

More than half of the study participants had a history of good childhood vaccination practices. However, the rate of such practices was low among mothers and caregivers. The fear of side effects, workload, motherhood, attitude, and knowledge were all factors associated with childhood vaccination practices. Awareness creation and a consideration of the workload of mothers would be helpful in dispelling fears and increasing the rate of good practices among mothers and caregivers.

Association of community engagement with vaccination confidence and uptake: A cross-sectional survey in Sierra Leone, 2019

Background

The 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic disrupted childhood immunization in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. After the epidemic, the Government of Sierra Leone prioritized community engagement to increase vaccination confidence and uptake. To support these efforts, we examined potential drivers of vaccination confidence and uptake in Sierra Leone.

Methods

We conducted a population-based household survey with primary caregivers of children in a birth cohort of 12 to 23 months in four districts with low vaccination coverage in Sierra Leone in 2019. Modified Poisson regression modeling with robust variance estimation was used to examine if perceived community engagement in planning the immunization program in the community was associated with vaccination confidence and having a fully vaccinated child.

Results

The sample comprised 621 age-eligible children and their caregivers (91% response rate). Half of the caregivers (52%) reported that it usually takes too long to get to the vaccination site, and 36% perceived that health workers expect money for vaccination services that are supposed to be given at no charge. When mothers were the decision-makers of the children's vaccination, 80% of the children were fully vaccinated versus 69% when fathers were the decision-makers and 56% when other relatives were the decision-makers. Caregivers with high confidence in vaccination were more likely to have fully vaccinated children compared to caregivers with low confidence (78% versus 53%). For example, caregivers who thought vaccines are 'very much' safe were more likely to have fully vaccinated children than those who thought vaccines are 'somewhat' safe (76% versus 48%). Overall, 53% of caregivers perceived high level of community engagement, 41% perceived medium level of engagement, and 6% perceived low level of engagement. Perceiving high community engagement was associated with expressing high vaccination confidence (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 2.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.67-4.04) and having a fully vaccinated child (aPR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.18-2.38).

Conclusions

In these four low coverage districts in Sierra Leone, the perceived level of community engagement was strongly associated with vaccination confidence among caregivers and vaccination uptake among children. We have provided exploratory cross-sectional evidence to inform future longitudinal assessments to further investigate the potential causal effect of community engagement on vaccination confidence and uptake.

Community perceptions of vaccination among influential stakeholders: qualitative research in rural India

Background

In India and other low- and middle-income countries, multiple family and community members are influential in caregivers’ perceptions of vaccination. Existing literature indicates the primary caregiver, typically the mother, is instrumental in vaccine decision-making, but this may vary in contexts. We investigated the role of stakeholders in India who influence caregivers’ vaccination perceptions, as this is essential to developing strategies to promote vaccine acceptance and improve uptake.

Methods

This research was conducted in 2019 in Mewat District in Haryana, an area in India with extremely low vaccination coverage. We conducted six focus group discussions with 60 participants in the following categories: fathers of children under-5 years old, expectant mothers, mothers-in-law, community health workers, and community influencers such as locally elected officials and religious leaders.

Results

Our results highlighted four themes that influence vaccine uptake. First, while caregivers associated vaccination with reductions in specific diseases, they also noted that vaccination services brought broad health gains, including improved nutrition, antenatal guidance, and social support. Second, community health workers critically influenced, positively or negatively, caregivers’ vaccination perceptions. Third, community health workers faced gaps in their education such as limited training on vaccine side-effects, placing them at a disadvantage when dealing with families. Finally, we found that mothers-in-law, fathers, and religious leaders influence caregivers’ perceptions of vaccination.

Conclusions

Communication of broader benefits of vaccines and vaccination services by community health workers could be impactful in increasing vaccine acceptance. Vaccine uptake could potentially be improved by facilitating community health workers’ ownership over vaccine acceptance and uptake by involving them in the design and implementation of interventions to target mothers and mothers-in-law. A ‘bottom-up’ approach, leveraging community health workers’ knowledge to design interventions, and giving a voice to key members of the household and society beyond mothers alone, may sustain health improvement in low vaccine coverage areas.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-12188-4.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Perceived enablers and barriers of community engagement for vaccination in India: Using socioecological analysis

BACKGROUND

There is high level policy consensus in India that community engagement (CE) improves vaccination uptake and reduces burden of vaccine preventable diseases. However, to date, vaccination studies in the country have not explicitly focused on CE as an outcome in and of itself. Therefore, this study sought to examine the barriers and enablers of community engagement for vaccination in India.

METHODS

Employing qualitative methods, twenty-five semi-structured elite interviews among vaccine decisionmakers' were triangulated with twenty-four national-level vaccine policy documents and researcher field notes (December 2017 to February 2018). Data collected for this study included perceptions and examples of enablers of and barriers to CE for vaccination uptake. Concepts, such as the absence of formal procedures or data collection approaches related to CE, were confirmed during document review, and a final convening to review study results was conducted with study respondents in December 2018 and January 2019 to affirm the general set of findings from this study. The Social Ecological Model (SEM) was used to organize and interpret the study findings.

RESULTS

Although decisionmakers and policy documents generally supported CE, there were more CE barriers than facilitators in the context of vaccination, which were identified at all social-ecological levels. Interviews with vaccine decisionmakers in India revealed complex systemic and structural factors which affect CE for vaccination and are present across each of the SEM levels, from individual to policy. Policy-level enablers included decisionmakers' political will for CE and policy documents and interviews highlighted social mobilization, whereas barriers were lack of a CE strategy document and a broad understanding of CE by decisionmakers. At the community level, dissemination of Social-behavioral Change Communication (SBCC) materials from the national-level to the states was considered a CE facilitator, while class, and caste-based power relations in the community, lack of family-centric CE strategies, and paternalistic attitude of decisionmakers toward communities (the latter reported by some NGO heads) were considered CE barriers. At the organizational level, partnerships with local organizations were considered CE enablers, while lack of institutionalized support to formalize and incentivize these partnerships highlighted by several decisionmakers, were barriers. At the interpersonal level, SBCC training for healthcare workers, sensitive messaging to communities with low vaccine confidence, and social media messaging were considered CE facilitators. The lack of strategies to manage vaccine related rumors or replicate successful CE interventions during the during the introduction and rollout of new vaccines were perceived as CE barriers by several decisionmakers.

CONCLUSION

Data obtained for this study highlighted national-level perceptions of the complexities and challenges of CE across the entire SEM, from individual to systemic levels. Future studies should attempt to associate these enablers and barriers with actual CE outcomes, such as participation or community support in vaccine policy-making, CE implementation for specific vaccines and situations (such as disease outbreaks), or frequency of sub-population-based incidents of community resistance and community facilitation to vaccination uptake. There would likely be value in developing a population-based operational definition of CE, with a step-by-step manual on 'how to do CE.' The data from this study also indicate the importance of including CE indicators in national datasets and developing a compendium documenting CE best-practices. Doing so would allow more rigorous analysis of the evidence-base for CE for vaccination in India and other countries with similar immunization programs.

A qualitative analysis of vaccine decision makers' conceptualization and fostering of 'community engagement' in India

BACKGROUND

Globally, and in India, research has highlighted the importance of community engagement in achieving national vaccination goals and in promoting health equity. However, community engagement is not well-defined and remains an underutilized approach. There is also paucity of literature on community engagement's effectiveness in achieving vaccination outcomes. To address that gap, this study interviewed Indian vaccination decision makers to derive a shared understanding of the evolving conceptualization of community engagement, and how it has been fostered during India's Decade of Vaccines (2010-2020).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 purposefully sampled national-level vaccine decision makers in India, including policymakers, immunization program heads, and vaccine technical committee leads. Participants were identified by their 'elite' status among decisionmakers in the Indian vaccination space. Schutz' Social Phenomenological Theory guided development of an a priori framework derived from the Social Ecological Model. The framework helped organize participants' conceptualizations of communities, community engagement, and related themes. Inter-rater reliability was computed for a subsample of coded interviews, and findings were validated in a one-day member check-in meeting with study participants and teams.

RESULTS

The interviews successfully elucidated participants' understanding of key terminology ("community") and approaches to community engagement propagated by the vaccine decision makers. Participants conceptualized 'communities' as vaccine-eligible children, their parents, frontline healthcare workers, and vaccination influencers. Engagement with those communities was understood to mean vaccine outreach, capacity-building of healthcare workers, and information dissemination. However, participants indicated that there were neither explicit policy guidelines defining community engagement nor pertinent evaluation metrics, despite awareness that community engagement is complex and under-researched. Examples of different approaches to community engagement ranged from vaccine imposition to empowered community vaccination decision-making. Finally, participants proposed an operational definition of community engagement and discussed concerns related to implementing it.

CONCLUSIONS

Although decision makers had different perceptions about what constitutes a community, and how community engagement should optimally function, the combined group articulated its importance to ensure vaccination equity and reiterated the need for concerted political will to build trust with communities. At the same time, work remains to be done both in terms of research on community engagement as well as development of appropriate implementation and outcome metrics.

Evaluating the effect of the initiative 'Caring for the Newborn and the Mother at Home' in Mexico

Objective:

The WHO and UNICEF recommend home visits to improve health outcomes for mothers and newborns. We evaluated the effect of home visits by community volunteers during pregnancy and postpartum on breast-feeding practices, women’s knowledge about benefits, beliefs and myths of breast-feeding, obstetric and neonatal warning signs, preparation for childbirth and initial care for newborns, and diarrhoea and respiratory diseases in children.

Design:

Community quasi-experimental design. We estimated difference-in-difference models with fixed effects at the community level weighted by propensity score and investigated implementation barriers through focus groups and semi-structured interviews.

Setting:

Poor rural communities in Mexico; 48 intervention and 29 control.

Participants:

Baseline and follow-up information were reported from two independent cross-sectional samples of women with babies aged between 6 and 18 months (baseline: 292 control, 320 intervention; follow-up: 292 control, 294 intervention).

Results:

The intervention increased reports of exclusive breast-feeding in the first 6 months by 24·4 percentage points (pp) (95 % CI: 13·4, 35·4), mothers’ knowledge of obstetric warning signs by 23·4 pp (95 % CI: 9·2, 37·5) and neonatal warning signs by 26·2 pp (95 % CI: 15·2, 37·2) compared to the control group. A non-linear dose–response relation with the number of home visits was found. Diarrhoea and respiratory diseases among children decreased in the intervention v. control group but were not statistically significant.

Conclusions:

Home visits should be implemented as a complementary strategy to the provision of prenatal and postnatal care in rural communities due to their potential positive effects on the health of mothers and their children.