Timeliness of routine childhood vaccination in low- and middle-income countries, 1978-2021: Protocol for a scoping review to map methodologic gaps and determinants

Timeliness of routine childhood vaccination in 103 low-and middle-income countries, 1978-2021: A scoping review to map measurement and methodological gaps

Empiric studies exploring the timeliness of routine vaccination in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have gained momentum in the last decade. Nevertheless, there is emerging evidence suggesting that these studies have key measurement and methodological gaps that limit their comparability and utility. Hence, there is a need to identify, and document these gaps which could inform the design, conduct, and reporting of future research on the timeliness of vaccination. We synthesised the literature to determine the methodological and measurement gaps in the assessment of vaccination timeliness in LMICs. We searched five electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles in English and French that evaluated vaccination timeliness in LMICs, and were published between 01 January 1978, and 01 July 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts of relevant articles, following the guidance framework for scoping reviews by the Joanna Briggs Institute. From the 4263 titles identified, we included 224 articles from 103 countries. China (40), India (27), and Kenya (23) had the highest number of publications respectively. Of the three domains of timeliness, the most studied domain was 'delayed vaccination' [99.5% (223/224)], followed by 'early vaccination' [21.9% (49/224)], and 'untimely interval vaccination' [9% (20/224)]. Definitions for early (seven different definitions), untimely interval (four different definitions), and delayed vaccination (19 different definitions) varied across the studies. Most studies [72.3% (166/224)] operationalised vaccination timeliness as a categorical variable, compared to only 9.8% (22/224) of studies that operationalised timeliness as continuous variables. A large proportion of studies [47.8% (107/224)] excluded the data of children with no written vaccination records irrespective of caregivers' recall of their vaccination status. Our findings show that studies on vaccination timeliness in LMICs has measurement and methodological gaps. We recommend the development and implement of guidelines for measuring and reporting vaccination timeliness to bridge these gaps.

Regulatory standards and guidance for the use of health applications for self-management in Africa: scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite health applications becoming ubiquitous and with enormous potential to facilitate self-management, regulatory challenges such as poor application quality, breach of data privacy and limited interoperability have impeded their full adoption. While many countries now have digital health-related policies/strategies, there is also a need for regulatory standards and guidance that address key regulatory challenges associated with the use of health applications. Currently, it is unclear the status of countries in Africa regarding regulatory standards and guidance that address the use of health applications.This protocol describes the process of conducting a scoping review which aims to investigate the extent to which regulatory standards and guidance address the use of health applications for self-management within the WHO African Region countries.

METHODS

The review will follow the methodological framework for conducting a scoping study by Arksey and O'Malley (2005), and the updated methodological guidance for conducting a Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review. Given that regulatory standards and guidance are unlikely to be available in scientific databases, we will search Scopus, Google, OpenGrey, WHO Regional Office for Africa Library (AFROLIB), African Index Medicus (AIM), websites of WHO, ITU and Ministries of Health, repositories for digital health policies. We will also search the reference lists of included documents, and contact key stakeholders in the region. Results will be reported using descriptive qualitative content analysis based on the review objectives. The policy analysis framework by Walt and Gilson (1994) will be used to organise findings. A summary of the key findings will be presented using tables, charts and maps.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The collection of primary data is not anticipated in this study and hence ethical approval will not be required. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal while key findings will be shared with relevant organisations and/or presented at conferences.