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.
OBJECTIVE: To support evidence informed decision-making, we systematically examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community engagement interventions on routine childhood immunisation outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and identify contextual, design and implementation features associated with effectiveness.
DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: 21 databases of academic and grey literature and 12 additional websites were searched in May 2019 and May 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included experimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations of community engagement interventions considering outcomes related to routine child immunisation in LMICs. No language, publication type, or date restrictions were imposed.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent researchers extracted summary data from published reports and appraised quantitative risk of bias using adapted Cochrane tools. Random effects meta-analysis was used to examine effects on the primary outcome, full immunisation coverage.
RESULTS: Our search identified over 43 000 studies and 61 were eligible for analysis. The average pooled effect of community engagement interventions on full immunisation coverage was standardised mean difference 0.14 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.23, I2=94.46). The most common source of risk to the quality of evidence (risk of bias) was outcome reporting bias: most studies used caregiver-reported measures of vaccinations received by a child in the absence or incompleteness of immunisation cards. Reasons consistently cited for intervention success include appropriate intervention design, including building in community engagement features; addressing common contextual barriers of immunisation and leveraging facilitators; and accounting for existing implementation constraints. The median intervention cost per treated child per vaccine dose (excluding the cost of vaccines) to increase absolute immunisation coverage by one percent was US$3.68.
CONCLUSION: Community engagement interventions are successful in improving outcomes related to routine child immunisation. The findings are robust to exclusion of studies assessed as high risk of bias.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on health service delivery, including immunization programs, and this review assesses the impact on vaccine coverage across the globe and identifies the potential underlying factors. A systematic search strategy was employed on PubMed, Embase, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and WHO COVID-19 databases from December 2019 till 15 September 2020. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed quality, and extracted the data (PROSPERO registration #CRD42020182363). A total of 17 observational studies were included. The findings suggest that there was a reduction in the vaccination coverage and decline in total number of vaccines administered, which led to children missing out on their vaccine doses. An approximately fourfold increase was also observed in polio cases in polio endemic countries. Factors contributing to low vaccine coverage included fear of being exposed to the virus at health care facilities, restriction on city-wide movements, shortage of workers, and diversion of resources from child health to address the pandemic. As the world re-strategizes for the post-2020 era, we should not let a crisis go to waste as they provide an opportunity to establish guidelines and allocate resources for future instances. High-quality supplementary immunization activities and catch-up programs need to be established to address gaps during the pandemic era.
OBJECTIVES: Childhood immunization coverage rates are known to be disproportionate according to population's socioeconomic status (SES). This systematic review examined and appraised quality of interventions deemed effective to increase routine childhood immunization uptake in low SES populations in developed countries.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, EBMR, PsycInfo, PubMed, and Health STAR. We systematically searched and critically appraised articles published between January 1990 and December 2019 using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment tool. This systematic review provides a synthesis of the available evidence for childhood immunization interventions deemed effective for low SES parents or families of children ≤ 5 years of age.
SYNTHESIS: The search yielded 3317 records, of which 2975 studies met the inclusion criteria. From the 100 relevant studies, a total of 40 were included. The majority of effective and strongly rated studies synthesized consisted of multi-component interventions. Such interventions addressed access, community-based mobilization, outreach, appointment reminders, education, clinical tracking and incentives, and were language and health literacy appropriate to support low SES parents. Improving access to low SES parents was deemed effective in the vast majority of strongly rated studies. Incorrect contact information of low SES parents due to increased social mobility (i.e. household moves) rendered reminders ineffective, and therefore, updating contact information should be pursued proactively by front-line healthcare providers. In addition, plain language communication with low SES parents regarding immunization was deemed effective in improving immunization uptake.
CONCLUSION: Comprehensive multi-component interventions including improved access, appointment reminders, education and precision health communication are effective for addressing health inequities in immunization coverage amongst marginalized populations. Most low SES parents still believe that the benefits of immunization outweigh the risks.
INTRODUCTION: Childhood vaccine delivery services in the low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are struggling to reach every child with lifesaving vaccines. Short message service (SMS) reminders have demonstrated positive impact on a number of attrition-prone healthcare delivery services. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of SMS reminders in improving immunisation coverage and timeliness in LMICs.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, CNKI, PsycINFO and Web of Science including grey literatures and Google Scholar were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that evaluated the effect of SMS reminders on childhood immunisation and timeliness in LMICs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 assessment tool for RCTs and Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool for non-RCTs. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of risk ratio (RR).
RESULTS: 18 studies, 13 RCTs and 5 non-RCTs involving 32 712 infants (17 135 in intervention groups and 15 577 in control groups) from 11 LMICs met inclusion criteria. Pooled estimates showed that SMS reminders significantly improved childhood immunisation coverage (RR=1.16; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.21; I2=90.4%). Meta-analysis of 12 included studies involving 25 257 infants showed that SMS reminders significantly improved timely receipt of childhood vaccines (RR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.30; I2=87.3%). Subgroup analysis showed that SMS reminders are significantly more effective in raising childhood immunisation coverage in lower middle-income and low-income countries than in upper middle-income countries (p<0.001) and sending more than two SMS reminders significantly improves timely receipt of childhood vaccines than one or two SMS reminders (p=0.040).
CONCLUSION: Current evidence from LMICs, although with significant heterogeneity, suggests that SMS reminders can contribute to achieving high and timely childhood immunisation coverage.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021225843.
AIMS: To identify and critically appraise the available evidence on paediatric nurses' clinical competencies performed autonomously regarding disease prevention and health promotion activities for children and adolescents in primary healthcare worldwide.
DESIGN: A systematic review design in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.
DATA SOURCES: The search was conducted through MEDLINE (PubMed), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SCOPUS, The Cochrane Library, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Web of Science and The Joanna Briggs Institute EBP (Ovid) databases. The grey literature was reviewed at OpenGrey. Additional studies were located through a references list of selected studies identified on first search.
REVIEW METHODS: Database search employed MeSH terms: (paediatric nursing) AND (primary healthcare) AND ((clinical skills) OR (clinical competences)). Studies published from inception to October 2019 exploring paediatric nurses' clinical competencies in primary healthcare were eligible for inclusion. No language restrictions were applied in the main search. Selection was made by two reviewers independently. Three independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of included studies.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included from six countries. The most common nursing competencies independently performed identified and described in studies were Health education and advice, Child and adolescent health and development assessment, Immunizations and Child health checks.
CONCLUSION: Studies describe clinical competencies of nurses in children care. No consistent scientific evidence is available about clinical competencies of paediatric nurses performed autonomously in primary care.
IMPACT: Few scientific studies identifying and assessing nurses' child primary healthcare skills were found and therefore recorded. Studies describe nurses' clinical skills in childhood, but results do not show firm consistency assessing their practice scope. Health policy-makers should encourage the development of nurses' competencies if they wish to preserve quality and equity of healthcare services to children. Therefore, the first step is to identify the autonomous competencies of paediatric nurses in primary care.
Although vaccination coverage has reached a peak of 86% globally, around 19.9 million infants and children are yet to receive routine vaccinations-with Asia holding the highest prevalence of noncompliance. This implies notable gaps in vaccination coverage among some regions in the world. This study aims to analyze the factors associated with compliance toward childhood vaccination in Southeast Asia. A systematic review of observational studies was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Included studies analyze factors affecting compliance with childhood vaccination in Southeast Asia, and assessed with JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale's criteria. Sixteen observational studies were included, with a total of 41 956 subjects, consisting of 15 cross-sectional studies and one case-control study. Our results suggested that parental personal-related, children and family status-related, socioeconomic, and health care-related factors strongly affected subjects' compliance with immunization. Prominent determinants were older maternal age, higher economics groups, parents in government or health care sectors, and frequent antenatal care visits. On the other hand, noncompliance were associated with younger age, large quantity of family members, lower economic groups, lower education, and unemployed parents. We hope that this comprehensive assessment thoroughly addresses challenges and inform strategies to raise compliance toward childhood vaccination in Southeast Asia.
BACKGROUND: Choice-based experiments have been increasingly used to elicit preferences for vaccines and vaccination programs. This study aims to systematically identify and examine choice-based experiments assessing (differences in) vaccine preferences of vaccinees, representatives and health advisors.
METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched on choice-based conjoint analysis studies or discrete choice experiments capturing vaccine preferences of children, adolescents, parents, adults and healthcare professionals for attributes of vaccines or vaccine settings up to September 2020. Data was extracted using a standardized form covering all important aspects of choice experiments. A quality assessment was used to assess the validity of studies. Attributes were categorized into outcome, process, cost and other. The importance of attributes was assessed by the frequency of reporting and statistical significance. Results were compared between high-quality studies and lower-quality studies.
RESULTS: A total of 42 studies were included, with the majority conducted in high-income countries after 2010 (resp. n = 34 and n = 37). Preferences of representatives were studied in nearly half of the studies (47.6%), followed by vaccinees (35.7%) and health advisors (9.5%). Sixteen high-quality studies passed the quality assessment. Outcome- and cost- related attributes such as vaccine effectiveness, vaccine risk, cost and protection duration were most often statistically significant across both target groups, with vaccine effectiveness being the most important. Risks associated with vaccination, such as side effects, were more often statistically significant in studies targeting vaccinees, while cost-related attributes were more often statistically significant in studies of representatives. Process-related attributes such as vaccine accessibility and time were least important across both target groups.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review in which vaccine preferences of different target groups were assessed and compared. The same attributes were most important for vaccine decisions of vaccinees and representatives, with only minor differences in level of evidence for vaccine risk and cost. Future research on vaccine preferences of health advisors and/or among target groups in low-resource settings would give insight into the generalizability of current findings.
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.
