BACKGROUND: Early childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.
MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.All included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).Low-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents' anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents' experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.Face-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.
BACKGROUND: A range of strategies are used to communicate with parents, caregivers and communities regarding child vaccination in order to inform decisions and improve vaccination uptake. These strategies include interventions in which information is aimed at larger groups in the community, for instance at public meetings, through radio or through leaflets. This is one of two reviews on communication interventions for childhood vaccination. The companion review focuses on face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate people about vaccination in children six years and younger.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and five other databases up to July 2012. We searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey. We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language, date or settings restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Individual or cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series (ITS) and repeated measures studies, and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies. We included interventions aimed at communities and intended to inform and/or educate about vaccination in children six years and younger, conducted in any setting. We defined interventions aimed at communities as those directed at a geographic area, and/or interventions directed to groups of people who share at least one common social or cultural characteristic. Primary outcomes were: knowledge among participants of vaccines or vaccine-preventable diseases and of vaccine service delivery; child immunisation status; and unintended adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were: participants' attitudes towards vaccination; involvement in decision-making regarding vaccination; confidence in the decision made; and resource use or cost of intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed the references to identify studies for inclusion. We extracted data and assessed risk of bias in all included studies.
MAIN RESULTS: We included two cluster-randomised trials that compared interventions aimed at communities to routine immunisation practices. In one study from India, families, teachers, children and village leaders were encouraged to attend information meetings where they received information about childhood vaccination and could ask questions. In the second study from Pakistan, people who were considered to be trusted in the community were invited to meetings to discuss vaccine coverage rates in their community and the costs and benefits of childhood vaccination. They were asked to develop local action plans and to share the information they had been given and continue the discussions in their communities.The trials show low certainty evidence that interventions aimed at communities to inform and educate about childhood vaccination may improve knowledge of vaccines or vaccine-preventable diseases among intervention participants (adjusted mean difference 0.121, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.055 to 0.189). These interventions probably increase the number of children who are vaccinated. The study from India showed that the intervention probably increased the number of children who received vaccinations (risk ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.31; moderate certainty evidence). The study from Pakistan showed that there is probably an increase in the uptake of both measles (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.58) and DPT (diptheria, pertussis and tetanus) (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.29) vaccines (both moderate certainty evidence), but there may be little or no difference in the number of children who received polio vaccine (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05; low certainty evidence). There is also low certainty evidence that these interventions may change attitudes in favour of vaccination among parents with young children (adjusted mean difference 0.054, 95% CI 0.013 to 0.105), but they may make little or no difference to the involvement of mothers in decision-making regarding childhood vaccination (adjusted mean difference 0.043, 95% CI -0.009 to 0.097).The studies did not assess knowledge among participants of vaccine service delivery; participant confidence in the vaccination decision; intervention costs; or any unintended harms as a consequence of the intervention. We did not identify any studies that compared interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate with interventions directed to individual parents or caregivers, or studies that compared two interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate about childhood vaccination.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides limited evidence that interventions aimed at communities to inform and educate about early childhood vaccination may improve attitudes towards vaccination and probably increase vaccination uptake under some circumstances. However, some of these interventions may be resource intensive when implemented on a large scale and further rigorous evaluations are needed. These interventions may achieve most benefit when targeted to areas or groups that have low childhood vaccination rates.'
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Financial incentives have been used to promote vaccination uptake but are not always viewed as acceptable. Quasimandatory policies, such as requiring vaccinations for school enrollment, are widely implemented in some countries. A systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and economic costs and consequences of parental financial incentives and quasimandatory schemes for increasing the uptake of preschool vaccinations in high-income countries.
METHODS: Electronic databases and gray literature were searched for randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and time series analyses examining the effectiveness of parental financial incentives and quasimandatory schemes, as well as any empirical studies exploring acceptability. All included studies were screened for information on economic costs and consequences. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of selected articles by using established instruments. Studies were synthesized in narrative reviews.
RESULTS: Four studies on the effectiveness and 6 on the acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasimandatory interventions met the inclusion criteria. Only 1 study reported on costs and consequences. Studies of effectiveness had low risk of bias but displayed substantial heterogeneity in terms of interventions and methods.
CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether these interventions were effective. Studies of acceptability suggested a preference, in settings where this already occurs, for incentives linking vaccinations to access to education. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on economic costs and consequences.
Parental refusal or delay of childhood vaccines is increasing. Barriers to vaccination among this population have been described, yet less is known regarding motivating factors. Researchers are beginning to evaluate various approaches to address the concerns of "vaccine-hesitant" parents, but few studies have evaluated the effect of interventions on timely vaccine uptake. Several models for communicating with vaccine-hesitant parents have been reported for healthcare providers; however, the effectiveness and utility of these strategies has not been quantified. This article reviews the known barriers to vaccination reported by vaccine-hesitant parents and the current evidence on strategies to address parental vaccine hesitancy.
BACKGROUND: The Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been available for protection against HPV-associated cervical cancer and genital warts since 2006. Nonetheless, uptake has varied among countries and populations within countries. Studies have found that individuals' knowledge and attitudes toward the vaccine are associated with immunization uptake. The purpose of the current review is to summarize and evaluate the evidence for educational interventions to increase HPV vaccination acceptance.
METHODS: We searched the databases of PubMed and Web of Science for English-language articles describing educational interventions designed to improve HPV vaccination uptake, intention or attitude.
RESULTS: We identified 33 studies of HPV vaccination educational interventions: 7 tested the effectiveness of interventions with parents, 8 with adolescents or young adults, and 18 compared the effectiveness of different message frames in an educational intervention among adolescents, young adults or their parents. Most studies involved populations with higher educational attainment and most interventions required participants to be literate. The minority of studies used the outcome of HPV vaccine uptake. Well-designed studies adequately powered to detect change in vaccine uptake were rare and generally did not demonstrate effectiveness of the tested intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: There is not strong evidence to recommend any specific educational intervention for wide-spread implementation. Future studies are required to determine the effectiveness of culturally-competent interventions reaching diverse populations.
Unvaccinated individuals pose a public health threat to communities. Research has identified many factors associated with parental vaccine refusal and hesitancy toward childhood and adolescent immunizations. However, data on the effectiveness of interventions to address parental refusal are limited. We conducted a systematic review of four online databases to identify interventional studies. We used criteria recommended by the WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization (SAGE) for the quality assessment of studies. Intervention categories and outcomes were evaluated for each body of evidence and confidence in overall estimates of effect was determined. There is limited evidence to guide implementation of effective strategies to deal with the emerging threat of parental vaccine refusal. There is a need for appropriately designed, executed and evaluated intervention studies to address this gap in knowledge.
INTRODUCTION: A systematic literature review examined the published evidence on the effectiveness of European promotional communications for national immunisation schedule (NIS) vaccinations. The review was commissioned by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and conducted by the Institute for Social Marketing at the University of Stirling. The purpose of the review: ‘Immunisation hesitancy' has negatively impacted population uptake of routine immunisation. A substantial body of evaluated communication activity promoting nationally indicated routine immunisation has been published. This systematic review of the evidence aims to: collate and map the types of promotional communication that have been used; assess the quality of the evaluative research reporting on these promotional communications; and assess the applicability of this evidence to immunisation policy, strategy and practice priorities. The analysis and findings are intended to provide a current status report on the evidence, and evidence gaps for good practice in national immunisation promotional communications, thus supporting countries in their communication activities for the prevention and control of communicable diseases. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: The review aimed to answer the following research questions: * Which audiences have been targeted by NIS promotional communications? * Which communication methods and approaches have been used to promote or reinforce NIS vaccination uptake? * What theoretical underpinnings are used to inform communication methods and approaches? * Which settings and communication channels have been used to promote or reinforce NIS vaccination uptake? * What is the evidence for effectiveness of communication initiatives in changing or reinforcing knowledge, attitudes or behaviour towards NIS? * What is the evidence for impact of NIS communication initiatives to control communicable disease? * What impact have campaign communications promoting NIS had on public acceptance and vaccine uptake rates?
OBJECTIVE: To identify and critique interventions to improve vaccination uptake in Australia. METHODS: Peer-reviewed and grey literature from 1997 to May 2011 was searched to identify evaluations of one or more interventions to improve vaccination uptake among any target group in Australia. Studies were categorised by intervention type and target group. Recommended tools for assessing quality in public health interventions were used in the methodological critique of included studies. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, two-thirds of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. Evidence for strategies that increase community demand for vaccination was most common. Multi-component strategies, patient and provider reminders, plans for catch-up vaccination and accelerated schedules were identified as most effective. There was a lack of evidence for strategies to improve coverage in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, behaviourally at-risk groups and pregnant women. Major limitations of identified studies were the lack of baseline coverage for comparison, limited use of controlled designs and measurement biases. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence, while limited, suggests that the most effective strategies are those which increase community demand for and enhance access to vaccines. Strategies to increase vaccination uptake are infrequently and often inadequately evaluated, despite the need for evidence to support their use. IMPLICATIONS: The results of this review, used in conjunction with international evidence, can guide those desiring to improve the performance of vaccination programs and suggest priorities for future evaluation of strategies to improve vaccination uptake.
OBJECTIVES: Lay health workers (LHWs) are used in many settings to increase immunisation uptake among children. However, little is known about the effectiveness of these interventions. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of LHW interventions on childhood immunisation uptake.
METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index and Archive, AMED, POPLINE and WHOLIS, reference lists of included papers and relevant reviews, and contacted the authors of relevant papers. We selected randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series of any intervention delivered by LHWs and designed to increase childhood immunisation uptake. Two authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed risk of bias and evidence quality.
FINDINGS: We identified twelve studies, ten of which were randomised controlled trials. Seven studies were conducted among economically disadvantaged populations in high-income countries. Five studies were from low- and middle-income countries. In ten studies, LHWs promoted childhood immunisation. In two studies, LHWs vaccinated children themselves. In most of the studies, the control group populations received no intervention or standard care. Most of the studies showed that LHWs increased immunisation coverage. However, study settings were diverse, allowing us to carry out only one meta-analysis including four studies.
CONCLUSION: LHWs could make an important contribution to achieving the Millennium Development Goal for child health. However, more high-quality studies are needed, particularly from LMICs. More studies are also needed to assess the effects of using LHWs to vaccinate children themselves.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of strategies to optimize immunisation uptake within preschool children in developed countries.
DESIGN: Systematic review.
SETTING: Developed countries
PARTICIPANTS: Preschool children who were due, or overdue, one or more of their routine primary immunisations.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Increase in the proportion of the target population up to date with standard recommended universal vaccinations.
RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included for analysis, published between 1980 and 2009. Twenty-six studies were randomized controlled trials, 11 were before and after trials, and nine were controlled intervention trials. Parental reminders showed a statistically significant increase in immunisation rates in 34% of included intervention arms. These effects were reported with both generic and specific reminders and with all methods of reminders and recall. Strategies aimed at immunisation providers were also shown to improve immunisation rates with a median change in immunisation rates of 7% when reminders were used, 8% when educational programmes were used and 19% when feedback programmes were used.
CONCLUSION: General practitioners are uniquely positioned to influence parental decisions on childhood immunisation. A variety of strategies studied in primary care settings have been shown to improve immunisation rates, including parental and healthcare provider reminders.
Early childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.
MAIN RESULTS:
In this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.All included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).Low-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents' anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents' experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.Face-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.
