Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26229205›Full record

SynthesisBulletin of the World Health Organization2015

Strategies to increase the demand for childhood vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mira Johri, Myriam Cielo Pérez, Catherine Arsenault, Jitendar K Sharma, Nitika Pant Pai, Smriti Pahwa, Marie-Pierre Sylvestre

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Promotion of behavioural change for health in a heterogeneous population.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mira JohriCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Tour Saint-Antoine, Porte S03-458, 850 rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec, H2X 0A9, Canada .
Myriam Cielo PérezDépartement d'administration de la santé, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada .
Catherine ArsenaultDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Canada .
Jitendar K SharmaNational Health Systems Resource Centre (NHSRC), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, India .
Nitika Pant PaiDepartment of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada .
Smriti PahwaPratham Education Foundation (ASER Centre), New Delhi, India .
Marie-Pierre SylvestreCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Tour Saint-Antoine, Porte S03-458, 850 rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec, H2X 0A9, Canada .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate which strategies to increase demand for vaccination are effective in increasing child vaccine coverage in low- and middle-income countries.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, POPLINE, ECONLIT, CINAHL, LILACS, BDSP, Web of Science and Scopus databases for relevant studies, published in English, French, German, Hindi, Portuguese and Spanish up to 25 March 2014. We included studies of interventions intended to increase demand for routine childhood vaccination. Studies were eligible if conducted in low- and middle-income countries and employing a randomized controlled trial, non-randomized controlled trial, controlled before-and-after or interrupted time series design. We estimated risk of bias using Cochrane collaboration guidelines and performed random-effects meta-analysis.

findingsWe identified 11 studies comprising four randomized controlled trials, six cluster randomized controlled trials and one controlled before-and-after study published in English between 1996 and 2013. Participants were generally parents of young children exposed to an eligible intervention. Six studies demonstrated low risk of bias and five studies had moderate to high risk of bias. We conducted a pooled analysis considering all 11 studies, with data from 11,512 participants. Demand-side interventions were associated with significantly higher receipt of vaccines, relative risk (RR): 1.30, (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.17-1.44). Subgroup analyses also demonstrated significant effects of seven education and knowledge translation studies, RR: 1.40 (95% CI: 1.20-1.63) and of four studies which used incentives, RR: 1.28 (95% CI: 1.12-1.45).

conclusionDemand-side interventions lead to significant gains in child vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries. Educational approaches and use of incentives were both effective strategies.

Indexed as

BiasChild, PreschoolCommunicable Disease ControlDeveloping CountriesFemaleHealth PromotionHumansImmunizationInfantMalePovertyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVaccination

Identifiers

PMID26229205
PMCPMC4431517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.