Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28838165›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2017

Contribution of Global Polio Eradication Initiative-Funded Personnel to the Strengthening of Routine Immunization Programs in the 10 Focus Countries of the Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan.

Maya M V X van den Ent, Rachel D Swift, Sameer Anaokar, Lea Anne Hegg, Rudolf Eggers, Stephen L Cochi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Transition Planning For After Polio Eradication.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Maya M V X van den EntUNICEF Programme Division, United Nations Children's Fund, New York, New York.
Rachel D SwiftBoston Consulting Group, Los Angeles, California.
Sameer AnaokarBoston Consulting Group, Los Angeles, California.
Lea Anne HeggGlobal Development, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington.
Rudolf EggersDepartment of Immunization, Vaccines, and Biologicals, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Stephen L CochiGlobal Immunization Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Boston Consulting Group (United States)Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USUnited Nations Children's Fund · USWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan (PEESP) established a target that at least 50% of the time of personnel receiving funding from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) for polio eradication activities (hereafter, "GPEI-funded personnel") should be dedicated to the strengthening of immunization systems. This article describes the self-reported profile of how GPEI-funded personnel allocate their time toward immunization goals and activities beyond those associated with polio, the training they have received to conduct tasks to strengthen routine immunization systems, and the type of tasks they have conducted. Methods: A survey of approximately 1000 field managers of frontline GPEI-funded personnel was conducted by Boston Consulting Group in the 10 focus countries of the PEESP during 2 phases, in 2013 and 2014, to determine time allocation among frontline staff. Country-specific reports on the training of GPEI-funded personnel were reviewed, and an analysis of the types of tasks that were reported was conducted. Results: A total of 467 managers responded to the survey. Forty-seven percent of the time (range, 23%-61%) of GPEI-funded personnel was dedicated to tasks related to strengthening immunization programs, other than polio eradication. Less time was spent on polio-associated activities in countries that had already interrupted wild poliovirus (WPV) transmission, compared with findings for WPV-endemic countries. All countries conducted periodic trainings of the GPEI-funded personnel. The types of non-polio-related tasks performed by GPEI-funded personnel varied among countries and included surveillance, microplanning, newborn registration and defaulter tracing, monitoring of routine immunization activities, and support of district immunization task teams, as well as promotion of health behaviors, such as clean-water use and good hygiene and sanitation practices. Conclusion: In all countries, GPEI-funded personnel perform critical tasks in the strengthening of routine immunization programs and the control of measles and rubella. In certain countries with very weak immunization systems, GPEI-funded personnel provide critical support for the immunization programs, and sudden discontinuation of their employment would potentially disrupt the immunization programs in their countries and create a setback in capacity and effectiveness that would put children at higher risk for vaccine-preventable diseases.

Indexed as

Disease EradicationHumansImmunization ProgramsInterviews as TopicMass VaccinationPoliomyelitisPublic Health SurveillanceSurveys and Questionnairesendgameeradicationhealth systemsPoliomyelitisroutine immunization

Identifiers

PMID28838165
PMCPMC5853847
OpenAlexW2734909962

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.