ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2020
Immunisation program reviews in East and Southern Africa: 2012-2018; key lessons.
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systems approach to understanding mechanisms underlying immunisation barriers: a participatory design study in Tanzania.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Article
- Human in vitro modeling of adjuvant formulations demonstrates enhancement of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigen.NPJ vaccines · 2023Article
- Barriers to optimal AEFI surveillance and documentation in Nigeria: Findings from a qualitative survey.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Immunisation program training needs in 9 countries in the African Region.The Pan African medical journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWorld Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that countries conduct comprehensive national immunisation programme reviews regularly to help them identify systems wide-barriers or gaps and monitor performance against the set targets.
methodswe reviewed reports from the latest national immunisation program reviews conducted in the 20 countries in the subregion in the course of 2012-2018. We generated descriptive analysis of the findings across the subregion.
resultsthe 20 program reviews included field observations to the subnational levels as well as interviews with program staff and stakeholders. At the time of the reviews, only 11 countries had functional National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups. Operational funding was inadequate in half of the countries. The reviews documented the cancellation of outreach services, supportive supervision visits and maintenance of cold chain equipment due to the lack of fuel or operational funding. Immunisation programs in 10 countries had major human resource gaps. Vaccine stock management tools were not effectively used in 10 countries, and stockout of vaccines and supplies was documented in 9 countries during the review. The full components of the Reaching Every District (RED) Strategy were implemented in only 3 of the 20 countries. Twelve countries reported challenges with the availability and accuracy of target populations. Four countries had documented the presence of vaccine hesitant groups at the time of the reviews.
conclusionthe reviews demonstrated challenges in various aspects of the programs in different countries. The implementation of the review recommendations should be built into the annual program plans, as well as into costed multi-year plans, in order to address the gaps and helps the program to attain the set targets. With the rapid evolution of the scope and complexity of the immunisation programs in recent years, countries should invest their efforts in building the capacity of their human resources as well as updating their logistics and data systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.