Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34375325›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Use of lay vaccinators in animal vaccination programmes: A scoping review.

Christian Tetteh Duamor, Katie Hampson, Felix Lankester, Maganga Sambo, Katharina Kreppel, Sally Wyke, Sarah Cleaveland

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Christian Tetteh DuamorDepartment of Global Health, Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, Arusha, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0001-8930-9060
Katie HampsonInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5392-6884
Felix LankesterPaul G. Allen School for Global Health, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0802-0693
Maganga SamboEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Thematic Group, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0002-7350-1143
Katharina KreppelDepartment of Global Health, Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, Arusha, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0001-7743-6919
Sally WykeInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Social Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7509-8247
Sarah CleavelandInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0456-0959

Funding

Eliminating human rabies: impact of enhanced vaccination coverageR01AI141712 · NIAID · WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LANKESTER, FELIX · 2019 to 2023
$2.3M
EPA EP-C-15-008NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI141712Wellcome Trust 207569/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe human resource gap in veterinary sectors, particularly in low-income countries, imposes limitations on the delivery of animal healthcare in hard-to-reach populations. Lay animal health workers have been deployed in these settings to fill the gap though there are mixed views about the benefits of doing this and whether they can deliver services safely. We mapped evidence on the nature and extent of roles assigned to lay animal vaccinators, and identified lessons useful for their future deployment. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsFollowing the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, we searched seven bibliographic databases for articles published between 1980 and 2021, with the search terms lay OR community-based OR volunteer AND "animal health worker" OR vaccinator*, and applied an a priori exclusion criteria to select studies. From 30 identified studies, lay vaccinators were used by non-government developmental (n = 12, 40%), research (n = 10, 33%) and government (n = 5, 17%) programmes to vaccinate domestic animals. The main reason for using lay vaccinators was to provide access to animal vaccination in the absence of professional veterinarians (n = 12, 40%). Reported positive outcomes of programmes included increased flock and herd sizes and farmer knowledge of best practice (n = 13, 43%); decreased disease transmission, outbreaks and mortality (n = 11, 37%); higher vaccination coverage (10, 33%); non-inferior seroconversion and birth rates among vaccinated herds (n = 3, 10%). The most frequently reported facilitating factor of lay vaccinator programmes was community participation (n = 14, 47%), whilst opposition from professional veterinarians (n = 8, 27%), stakeholders seeking financial gains to detriment of programmes goals (n = 8, 27%) and programming issues (n = 8, 27%) were the most frequently reported barriers. No study reported on cost-effectiveness and we found no record from a low and middle-income country of lay vaccinator programmes being integrated into national veterinary services.

conclusionAlthough the majority of included studies reported more benefits and positive perceptions of lay vaccinator programmes than problems and challenges, regularization will ensure the programmes can be designed and implemented to meet the needs of all stakeholders.

Indexed as

Animal DiseasesAnimalsVaccinationVaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID34375325
PMCPMC8378730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.