Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34776411›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2021

Assessing the impact of polio supplementary immunisation activities on routine immunisation and health systems: a systematic review.

Amy Vassallo, Kimberly Dunbar, Busayo Ajuwon, Christopher Lowbridge, Martyn Kirk, Catherine King, Meru Sheel

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amy VassalloThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8473-7549
Kimberly DunbarNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, ANU College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Busayo AjuwonNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, ANU College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Christopher LowbridgeMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
Martyn KirkNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, ANU College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Catherine KingThe Children's Hospital at Westmead Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Meru SheelNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, ANU College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia meru.sheel@anu.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5453-070X
Australian National University · AUThe University of Sydney · AUCharles Darwin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Global Polio Eradication Initiative uses polio supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs) as a strategy to increase vaccine coverage and cease poliovirus transmission. Impact of polio SIAs on immunisation systems is frequently debated. We reviewed the impact of polio SIAs on routine immunisation and health systems during the modern era of polio eradication.

methodsWe searched nine databases for studies reporting on polio SIAs and immunisation coverage, financial investment, workforce and health services delivery. We conducted a narrative synthesis of evidence. Records prior to 1994, animal, modelling or case studies data were excluded.

results20/1637 unique records were included. Data on vaccine coverage were included in 70% (14/20) studies, workforce in 65% (13/20) and health services delivery in 85% (17/20). SIAs positively contributed to vaccination uptake of non-polio vaccines in seven studies, neutral in three and negative in one. Some polio SIAs contributed to workforce strengthening through training and capacity building. Polio SIAs were accompanied with increased social mobilisation and community awareness building confidence in vaccination programmes. Included studies were programmatic in nature and contained variable data, thus could not be justly critically appraised.

conclusionPolio SIAs are successful at increasing polio vaccine coverage, but the resources and infrastructures were not always utilised for delivery of non-polio vaccines and integration into routine service delivery. We found a gap in standardised tools to evaluate SIAs, which can then inform service integration. Our study provides data to inform SIAs evaluations, and provides important considerations for COVID-19 vaccine roll-out to strengthen health systems. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020152195.

Indexed as

COVID-19PoliomyelitisCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansImmunizationImmunization ProgramsSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccinesepidemiologyimmunisationpoliomyelitissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34776411
PMCPMC8593720
OpenAlexW3212004900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.