Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35737718›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Healthcare provider perspectives on delivering next generation rotavirus vaccines in five low-to-middle-income countries.

Jessica Mooney, Jessica Price, Carolyn Bain, John Tanko Bawa, Nikki Gurley, Amresh Kumar, Guwani Liyanage, Rouden Esau Mkisi, Chris Odero, Karim Seck and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. ExploringVaccine: X · 2023
    Article
  3. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Jessica MooneyPATH, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9010-5823
Jessica PricePATH, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Carolyn BainPATH, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
John Tanko BawaPATH, Accra, Ghana.
Nikki GurleyPATH, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3190-200X
Amresh KumarPATH, New Delhi, India.
Guwani LiyanageDepartment of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-9813-3295
Rouden Esau MkisiPATH, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Chris OderoPATH, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0003-2317-9405
Karim SeckIndependent Consultant, Dakar, Sénégal.
Evan SimpsonPATH, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
William P HausdorffPATH, Washington, D.C., United States of America, and Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Program for Appropriate Technology in Health · USProgram for Appropriate Technology in Health · INUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEUniversity of Sri Jayewardenepura · LK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLive oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are less effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Next-generation rotavirus vaccines (NGRVs) may be more effective but require administration by injection or a neonatal oral dose, adding operational complexity. Healthcare providers (HPs) were interviewed to assess rotavirus vaccine preferences and identify delivery issues as part of an NGRV value proposition.

objectiveDetermine HP vaccine preferences about delivering LORVs compared to injectable (iNGRV) and neonatal oral (oNGRV) NGRVs.

methods64 HPs from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, and Senegal were interviewed following a mixed-method guide centered on three vaccine comparisons: LORV vs. iNGRV; LORV vs. oNGRV; oNGRV vs. iNGRV. HPs reviewed attributes for each vaccine in the comparisons, then indicated and explained their preference. Additional questions elicited views about co-administering iNGRV+LORV for greater public health impact, a possible iNGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine, and delivering neonatal doses.

resultsAlmost all HPs preferred oral vaccine options over iNGRV, with many emphasizing an aversion to additional injections. Despite this strong preference, HPs described challenges delivering oral doses. Preferences for LORV vs. oNGRV were split, marked by disparate views on rotavirus disease epidemiology and the safety, need, and feasibility of delivering neonatal vaccines. Although overwhelmingly enthusiastic about an iNGRV-DTP-containing combination option, several HPs had concerns. HP views were divided on the feasibility of co-administering iNGRV+LORV, citing challenges around logistics and caregiver sensitization.

conclusionOur findings provide valuable insights on delivering NGRVs in routine immunization. Despite opposition to injectables, openness to co-administering LORV+iNGRV to improve efficacy suggests future HP support of iNGRV if adequately informed of its advantages. Rationales for LORV vs. oNGRV underscore needs for training on rotavirus epidemiology and stronger service integration. Expressed challenges delivering existing LORVs merit further examination and indicate need for improved delivery.

Indexed as

RotavirusRotavirus InfectionsRotavirus VaccinesDeveloping CountriesHealth PersonnelHumansInfantInfant, NewbornRotavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID35737718
PMCPMC9223340
OpenAlexW4283380150

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.