Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35811646›Full record

ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2022

Tailoring immunisation programmes in a time of SARS-CoV-2: What can be learnt by comparing the findings of childhood and COVID-19 vaccine evaluation studies in an underserved population?

Ben Kasstan, Louise Letley, Sandra Mounier-Jack, Nicole Klynman, Katherine M Gaskell, Rosalind M Eggo, Michael Marks, Tracey Chantler

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ben KasstanCentre for Health, Law & Society, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom.
Louise LetleyImmunisation and Countermeasures, National Infection Service, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Sandra Mounier-JackThe Vaccine Centre, Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom.
Nicole KlynmanCity and Hackney Public Health Team, Hackney Council, 1 Hillman Street, London, E8 1DY, United Kingdom.
Katherine M GaskellClinical Research Department, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom.
Rosalind M EggoCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom.
Michael MarksClinical Research Department, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom.
Tracey ChantlerThe Vaccine Centre, Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom.
University of London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBHebrew University of Jerusalem · ILLondon Borough of Hackney · GBUK Health Security Agency · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V027956/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: A WHO Tailoring Immunization Programmes (TIP) evaluation was conducted in 2014-16 to investigate suboptimal childhood vaccination coverage in the north London Orthodox Jewish community. In 2021-22 a qualitative evaluation of the COVID-19 vaccine programme (CVP) was conducted in the same setting. This paper examines whether the issues identified by the TIP affected the CVP and what differences emerged between these two vaccine programme evaluations. Study design: Qualitative study. Methods: The CVP evaluation involved conducting 28 semi-structured interviews with public health professionals, Orthodox Jewish welfare and religious representatives, and household members in February-May 2021. The key considerations arising from the thematic analysis of this data was then compared systematically with the overarching findings from the TIP study. Results: The issues identified in the TIP study diverged and converged with results from the CVP evaluation: i) participants did not express concerns of unmet CVP information needs; ii) the social value of COVID-19 vaccines was influenced by international travel requirements; iii) in contrast to commissioning constraints noted to have limited flexible delivery of childhood immunisations in the TIP evaluation, the CVP was characterised by a flexible commissioning and delivery model. This model was facilitated by significant government investment as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Conclusions: The comparative analysis indicates that flexible vaccine commissioning and fit for purpose public health investment can influence how documented knowledge is translated into action. Implications are raised for how routine vaccination services are equipped to serve the needs of minority populations with historically suboptimal coverage levels.

Indexed as

CommissioningCovid-19Qualitative researchTailoring Immunization ProgrammeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID35811646
PMCPMC9250158
OpenAlexW4283779384

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.