Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36356993›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2022

Improving routine childhood immunisation outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries: an evidence gap map.

Mark Engelbert, Monica Jain, Avantika Bagai, Shradha S Parsekar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

4 authors.

Mark EngelbertInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, London, UK mengelbert@3ieimpact.org.ORCID 0000-0002-3665-1257
Monica JainInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5428-377X
Avantika BagaiDevelopment Solutions, New Delhi, India.
Shradha S ParsekarPublic Health Evidence South Asia, Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.ORCID 0000-0002-8824-9198

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo support evidence-informed decision-making, we created an evidence gap map to characterise the evidence base on the effectiveness of interventions in improving routine childhood immunisation outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

methodsWe developed an intervention-outcome matrix with 38 interventions and 43 outcomes. We searched academic databases and grey literature sources for relevant impact evaluations (IEs) and systematic reviews (SRs). Search results were screened on title/abstract. Those included on title/abstract were retrieved for full review. Studies meeting the eligibility criteria were included and data were extracted for each included study. All screening and data extraction was done by two independent reviewers. We analysed these data to identify trends in the geographic distribution of evidence, the concentration of evidence across intervention and outcome categories, and attention to vulnerable populations in the literature.

resultsWe identified 309 studies, comprising 226 completed IEs, 58 completed SRs, 24 ongoing IEs and 1 ongoing SR. Evidence from IEs is heavily concentrated in a handful of countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Among interventions, the most frequently evaluated are those related to education and material incentives for caregivers or health workers. There are gaps in the study of non-material incentives and outreach to vulnerable populations. Among outcomes, those related to vaccine coverage and health are well covered. However, evidence on intermediate outcomes related to health system capacity or barriers faced by caregivers is much more limited.

conclusionsThere is valuable evidence available to decision-makers for use in identifying and deploying effective strategies to increase routine immunisation in LMICs. However, additional research is needed to address gaps in the evidence base.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesVaccinationChildHealth PersonnelHumansPovertyVulnerable Populationscommunity child healthhealth economicshealth policypaediatric infectious disease & immunisationpublic health

Identifiers

PMID36356993
PMCPMC9660714

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.