ArticleVaccine: X2022
Key lessons learned from the immunization supply chain of Malawi, an African country using EVM2.0.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human papilloma virus vaccination in the resource-limited settings of sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and recommendations.Vaccine: X · 2024Review
- Assessment of vaccine management performance in health facilities of Mwanza Region, Tanzania: a cross-sectional study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: A country's immunization system's effectiveness depends on its supply chain's efficacy. To assess the challenges of maintaining an efficient vaccine supply chain, Malawi conducted its assessment using The EVM2.0 tool (Effective Vaccine Management). Methods: It is a cross-sectional study in which all EVM requirements were assessed between September and October 2021. Data were collected from eighty-two randomly selected sites using the site selection tool of the EVM. Data were entered into the EVM assessment tool 2.0 version 1.12 for analysis. This tool generates performance indicators and criteria scores for assessed sites, compared with a WHO minimum score of 80%. Results: Overall criteria scores across all levels of the immunization supply chain showed a statistically significant mean difference of 5.92 (t = 2.58, P = 0.02). Comparative overall mean criteria scores across different levels of the immunization supply chain showed no statistically significant difference for primary (p = 0.76), sub-national (p = 0.69), and lowest distribution stores (p = 0.12). However, a substantial gap was found in the overall mean scores of the health facility's service point (SP) (t = 4.12, P = 0.001). The overall category scores across all immunization supply chain levels did not show a statistically significant difference. However, among individual category scores, Infrastructure (76 %), Equipment (67 %), Policies and procedures (62 %), Financial (47 %), and Resources (64 %) were found to be below the WHO minimum score. Conclusion: Though the 2021 Malawi EVM assessment findings are promising, they still identified the gaps to be improved to ensure the vaccine availability in the right amount, at the right time, and at the right cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.