Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36913200›Full record

ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2022

Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Monica Jain, Shannon Shisler, Charlotte Lane, Avantika Bagai, Elizabeth Brown, Mark Engelbert, Yoav Vardy, John Eyers, Daniela Anda Leon, Shradha S Parsekar

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Monica JainInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) New Delhi India.
Shannon ShislerInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) New Delhi India.
Charlotte LaneInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) New Delhi India.
Avantika BagaiInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) New Delhi India.
Elizabeth BrownCenter for Effective Global Action University of California Berkeley Berkeley USA.
Mark EngelbertInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) New Delhi India.
Yoav VardyDepartment of Sociomedical Sciences Columbia University New York USA.
John EyersInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) New Delhi India.
Daniela Anda LeonInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) New Delhi India.
Shradha S ParsekarIndependent Consultant (3ie) New Delhi India.
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation · USCenter for Effective Global Action · USColumbia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunisation is one of the most cost-effective interventions to prevent and control life-threatening infectious diseases. Nonetheless, rates of routine vaccination of children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are strikingly low or stagnant. In 2019, an estimated 19.7 million infants did not receive routine immunisations. Community engagement interventions are increasingly being emphasised in international and national policy frameworks as a means to improve immunisation coverage and reach marginalised communities. This systematic review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community engagement interventions on outcomes related to childhood immunisation in LMICs and identifies contextual, design and implementation features that may be associated with effectiveness. We identified 61 quantitative and mixed methods impact evaluations and 47 associated qualitative studies related to community engagement interventions for inclusion in the reteview. For cost-effectiveness analysis 14 of the 61 studies had the needed combination of cost and effectiveness data. The 61 included impact evaluations were concentrated in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa and spread across 19 LMICs. The review found that community engagement interventions had a small but significant, positive effect on all primary immunisation outcomes related to coverage and their timeliness. The findings are robust to exclusion of studies assessed as high risk of bias. Qualitative evidence indicates appropriate intervention design, including building in community engagement features; addressing common contextual barriers of immunisation and leveraging facilitators; and accounting for existing implementation constraints and practicalities on the ground are consistently cited as reasons for intervention success. Among the studies for which we were able to calculate cost-effectiveness, we find that the median non-vaccine cost per dose of intervention to increase immunisation coverage by 1% was US $3.68. Given the broad scope of the review in terms of interventions and outcomes, there is significant variation in findings. Among the various types of community engagement interventions, those that involve creation of community buy-in or development of new cadres of community-based structures were found to have consistent positive effect on more primary vaccination coverage outcomes than if the engagement is limited to the design or delivery of an intervention or is a combination of the various types. The evidence base for sub-group analysis for female children was sparse (only two studies) and the effect on coverage of both full immunisation and third dose of diphtheria pertussis tetanus for this group was insignificant.

Identifiers

PMID36913200
PMCPMC9359116
OpenAlexW4288051264

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.