Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36991394›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Post introduction evaluation of the malaria vaccine implementation programme in Ghana, 2021.

Michael Rockson Adjei, Kwame Amponsa-Achiano, Rafiq Okine, Peter Ofori Tweneboah, Emmanuel Tettey Sally, John Frederick Dadzie, Fred Osei-Sarpong, Michael Jeroen Adjabeng, John Tanko Bawa, George Bonsu and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

17 authors.

Michael Rockson AdjeiAshanti Regional Health Directorate, Ghana Health Service, Kumasi, Ghana. bonnahk10@gmail.com.
Kwame Amponsa-AchianoHeadquarters, Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana.
Rafiq OkineCountry Office, WHO, Accra, Ghana.
Peter Ofori TweneboahCountry Office, WHO, Accra, Ghana.
Emmanuel Tettey SallyHeadquarters, Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana.
John Frederick DadzieHeadquarters, Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana.
Fred Osei-SarpongCountry Office, WHO, Accra, Ghana.
Michael Jeroen AdjabengCountry Office, WHO, Accra, Ghana.
John Tanko BawaCountry Office, PATH, Accra, Ghana.
George BonsuCountry Office, PATH, Accra, Ghana.
Kwadwo Odei Antwi-AgyeiCountry Office, PATH, Accra, Ghana.
Basil Benduri KaburiHeadquarters, Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana.
Felicia Owusu-AntwiCountry Office, WHO, Accra, Ghana.
Elizabeth JumaCountry Office, WHO, Accra, Ghana.
Francis Chisaka KasoloCountry Office, WHO, Accra, Ghana.
Franklin Asiedu-BekoeHeadquarters, Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana.
Patrick Kuma-AboagyeHeadquarters, Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalaria remains a public health challenge in Sub-Saharan Africa with the region contributing to more than 90% of global cases in 2020. In Ghana, the malaria vaccine was piloted to assess the feasibility, safety, and its impact in the context of routine use alongside the existing recommended malaria control measures. To obtain context-specific evidence that could inform future strategies of introducing new vaccines, a standardized post-introduction evaluation (PIE) of the successes and challenges of the malaria vaccine implementation programme (MVIP) was conducted.

methodsFrom September to December 2021, the WHO Post-Introduction Evaluation (PIE) tool was used to conduct a mixed methods evaluation of the MVIP in Ghana. To ensure representativeness, study sites and participants from the national level, 18 vaccinating districts, and 54 facilities from six of the seven pilot regions were purposively selected. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using data collection tools that were adapted based on the WHO PIE protocol. We performed summary descriptive statistics on quantitative data, thematic analysis on qualitative data, and triangulation of the results from both sets of analyses.

resultsAbout 90.7% (49/54) of health workers stated that the vaccine introduction process was smooth and contributed to an overall improvement of routine immunisation services. About 87.5% (47/54) of healthcare workers, and 95.8% (90/94) of caregivers accepted RTS,S malaria vaccine. Less than half [46.3%; (25/54)] of the healthcare workers participated in the pre-vaccine introduction training but almost all [94.4%; (51/54)] were able to constitute and administer the vaccine appropriately. About 92.5% (87/94) of caregivers were aware of the RTS,S introduction but only 44.0% (44/94) knew the number of doses needed for maximum protection. Health workers believed that the MVIP has had a positive impact on under five malaria morbidity.

conclusionsThe malaria vaccine has been piloted successfully in Ghana. Intensive advocacy; community engagement, and social mobilization; and regular onsite supportive supervision are critical enablers for successful introduction of new vaccines. Stakeholders are convinced of the feasibility of a nationwide scale up using a phased subnational approach taking into consideration malaria epidemiology and global availability of vaccines.

Indexed as

MalariaMalaria VaccinesGhanaHealth PersonnelHumansVaccinationMalaria VaccinesMalariaMalaria vaccine implementation ProgrammeMosquirixPilotPost introduction evaluationRTS, S vaccine

Identifiers

PMID36991394
PMCPMC10052308

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.