Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38365291›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Effective interventions for improving routine childhood immunisation in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

Monica Jain, Maren Duvendack, Shannon Shisler, Shradha S Parsekar, Maria Daniela Anda Leon

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Monica JainInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, New Delhi, Delhi, India mjain@3ieimpact.org.ORCID 0000-0001-5428-377X
Maren DuvendackUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Shannon ShislerInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, Washington, DC, USA.
Shradha S ParsekarInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, New Delhi, Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-8824-9198
Maria Daniela Anda LeonInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAn umbrella review providing a comprehensive synthesis of the interventions that are effective in providing routine immunisation outcomes for children in low and middle-income countries (L&MICs).

designA systematic review of systematic reviews, or an umbrella review. DATA SOURCES: We comprehensively searched 11 academic databases and 23 grey literature sources. The search was adopted from an evidence gap map on routine child immunisation sector in L&MICs, which was done on 5 May 2020. We updated the search in October 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of any intervention on routine childhood immunisation outcomes in L&MICs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Search results were screened by two reviewers independently applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted by two researchers independently. The Specialist Unit for Review Evidence checklist was used to assess review quality. A mixed-methods synthesis was employed focusing on meta-analytical and narrative elements to accommodate both the quantitative and qualitative information available from the included reviews.

results62 systematic reviews are included in this umbrella review. We find caregiver-oriented interventions have large positive and statistically significant effects, especially those focusing on short-term sensitisation and education campaigns as well as written messages to caregivers. For health system-oriented interventions the evidence base is thin and derived from narrative synthesis suggesting positive effects for home visits, mixed effects for pay-for-performance schemes and inconclusive effects for contracting out services to non-governmental providers. For all other interventions under this category, the evidence is either limited or not available. For community-oriented interventions, a recent high-quality mixed-methods review suggests positive but small effects. Overall, the evidence base is highly heterogenous in terms of scope, intervention types and outcomes.

conclusionInterventions oriented towards caregivers and communities are effective in improving routine child immunisation outcomes. The evidence base on health system-oriented interventions is scant not allowing us to reach firm conclusions, except for home visits. Large evidence gaps exist and need to be addressed. For example, more high-quality evidence is needed for specific caregiver-oriented interventions (eg, monetary incentives) as well as health system-oriented (eg, health workers and data systems) and community-oriented interventions. We also need to better understand complementarity of different intervention types.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesCaregiversChildHumansImmunizationImmunization ProgramsSystematic Reviews as TopicCommunity child healthHealth policyPaediatric infectious disease & immunisationSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID38365291
PMCPMC10875475

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.