ArticleVaccines2024
Assessing a Digital Scorecard on Global Immunization Progress: Stakeholder Views and Implications for Enhancing Performance and Accountability.
Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Global health agencies and regional and national stakeholders collaborated to develop the Immunization Agenda 2030 Scorecard, a digital data visualization platform displaying global, regional, and country-level immunization progress. The scorecard serves to focus attention and enable strategic actions around the measures visualized. To assess the scorecard's usability, appropriateness, and context for use, we interviewed 15 immunization officers working across five global regions. To further understand the implementation context, we also reviewed the characteristics of 15 public platforms visualizing population health data. We integrated thematic findings across both methods. Many platforms highlight service gaps and enable comparisons between geographies to foster political pressure for service improvements. We observed heterogeneity regarding the platforms' focus areas and participants' leading concerns, which were management capacity and resourcing. Furthermore, one-third of platforms were out of date. Results yielded recommendations for the scorecard, which participants felt was well suited to focus the attention of decision makers on key immunization data. A simpler design coupled with implementation strategies that more actively engage policymakers would better align the scorecard with other public platforms engaging intended users. For population health platforms to serve as effective accountability mechanisms, studying implementation determinants, including usability testing, is vital to meet stakeholder needs.
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.