Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38478914›Full record

SynthesisJMIR public health and surveillance2024

Community Engagement in Vaccination Promotion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yao Jie Xie, Xiaoli Liao, Meijuan Lin, Lin Yang, Kin Cheung, Qingpeng Zhang, Yan Li, Chun Hao, Harry Hx Wang, Yang Gao and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
15.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Yao Jie Xie *School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0001-9289-4985
Xiaoli Liao *School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0002-7198-4188
Meijuan LinSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0003-3646-6518
Lin YangSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0002-5964-3233
Kin CheungSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0002-8419-4847
Qingpeng ZhangMusketeers Foundation Institute of Data Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0002-6819-0686
Yan LiSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0002-5311-9190
Chun HaoSchool of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9881-6504
Harry Hx WangSchool of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0361-6527
Yang GaoDepartment of Sport, Physical Education and Health, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0003-0439-4804
Dexing ZhangJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0003-0073-4752
Alex MolassiotisHealth and Social Care Research Centre, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6351-9991
Gilman Kit Hang SiuDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0002-4354-3393
Angela Yee Man LeungSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0002-9836-1925
Hong Kong Polytechnic University · HKChinese University of Hong Kong · HKSun Yat-sen University · CNHong Kong Baptist University · HKUniversity of Derby · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity engagement plays a vital role in global immunization strategies, offering the potential to overcome vaccination hesitancy and enhance vaccination confidence. Although there is significant backing for community engagement in health promotion, the evidence supporting its effectiveness in vaccination promotion is fragmented and of uncertain quality.

objectiveThis review aims to systematically examine the effectiveness of different contents and extent of community engagement for promoting vaccination rates.

methodsThis study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A comprehensive and exhaustive literature search was performed in 4 English databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and 2 Chinese databases (CNKI and Wan Fang) to identify all possible articles. Original research articles applying an experimental study design that investigated the effectiveness of community engagement in vaccination promotion were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently performed the literature search, study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, with the arbitration of a third reviewer where necessary.

resultsA total of 20 articles out of 11,404 records from 2006 to 2021 were retrieved. The studies used various designs: 12 applied single-group pre-post study designs, 5 were cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 3 were non-RCTs. These studies targeted multiple vaccines, with 8 focusing on children's immunization, 8 on human papillomavirus vaccine, 3 on hepatitis B virus vaccine, and 1 on COVID-19 vaccine. The meta-analysis revealed significant increases in vaccination rates both in pre-post comparison (rate difference [RD] 0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.47, I

conclusionsThe results of this meta-analysis supported the effectiveness of community engagement in vaccination promotion with variations in terms of engagement contents and extent. Community engagement required a "fit-for-purpose" approach rather than a "one-size-fits-all" approach to maximize the effectiveness of vaccine promotion.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022339081; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=339081.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationHealth PromotionVaccinationHumanscommunity-based participatory researchcommunity engagementhealth promotionvaccination ratevaccine.

Identifiers

PMID38478914
PMCPMC11127135
OpenAlexW4392211345

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.