ArticleJMIR human factors2024
Electronic Immunization Registry in Rwanda: Qualitative Study of Health Worker Experiences.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital vaccines for immunization equity: an approach to strengthen vaccine delivery and public trust in low- and middle-income countries.JAMIA open · 2026Review
- Pregnant women's and health workers' perceptions and experiences on the Rwandan ANC digital module intervention at selected health centres.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Implementation strategies to promote e-Tracker use in the childhood immunization program in Rwanda - a mixed methods study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- The Costs of Digital Health Interventions to Improve Immunization Data in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Multicountry Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMonitoring childhood immunization programs is essential for health systems. Despite the introduction of an electronic immunization registry called e-Tracker in Rwanda, challenges such as lacking population denominators persist, leading to implausible reports of coverage rates of more than 100%.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the extent to which the immunization e-Tracker responds to stakeholders' needs and identify key areas for improvement.
methodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with all levels of e-Tracker users including immunization nurses, data managers, and supervisors from health facilities in 5 districts of Rwanda. We used an interview guide based on the constructs of the Human, Organization, and Technology-Fit (HOT-Fit) framework, and we analyzed and summarized our findings using the framework.
resultsImmunization nurses reported using the e-Tracker as a secondary data entry tool in addition to paper-based forms, which resulted in considerable dissatisfaction among nurses. While users acknowledged the potential of a digital tool compared to paper-based systems, they also reported the need for improvement of functionalities to support their work, such as digital client appointment lists, lists of defaulters, search and register functions, automated monthly reports, and linkages to birth notifications and the national identity system.
conclusionsReducing dual documentation for users can improve e-Tracker use and user satisfaction. Our findings can help identify additional digital health interventions to support and strengthen the health information system for the immunization program.
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.