ArticleBMC public health2024
Interventions to increase vaccination in vulnerable groups: rapid overview of reviews.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of interventions to improve vaccine efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- COVID-19 Vaccination Refusal and Non-Uptake Among People Living with HIV in the United States.Journal of community health · 2026Review
- Time, Place, and Partnerships: Event Characteristics and COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Community Vaccination Efforts.Viruses · 2026Article
- Free Riding in Healthcare Through a Game-Theoretic Lens: A Cross-Domain Narrative Review and Conceptual Synthesis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Addressing Gaps in Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices in Thailand for Integrating Vaccines into a Comprehensive Dengue Management and Control Programme.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Implementation strategies to increase seasonal influenza vaccination among adults: A rapid scoping review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Cross-country analysis on HPV vaccination behaviors among health workers and parents: a qualitative report from seven middle-income countries.Vaccine: X · 2025Article
- Implementing targeted vaccination activities to address inequalities in vaccination: a qualitative study.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Immunization status of children with cerebral palsy: A cross-sectional hospital-based study in Vietnam.PloS one · 2025Article
- Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic: Promoting Vaccination and Public Health Resilience, a Narrative Review.Vaccines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveGroups which are marginalised, disadvantaged or otherwise vulnerable have lower uptake of vaccinations. This differential has been amplified in COVID-19 vaccination compared to (e.g.) influenza vaccination. This overview assessed the effectiveness of interventions to increase vaccination in underserved, minority or vulnerable groups.
methodsIn November 2022 we searched four databases for systematic reviews that included RCTs evaluating any intervention to increase vaccination in underserved, minority or vulnerable groups; our primary outcome was vaccination. We used rapid review methods to screen, extract data and assess risk of bias in identified reviews. We undertook narrative synthesis using an approach modified from SWiM guidance. We categorised interventions as being high, medium or low intensity, and as targeting vaccine demand, access, or providers.
resultsWe included 23 systematic reviews, including studies in high and low or middle income countries, focused on children, adolescents and adults. Groups were vulnerable based on socioeconomic status, minority ethnicity, migrant/refugee status, age, location or LGBTQ identity. Pregnancy/maternity sometimes intersected with vulnerabilities. Evidence supported interventions including: home visits to communicate/educate and to vaccinate, and facilitator visits to practices (high intensity); telephone calls to communicate/educate, remind/book appointments (medium intensity); letters, postcards or text messages to communicate/educate, remind/book appointments and reminder/recall interventions for practices (low intensity). Many studies used multiple interventions or components.
conclusionThere was considerable evidence supporting the effectiveness of communication in person, by phone or in writing to increase vaccination. Both high and low intensity interventions targeting providers showed effectiveness. Limited evidence assessed additional clinics or targeted services for increasing access; only home visits had higher confidence evidence showing effectiveness. There was no evidence for interventions for some communities, such as religious minorities which may intersect with gaps in evidence for additional services. None of the evidence related to COVID-19 vaccination where inequalities of outcome are exacerbated. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021293355.
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.