ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Measuring what matters: Context-specific indicators for assessing immunisation performance in Pacific Island Countries and Areas.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increasing countries' access to data can improve immunisation coverage through evidence-based decision-making. However, data collection and reporting is resource-intensive, so needs to be pragmatic, especially in low-and-middle-income countries. We aimed to identify which indicators are most important for measuring, and improving, national immunisation performance in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). We conducted an expert elicitation study, asking 13 experts involved in delivering immunisation programs, decision-makers, health information specialists, and global development partners across PICs to rate 41 indicators based on their knowledge of the feasibility and relevance of each indicator. We also asked experts their preferences for indicators to be retained or removed from a list of indicators for PICs. Experts participated in two rating rounds, with a discussion on the reasons for ratings before the second round. We calculated mean scores for feasibility and relevance, and ranked indicators based on experts' preferences and mean scores. We used framework analysis to identify reasons for selecting indicators. Experts agreed that certain indicators were essential to measure (e.g. data use in program planning and measles vaccination coverage), but preferences varied for most indicators. Preferences to include indicators in a set of indicators for PICs moderately correlated with scores for relevance (r = 0.68) and feasibility (r = 0.56). In discussions, experts highlighted usefulness for decision-making and ease of data collection, reporting and interpretation as the main reasons driving indicator selection. Country-specific factors such as health system factors, roles and influence of various immunisation actors, and macro-level factors (namely population size, distribution and mobility) affected relevance and feasibility, leading us to conclude that a single set of indicators for all PICs is inappropriate. Rather than having a strict set of indicators that all countries must measure and report against, performance indicators should be flexible, country-specific, and selected in consultation with immunisation actors who collect and use the data.
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.