ArticleConflict and health2024
Decision-making for childhood vaccination in crisis settings: a survey of practice & barriers.
Article in Conflict and health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChildren, particularly those who have received no routine vaccinations (zero-dose children), are at high risk of vaccine-preventable diseases in humanitarian crisis settings. However, the decision-making processes underlying vaccine intervention design and delivery in such settings are poorly understood. The present study investigated the decision-making practices of organisations involved in childhood vaccination in humanitarian crisis settings globally via an online survey.
methodsIndividuals involved in the design or delivery of childhood vaccination programmes in humanitarian crisis settings were invited to fill out a self-administered online survey. Respondents were asked about factors influencing intervention design and vaccine delivery; use of technical guidance, specifically the WHO decision-making framework for vaccination in acute humanitarian emergencies (WHO Framework); and practices for reaching zero-dose children.
resultsFourteen responses were received. Large international organisations and UN agencies were overrepresented in the sample. Technical guidance was considered of high importance when designing vaccine interventions. However, the WHO Framework is not available in relevant languages and has not been well-distributed to local and national actors. Awareness of initiatives to reach zero-dose children was high within our sample, though this may not accurately reflect global awareness. Security and resource availability were key barriers to vaccine delivery and reaching zero-dose children. Problems with vaccine access in our sample pertained primarily to issues with the procurement system rather than vaccine cost.
conclusionsThe WHO Framework should be provided in more languages, and vaccination actors at local and national level should be engaged to improve its practicality and increase awareness of its aims. In order to reach zero-dose children, vaccines must be made available for use in expanded age groups, which is sometimes not currently feasible within the Gavi/UNICEF procurement system. Clarifying this policy would allow relevant organisations to reach more zero-dose children. Additionally, security is a key barrier impeding vaccine delivery, including for zero-dose children. Safe operational space for humanitarian actors in conflict must be maintained and global conflict resolution mechanisms improved.
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.