Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39985101›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

A qualitative process evaluation of community-based participatory research and human-centered design in the 'Let's talk about vaccines' approach in Mozambique and Malawi.

Linda Shuro, Emily Lawrence, Jeroen De Man, Lucia Knight, Helen Schneider, Hanani Tabana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Linda ShuroSchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Robert Sobukwe Rd, Bellville, Cape Town, 7535, South Africa. lshuro@uwc.ac.za.
Emily LawrenceVillageReach, 210 S Hudson St, Suite 307 Seattle, Washington, 98134, USA.
Jeroen De ManSchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Robert Sobukwe Rd, Bellville, Cape Town, 7535, South Africa.
Lucia KnightSchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Robert Sobukwe Rd, Bellville, Cape Town, 7535, South Africa.
Helen SchneiderSchool of Public Health and SAMRC Health Services to Systems Research Unit, Faculty of Community and Health Sciences, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.
Hanani TabanaSchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Robert Sobukwe Rd, Bellville, Cape Town, 7535, South Africa.

Funding

National Research Foundation 98918Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnsuring full coverage of childhood vaccination programmes is a persistent challenge in low- and middle-income countries. Urgent action is required to ensure catch up of missed immunisations in children, while simultaneously building trust and demand within communities to sustainably address existing immunization gaps. This paper summarizes the findings of a process evaluation of the 'Let's talk about vaccines' approach by VillageReach in Mozambique and Malawi. The approach used community-based participatory research to identify the barriers to childhood vaccination faced by caregivers and healthcare workers, with human-centered design to codesign potential interventions to improve under two immunization access and uptake.

methodsTo evaluate the implementation of the 'Let's talk about vaccines' approach we conducted a qualitative process evaluation guided by the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We completed a total of 76 qualitative interviews and 85 self-administered surveys among caregivers, healthcare workers, health officials and other stakeholders involved in the approach. We transcribed the interviews verbatim and analysed them using thematic analysis and constructs of the RE-AIM and CFIR frameworks. We analysed the survey results in Excel.

resultsKey elements of the approach contributing to high fidelity to community-based participatory research principles in both countries, included diverse collaborative study and project teams, involvement of eight caregiver researchers, novel and traditional participatory methods, and extensive mobilization efforts. Success factors for human-centered design in the ideation and prototyping phase included fostering equal participation and empathy, value placed on each participant's input, mitigating inherent power differences, interactive feedback processes, and extensive iterative processes leading to tangible solutions. Challenges included adjusting to new methods and contextual realities. Factors influencing the potential adoption of the approach included locally developed solutions, participant involvement, collaboration, a major advantage over alternative approaches, ease of use of the co-created interventions, alignment with government objectives, and adaptability for system-wide integration into immunization programming. The potential sustainability of the approach was supported by the involvement of health ministries, health professionals, community representatives, and capacity building of local structures. However, resource and incentive constraints posed as a potential challenge to maintaining long-term motivation and action.

conclusionThe evaluation findings from the 'Let's talk about vaccines' approach highlighted key elements for applying community-based participatory research and human-centered design to collaboratively identify immunization barriers and create tangible solutions to overcome them. By integrating these approaches into routine immunization programs, it can potentially improve vaccination efforts for children under two in low and middle-income countries, leading to lasting change. Supporting policies that prioritize community involvement in research, program design and implementation and sustainable funding enhances immunization strategies, ensuring that they are tailored to local needs.

Indexed as

Community-based participatory researchConsolidated framework for implementation researchHuman-centered designLow and middle-income countriesQualitative process evaluationRE-AIMUnder two immunization

Identifiers

PMID39985101
PMCPMC11843971

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.