ArticleVaccines2025
Stakeholders Perspectives on the Introduction of an Additional Injectable Vaccine Under the Universal Immunization Programme in India.
Article in Vaccines, 2025. 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.
- Economic implications of switching to the hexavalent infant vaccine in an immunization program in India.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn 2023, India's National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) recommended the inclusion of typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV) in the Universal Immunization Programme (UIP). However, introducing TCV, an additional injectable vaccine (AIV), will potentially increase the number of injections administered in a single visit to a maximum of five (if given at the 9 to 12 months touchpoint) or four (if given in the second year of life). In this context, the present study aimed to explore the perspectives of program managers, service providers, and caregivers regarding introduction of an AIV in a single visit under the UIP.
methodsA mixed-method study was undertaken wherein quantitative data was collected by telephonic surveys, and qualitative data by key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). Purposive sampling encompassed eight states, eight districts, eight planning units, and 32 session sites. The qualitative data were thematically analyzed manually using Excel, while the quantitative data was analyzed using STATA 17.
resultsA total of 1140 telephonic surveys, 96 KIIs, and 16 FGDs were conducted. The study revealed that program managers mentioned maternal emotional reactions as a significant concern and backed AIV introduction at the 9-12 months touchpoint. Vaccinators and community mobilizers favored the 16-24 months window with combined presentations and mentioned single-dose vials as the preferred approach for vaccine delivery. Caregivers acknowledged the benefits of vaccination but expressed discomfort and fear regarding multiple injections to the child in a single visit. Caregivers expressed a preference for a combination vaccine. No preference was reported among caregivers for the introduction of AIV to the 9-12 or 16-24 months touchpoints.
conclusionStakeholders' perspectives on introducing an additional injectable vaccine in a single visit under the UIP are diverse. These will be helpful in developing an effective strategy for the future introduction of AIV under UIP.
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.