Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40588295›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2025

Incentives in immunisation campaigns in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review mapping evidence on effectiveness and unintended consequences.

Matthew J Saunders, Monique Pereboom, Jose Luis Alvarez, Mark Sherlock, Kartini Gadroen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Matthew J SaundersMédecins Sans Frontières, London, UK msaunder@sgul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3033-2367
Monique PereboomMédecins Sans Frontières, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jose Luis AlvarezMédecins Sans Frontières, London, UK.
Mark SherlockMédecins Sans Frontières, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Kartini GadroenMédecins Sans Frontières, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionVarious incentive programmes are being used to improve immunisation uptake, despite limited understanding of their effectiveness and potential unintended consequences. We conducted a scoping review to map and synthesise evidence on their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), compare experiences across regions and incentive types, and identify unintended consequences and implementation challenges.

methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE and grey literature for studies published between 2000 and 2024 investigating incentives in immunisation campaigns in LMIC. We included quantitative and qualitative studies investigating monetary or non-monetary incentives provided conditionally or unconditionally on immunisation uptake. Data were synthesised narratively to summarise evidence on effectiveness, perceptions and attitudes and unintended consequences.

resultsWe included 40 studies from 19 countries (20 from Africa, 13 from Asia and seven from Latin America). Of these, 31 evaluated effectiveness through randomised trials (n=17) or quasi-experimental designs (n=14). Most evaluated monetary incentives for childhood immunisations, particularly conditional cash transfers, while some examined non-monetary incentives including food, mobile phone credit and symbolic rewards. While effect sizes varied substantially across different interventions and contexts, most studies demonstrated modest positive short-term effects on immunisation uptake, and no studies showed decreased uptake. However, several revealed unintended consequences, including reduced intrinsic motivation manifesting as lower immunisation uptake when incentives were withdrawn, creation of payment expectations and implementation challenges affecting acceptability. Several studies highlighted how incentive programmes could undermine community volunteerism and trust in both immunisation and health services, particularly when poorly implemented or withdrawn.

conclusionsWhile incentives can improve short-term immunisation uptake in LMIC, their effects vary by context, and they can have negative unintended consequences which need to be taken into consideration in programme design. Future programmes should be co-designed with communities, consider locally acceptable non-monetary alternatives, incorporate strategies to maintain intrinsic motivation and ensure sustainable implementation within existing health systems.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesImmunization ProgramsMotivationHumansProgram EvaluationReviewVaccines

Identifiers

PMID40588295
PMCPMC12211823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.