ArticlePloS one2025
Perception of healthcare administrators on the impediments of optimizing adverse events following immunization e-Reporting in Nigeria.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Complex chronic adverse events following immunization: a systemic critique and reform proposal for vaccine pharmacovigilance.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse events following immunization (AEFI) are any negative medical event that occurs after vaccination but may or may not be causally related to the vaccine. AEFI reporting is the gateway to AEFI surveillance systems at primary healthcare facilities where immunization services are provided. Several studies have highlighted low reporting of AEFI cases, particularly in low-resource settings, yet nothing is known about stakeholders' perspectives on the factors associated with the AEFI reporting rate in Nigeria.
objectiveThis study explored the stakeholders' perspectives (from a baseline assessment) on the barriers to adequately reporting (electronically) AEFI in Nigeria.
methodsThe study was conducted using a qualitative approach. Key informant interviews were conducted at the national and sub-national (state) levels, who were purposively selected to acquire information from stakeholders on the challenges facing the e-reporting of AEFI at the national and state levels. All the audio interview files were transcribed into English Language, coded, and presented using a thematic approach.
resultsA total of 32 healthcare workers at the national and sub-national levels participated in the study. The study adapted an extant pharmacovigilance thematized framework of reporting the barriers to electronic reporting of the pharmacovigilance system. Therefore, this study categorized the participants' responses into four main themes, including healthcare workers' knowledge deficiency and fear, technical infrastructural challenges, poor reporting systems, and inconsistency in government commitment.
conclusionThis study concludes that the AEFI surveillance system in Nigeria requires immediate and thorough attention. This stems from evidence gathered from the study participants, revealing the various challenges that are extant at the national and sub-national levels. While these challenges - healthcare workers' knowledge deficiency and fear, poor technical infrastructure, poor reporting system, and inconsistency in government commitment - may appear mundane, they are critical to optimizing the AEFI surveillance system and maintaining the drive for an improved disease management system. RECOMMENDATION: This study recommends that stakeholders at all levels should take up improved ownership of AEFI reporting (especially electronic) systems in the country.
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.