ArticleMalaria journal2025
Recommendations to mitigate barriers to uptake and delivery of a four-dose malaria vaccine schedule: insights from the MVIP's qualitative evidence.
Article in Malaria journal, 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.
- Subnational introduction of the RTS,S/AS01Malaria journal · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalaria vaccination was piloted in selected areas of three countries to produce evidence that would inform global recommendations on the public health use of the RTS,S/AS01
methodsThis paper draws on published qualitative data from the three pilot countries and unpublished expert analysis. It draws on findings previously reported in publications from a qualitative longitudinal study, the Healthcare Utilization Study (HUS), conducted in a subsample of communities where RTS,S was introduced during the pilots. The study elicited perceptions from caregivers of eligible children about the vaccine alongside other relevant topics, such as their use of vaccination services. Interviews with health workers focused on their evolving perceptions about the vaccine and experiences integrating its delivery into routine immunization. Technical experts involved in the vaccine pilot and implementation managers from the pilot countries provided insights from their experiences. This feedback helped validate both the findings and the potential practicality of recommendations for scaling up delivery.
resultsDespite good acceptance of the vaccine, many children missed some or all doses due to overlapping challenges to acceptance and delivery of the four-dose schedule. Highlighting the barriers to uptake, the paper discusses guidance, tools, and materials that may help programme staff develop strategies, plans, and materials, including strategies to address the complexity of the schedule and to track four doses for individual children.
conclusionsAdding a four-dose vaccine to a crowded routine immunization schedule presents challenges, as seen during the pilots. The malaria vaccine experience and several studies have provided guidance and tools to support malaria vaccine expansion in the three countries and introduction of the vaccine elsewhere. The observations and recommendations in this paper are intended as a complement to the wide range of materials, guidance and tools already available.
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.