SynthesisNIHR open research2025
To what extent are vulnerability issues included and addressed in Kenya's health and immunization policy documents? A systematic review of documents.
Synthesis in NIHR open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Globally, childhood immunization is one of the most important public health interventions contributing to a significant reduction in childhood mortality and morbidity. This achievement has been made possible by several concerted efforts at the international and national levels. However, challenges persist, including disparities in vaccine coverage, consequently increasing vaccine vulnerability. This review aimed to examine how vulnerability issues are framed and addressed in Kenya's health sector and immunization policy documents. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines guided the review process. Policy documents were retrieved from online searches, searching through the reference list of retrieved documents and requesting relevant documents from stakeholders. To select documents, we screened the titles and executive summaries of documents guided by the exclusion and inclusion criteria. Data was extracted using a data extraction template prepared in Excel, capturing the general information about the documents and the specific information about vulnerability. The extracted data was then organized thematically to address the review objectives. Results: Twenty-one documents were included for final review. Of these, four were immunization programme documents, 15 were documents that cut across the entire health sector and two were legislative documents. Across the documents, different vulnerable groups were outlined. We developed four typologies of vulnerability from the groups listed in the documents, namely: vulnerability as socio-economic condition; vulnerability as biological and health condition; and vulnerability as a physical location. Some of the strategies proposed in the documents to address vulnerability issues included, adopting a rights-based approach to service provision, removing financial barriers and conducting immunization outreach activities. Conclusion: Future policy development should recognize the overlapping and intersecting nature of vulnerability factors and develop comprehensive and flexible approaches to address various forms of vulnerability.
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.