ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2026
Evaluation of an innovative model for leadership and management development among national immunization program teams.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Investments in leadership and management are essential to the achievement of Gavi's global immunization goals. The onset of COVID-19 created obstacles for management interventions that relied on travel, convenings, or in-person coaching. Evidence-based adaptations were required to continue strengthening the leadership and management of national immunization programmes in times of rapid change. To understand the feasibility, acceptability, impact, and cost of innovative models of leadership and management development, we sought to evaluate the COVID-adapted Expanded Programme on Immunization Leadership and Management Programme (EPI LAMP). Study Design: Consistent with the Kirkpatrick model for training program evaluation, we used a mixed-methods longitudinal evaluation. Methods: We used program administration data, repeated delegate surveys, and exit interviews to describe EPI LAMP at three levels: engagement (participation and satisfaction), learning (change in competencies), and impact (application of new competencies in the workplace). We also assessed the financial and environmental costs of the program. Results: The adapted programme engaged 11 countries and achieved a 94% graduation rate. 100% of delegates would recommend EPI LAMP to their peers and over 90% of delegates agreed the course met the learning objectives. Delegates demonstrated significant improvements in management and leadership competencies, and breakthrough projects improved immunization programme performance. The adapted model delivered much lower financial cost and environmental impact compared to the traditional model. Conclusion: The adapted EPI LAMP model may be a superior approach to leadership development in LMIC settings, even as pandemic-related restrictions recede.
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.