Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42030229›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2026

Community engagement for vaccine delivery in low- and middle-income countries and humanitarian settings: A scoping umbrella review.

Jonathan A Polonsky, Rose Burns, Alex Odlum, Yashua Alkali Hamza, Yohannes Mulugeta, Sharon Abramowitz, Luisa Enria, Karl Blanchet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  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

8 authors.

Jonathan A PolonskyGeneva Centre of Humanitarian Studies, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8634-4255
Rose BurnsLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4135-2403
Alex OdlumGeneva Centre of Humanitarian Studies, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9281-9835
Yashua Alkali HamzaChildcare and Wellness Clinics, Abuja, Nigeria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6637-1910
Yohannes MulugetaHaramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.
Sharon AbramowitzGeorgetown University, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3671-8842
Luisa EnriaLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Karl BlanchetGeneva Centre of Humanitarian Studies, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination is a critical public health intervention in humanitarian and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, where populations face heightened risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Community Engagement (CE) offers a pathway to address challenges related to local ownership, trust, and acceptance, yet its effectiveness in these contexts remain underexplored. We conducted an umbrella scoping review of published reviews to synthesise evidence on the role of CE in vaccination delivery in humanitarian and LMIC contexts. Reviews were identified through searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar, screened in Covidence, and appraised using the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) criteria. Data were mapped against the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) CE Impact Framework. Of 303 deduplicated studies, 39 met inclusion criteria. Most focused on routine childhood vaccines. CE activities were widespread, typically involving community participation, two-way communication, capacity strengthening, and feedback mechanisms. CE interventions were consistently associated with improved vaccine uptake, reduced hesitancy, and enhanced trust. Effective strategies included co-management of campaigns, engagement of religious and community leaders, culturally tailored communication, and school- or home-based delivery supported by trusted local figures. Multi-component interventions combining education, outreach, and digital tools were particularly effective. However, considerable variability existed in how CE was defined and operationalised across studies. CE should be recognised as a core pillar of vaccination strategy rather than an optional addition. It builds trust, fosters ownership, and addressed sociocultural barriers to access. Tailored, multi-component approaches leveraging trusted community figures are especially promising. Definitional ambiguity and inconsistent evaluation frameworks currently limit understanding of what works, for whom, and in what context. Future research should prioritise standardising CE definitions, developing context-sensitive theories of change, and strengthening methods for evaluating CE's contribution to vaccine coverage and equity.

Identifiers

PMID42030229
PMCPMC13108762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.