ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Implementing mass dog rabies vaccination through a community-based continuous approach: A socio-anthropological process evaluation.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMass dog vaccination to control rabies usually involves centralized planning and team-led annual campaigns. We evaluated the implementation processes of a decentralized, community-based continuous approach to mass dog vaccination (CBC-MDV), delivered as an arm of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) across the Mara region, Tanzania. We employed the socio-anthropological framework to assess the implementation process of the CBC-MDV approach.
methodsWe embedded a mixed method process evaluation into the RCT and conducted in-depth interviews with district and village-level implementers, focus group discussions with ward-level implementers and community leaders and members, non-participant observation of the campaigns, and an audit of the vaccination campaign activities. We analyzed the resulting data following the five domains of the socio-anthropological framework.
findingsRefining the five domains, we report that 1) Environmental context affected CBC-MDV campaigns, which were interrupted by rainy and farming seasons, school schedules, market days and funerals, whilst village size and routes of access reduced their reach. 2) Social difference and pressures, and community involvement influenced delivery; cultural celebrations and social statuses of implementors hindered delivery, while by-laws and perceived rabies risk improved delivery. Community involvement facilitated implementation, but there was a need to strategically select who did what and how. 3) Strategies and incentives affected implementers, who were motivated by training and resources provided, and delivered 88% of components as planned. 4) Socio-materiality and resilience of intervention strategies and tools made it feasible to deploy the required equipment across a wide geographic scale, with adequate vaccination opportunities, but implementers found house-to-house and on-demand strategies demanding and less effective than central point delivery. 5) Governance also affected delivery with closer supervision by veterinary officials and community leaders, and co-reflexive appraisal of implementation with communities constrained by resource limitations.
conclusionsCBC-MDV with local storage of dog vaccine can be deployed across the rural landscape of Tanzania. Deeper involvement of communities in planning when and how campaigns are conducted, and in the appraisal of outcomes can significantly address barriers to dog-owner participation. The socio-anthropological framework provides a useful framing for understanding intervention delivery but not refinement for use cases.
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.