Cargando…

Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Immunisation is one of the most cost‐effective interventions to prevent and control life‐threatening infectious diseases. Nonetheless, rates of routine vaccination of children in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) are strikingly low or stagnant. In 2019, an estimated 19.7 million infants did n...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jain, Monica, Shisler, Shannon, Lane, Charlotte, Bagai, Avantika, Brown, Elizabeth, Engelbert, Mark, Vardy, Yoav, Eyers, John, Leon, Daniela Anda, Parsekar, Shradha S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9359116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36913200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1253
_version_ 1784764069719310336
author Jain, Monica
Shisler, Shannon
Lane, Charlotte
Bagai, Avantika
Brown, Elizabeth
Engelbert, Mark
Vardy, Yoav
Eyers, John
Leon, Daniela Anda
Parsekar, Shradha S.
author_facet Jain, Monica
Shisler, Shannon
Lane, Charlotte
Bagai, Avantika
Brown, Elizabeth
Engelbert, Mark
Vardy, Yoav
Eyers, John
Leon, Daniela Anda
Parsekar, Shradha S.
author_sort Jain, Monica
collection PubMed
description Immunisation is one of the most cost‐effective interventions to prevent and control life‐threatening infectious diseases. Nonetheless, rates of routine vaccination of children in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) are strikingly low or stagnant. In 2019, an estimated 19.7 million infants did not receive routine immunisations. Community engagement interventions are increasingly being emphasised in international and national policy frameworks as a means to improve immunisation coverage and reach marginalised communities. This systematic review examines the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of community engagement interventions on outcomes related to childhood immunisation in LMICs and identifies contextual, design and implementation features that may be associated with effectiveness. We identified 61 quantitative and mixed methods impact evaluations and 47 associated qualitative studies related to community engagement interventions for inclusion in the reteview. For cost‐effectiveness analysis 14 of the 61 studies had the needed combination of cost and effectiveness data. The 61 included impact evaluations were concentrated in South Asia and Sub‐Saharan Africa and spread across 19 LMICs. The review found that community engagement interventions had a small but significant, positive effect on all primary immunisation outcomes related to coverage and their timeliness. The findings are robust to exclusion of studies assessed as high risk of bias. Qualitative evidence indicates appropriate intervention design, including building in community engagement features; addressing common contextual barriers of immunisation and leveraging facilitators; and accounting for existing implementation constraints and practicalities on the ground are consistently cited as reasons for intervention success. Among the studies for which we were able to calculate cost‐effectiveness, we find that the median non‐vaccine cost per dose of intervention to increase immunisation coverage by 1% was US $3.68. Given the broad scope of the review in terms of interventions and outcomes, there is significant variation in findings. Among the various types of community engagement interventions, those that involve creation of community buy‐in or development of new cadres of community‐based structures were found to have consistent positive effect on more primary vaccination coverage outcomes than if the engagement is limited to the design or delivery of an intervention or is a combination of the various types. The evidence base for sub‐group analysis for female children was sparse (only two studies) and the effect on coverage of both full immunisation and third dose of diphtheria pertussis tetanus for this group was insignificant.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9359116
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93591162023-03-09 Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis Jain, Monica Shisler, Shannon Lane, Charlotte Bagai, Avantika Brown, Elizabeth Engelbert, Mark Vardy, Yoav Eyers, John Leon, Daniela Anda Parsekar, Shradha S. Campbell Syst Rev Systematic Review Immunisation is one of the most cost‐effective interventions to prevent and control life‐threatening infectious diseases. Nonetheless, rates of routine vaccination of children in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) are strikingly low or stagnant. In 2019, an estimated 19.7 million infants did not receive routine immunisations. Community engagement interventions are increasingly being emphasised in international and national policy frameworks as a means to improve immunisation coverage and reach marginalised communities. This systematic review examines the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of community engagement interventions on outcomes related to childhood immunisation in LMICs and identifies contextual, design and implementation features that may be associated with effectiveness. We identified 61 quantitative and mixed methods impact evaluations and 47 associated qualitative studies related to community engagement interventions for inclusion in the reteview. For cost‐effectiveness analysis 14 of the 61 studies had the needed combination of cost and effectiveness data. The 61 included impact evaluations were concentrated in South Asia and Sub‐Saharan Africa and spread across 19 LMICs. The review found that community engagement interventions had a small but significant, positive effect on all primary immunisation outcomes related to coverage and their timeliness. The findings are robust to exclusion of studies assessed as high risk of bias. Qualitative evidence indicates appropriate intervention design, including building in community engagement features; addressing common contextual barriers of immunisation and leveraging facilitators; and accounting for existing implementation constraints and practicalities on the ground are consistently cited as reasons for intervention success. Among the studies for which we were able to calculate cost‐effectiveness, we find that the median non‐vaccine cost per dose of intervention to increase immunisation coverage by 1% was US $3.68. Given the broad scope of the review in terms of interventions and outcomes, there is significant variation in findings. Among the various types of community engagement interventions, those that involve creation of community buy‐in or development of new cadres of community‐based structures were found to have consistent positive effect on more primary vaccination coverage outcomes than if the engagement is limited to the design or delivery of an intervention or is a combination of the various types. The evidence base for sub‐group analysis for female children was sparse (only two studies) and the effect on coverage of both full immunisation and third dose of diphtheria pertussis tetanus for this group was insignificant. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9359116/ /pubmed/36913200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1253 Text en © 2022 International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Jain, Monica
Shisler, Shannon
Lane, Charlotte
Bagai, Avantika
Brown, Elizabeth
Engelbert, Mark
Vardy, Yoav
Eyers, John
Leon, Daniela Anda
Parsekar, Shradha S.
Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9359116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36913200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1253
work_keys_str_mv AT jainmonica useofcommunityengagementinterventionstoimprovechildimmunisationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT shislershannon useofcommunityengagementinterventionstoimprovechildimmunisationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lanecharlotte useofcommunityengagementinterventionstoimprovechildimmunisationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bagaiavantika useofcommunityengagementinterventionstoimprovechildimmunisationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT brownelizabeth useofcommunityengagementinterventionstoimprovechildimmunisationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT engelbertmark useofcommunityengagementinterventionstoimprovechildimmunisationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT vardyyoav useofcommunityengagementinterventionstoimprovechildimmunisationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT eyersjohn useofcommunityengagementinterventionstoimprovechildimmunisationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT leondanielaanda useofcommunityengagementinterventionstoimprovechildimmunisationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT parsekarshradhas useofcommunityengagementinterventionstoimprovechildimmunisationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis