Interventions designed to improve vaccination uptake: Scoping review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses - (version 1)

Author:

Heneghan CJORCID,Plüddemann AORCID,Spencer EAORCID,Brassey J,Rosca ECORCID,Onakpoya IJORCID,Evans DH,Conly JMORCID,Jefferson TORCID

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackgroundResources to ensure high vaccination uptake differ widely across countries, but the best use of these precious resources is unclear. To better meet immunization programmes’ a pressing need to understand what works, particularly in low-resource settings, the World Health Organization commissioned a scoping view.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of interventions designed to increase vaccination uptake, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventional studies. We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Google Scholar, LILACs and TRIP database until 01 July 2021 and hand-searched the reference lists of included articles. We included systematic reviews if they summarized studies with quantitative data on the impact on vaccine uptake for any age group. To assess review quality, we used a modified AMSTAR score. To evaluate the quality of the evidence in included reviews, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).ResultsThe final analysis set included 107 full-text reviews. Publication of reviews increased markedly over time, from seven reviews in 2010 to 38 reviews filtered in 2021. We conducted quality assessments for 72 reviews (132 outcomes). Based on the AMSTAR criteria, 40 included reviews (56%) received a quality rating of good, while the remaining 32 (44%) were of moderate quality. Only 13 reviews summarized data primarily for low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The interventions were commonly multi-component, educational or reminder interventions; the description of intervention components was suboptimal and heterogeneous across most reviews. Effect estimates were available for 73 outcomes; in 52 (71%) of these, interventions led to statistically significant higher vaccine uptake compared with controls.ConclusionsThe literature has a large number of relevant systematic reviews on interventions to increase vaccine uptake, with an increased publication rate over time. However, problems with the definitions and the current reporting of vaccine uptake evidence make it difficult to determine what works best in low-resource settings.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Reference12 articles.

1. Development of tools to measure behavioural and social drivers (BeSD) of vaccination PROGRESS REPORT https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/immunization/besd_progress_report_june2020.pdf?sfvrsn=10a67e75_3 Accessed 18 August, 2021

2. Immunization: vital progress, unfinished agenda

3. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

4. An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and meta-analyses

5. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews;CMAJ,1997

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3