Use of cellular phone contacts to increase return rates for immunization services in Kenya

Behavioral interventions for vaccination uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Human behavior and more specifically behavioral insight-based approaches to vaccine uptake have often been overlooked. While there have been a few narrative reviews indexed in Medline on behavioral interventions to increase vaccine uptake, to our knowledge, none have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering not just high but also low-and-middle income countries.

METHODS

We included 613 studies from the Medline database in our systematic review and meta-analysis categorizing different behavioral interventions in 9 domains: education campaigns, on-site vaccination, incentives, free vaccination, institutional recommendation, provider recommendation, reminder and recall, message framing, and vaccine champion. Additionally, considering that there is variability in the acceptance of vaccines among different populations, we assessed studies from both high-income countries (HICs) and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), separately.

FINDINGS

Our results showed that behavioral interventions can considerably improve vaccine uptake in most settings. All domains that we examined improved vaccine uptake with the highest effect size associated with provider recommendation (OR: 3.4 (95%CI: 2.5-4.6); Domain: motivation) and on-site vaccination (OR: 2.9 (95%CI: 2.3-3.7); Domain: practical issues). While the number of studies conducted in LMICs was smaller, the quality of studies was similar with those conducted in HICs. Nevertheless, there were variations in the observed effect sizes.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate that "provider recommendation" and "on-site vaccination" along with other behavioral interventions can be employed to increase vaccination rates globally.

The influence of linkages, feedback mechanisms, and caregiver mobility on immunization follow-up visits in Lideta sub-city of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a qualitative study

Background

Losing children to follow-up is one of the major barriers identified in Ethiopia’s immunization programme. In many urban slum areas like Lideta sub-city, Addis Ababa, several demand- and supply-side factors affect the follow-up visits for routine immunization services, so this study aimed to explore the influence of linkages, a feedback mechanism, and caregiver mobility on immunization follow-up visits.

Methods

The study team employed a qualitative method and conducted 30 in-depth interviews with caregivers, 26 interviews with key informants, and five focus group discussions with health officials and decision-makers. A deductive content and thematic analysis was carried out by importing the transcripts into OpenCodes, applying the a priori codes, and identifying new codes and themes.

Results

The linkages among health facilities included those from hospitals to health centres, from hospitals to hospitals, and from health centres to health centres within and outside the sub-city. Using these linkages, most vaccinators transfer caregivers without providing multi-dose vial (MDV) vaccines, mainly bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG) and measles-containing vaccines (MCV), “to minimize wastage” and thus successfully reduce vaccine wastage rates; yet most caregivers wasted their time, energy, and money travelling from one health facility to another. Despite some efforts to transfer caregivers using “transferal slips” and informal phone calls to vaccinators’ friends, unfortunately, there was no formally established system for obtaining feedback about the arrival of caregivers and continuation of the follow-up visits. Overall, the transfer process lacked uniformity, used various approaches, and was not systematic.

Conclusions

Transferal of caregivers for the sake of minimizing wastage of MDV vaccines without checking the vaccination schedules of the receiving health facilities, using various informal types of tools and approaches, along with a poor follow-up and feedback system, were major identified challenges which cost caregivers extra money, energy, and time in getting timely immunization services. Therefore, the Federal Ministry of Health should strengthen the linkages among facilities, ensure the establishment of formal communications by developing guidelines and standardized tools – transferal slips and approaches – and initiate a fast feedback provision system using SMS text messages.

Systematic review of the costs for vaccinators to reach vaccination sites: Incremental costs of reaching hard-to-reach populations

INTRODUCTION

Economic evidence on how much it may cost for vaccinators to reach populations is important to plan vaccination programs. Moreover, knowing the incremental costs to reach populations that have traditionally been undervaccinated, especially those hard-to-reach who are facing supply-side barriers to vaccination, is essential to expanding immunization coverage to these populations.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify estimates of costs associated with getting vaccinators to all vaccination sites. We searched PubMed and the Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue (IDCC) in 2019 for the following costs to vaccinators: (1) training costs; (2) labor costs, per diems, and incentives; (3) identification of vaccine beneficiary location; and (4) travel costs. We assessed if any of these costs were specific to populations that are hard-to-reach for vaccination, based on a framework for examining supply-side barriers to vaccination.

RESULTS

We found 19 studies describing average vaccinator training costs at $0.67/person vaccinated or targeted (SD $0.94) and $0.10/dose delivered (SD $0.07). The average cost for vaccinator labor and incentive costs across 29 studies was $2.15/dose (SD $2.08). We identified 13 studies describing intervention costs for a vaccinator to know the location of a beneficiary, with an average cost of $19.69/person (SD $26.65), and six studies describing vaccinator travel costs, with an average cost of $0.07/dose (SD $0.03). Only eight of these studies described hard-to-reach populations for vaccination; two studies examined incremental costs per dose to reach hard-to-reach populations, which were 1.3-2 times higher than the regular costs. The incremental cost to train vaccinators was $0.02/dose, and incremental labor costs for targeting hard-to-reach populations were $0.16-$1.17/dose.

CONCLUSION

Additional comparative costing studies are needed to understand the potential differential costs for vaccinators reaching the vaccination sites that serve hard-to-reach populations. This will help immunization program planners and decision-makers better allocate resources to extend vaccination programs.

Promoting, seeking, and reaching vaccination services: A systematic review of costs to immunization programs, beneficiaries, and caregivers

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the costs to increase vaccination demand among under-vaccinated populations, as well as costs incurred by beneficiaries and caregivers for reaching vaccination sites, is essential to improving vaccination coverage. However, there have not been systematic analyses documenting such costs for beneficiaries and caregivers seeking vaccination.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue (IDCC) in 2019 for the costs for beneficiaries and caregivers to 1) seek and know how to access vaccination (i.e., costs to immunization programs for social mobilization and interventions to increase vaccination demand), 2) take time off from work, chores, or school for vaccination (i.e., productivity costs), and 3) travel to vaccination sites. We assessed if these costs were specific to populations that faced other non-cost barriers, based on a framework for defining hard-to-reach and hard-to-vaccinate populations for vaccination.

RESULTS

We found 57 studies describing information, education, and communication (IEC) costs, social mobilization costs, and the costs of interventions to increase vaccination demand, with mean costs per dose at $0.41 (standard deviation (SD) $0.83), $18.86 (SD $50.65) and $28.23 (SD $76.09) in low-, middle-, and high-income countries, respectively. Five studies described productivity losses incurred by beneficiaries and caregivers seeking vaccination ($38.33 per person; SD $14.72; n = 3). We identified six studies on travel costs incurred by beneficiaries and caregivers attending vaccination sites ($11.25 per person; SD $9.54; n = 4). Two studies reported social mobilization costs per dose specific to hard-to-reach populations, which were 2-3.5 times higher than costs for the general population. Eight studies described barriers to vaccination among hard-to-reach populations.

CONCLUSION

Social mobilization/IEC costs are well-characterized, but evidence is limited on costs incurred by beneficiaries and caregivers getting to vaccination sites. Understanding the potential incremental costs for populations facing barriers to reach vaccination sites is essential to improving vaccine program financing and planning.

Mobile Telephone Follow-Up to Ascertain Birth Outcomes in The Gambia

Introduction: In the past decade, mobile telephone use has surged in sub-Saharan Africa, creating new opportunities in health care. Mobile telephone interventions have been used in controlled trials to improve perinatal care, but in this first cohort study of birth outcomes from The Gambia, we report the value of mobile telephone follow-up. Methods: Between December 2012 and November 2015, 1,611 women entered the cohort at their first antenatal visit to be followed through pregnancy and beyond. Potential risk factors for adverse birth outcomes were measured throughout the pregnancy. As many women left the health center within a few hours of delivery, delivered elsewhere, or failed to attend the postnatal clinics, mobile telephone follow-up was used to identify stillbirths and neonatal deaths at 7 and 28 days. Results: The immediate birth outcome was known for 968 women who delivered at the health center (60.1%). The known outcomes at birth improved from 60.1% to 85.2% following telephone calls to women who delivered elsewhere. The known outcomes at 7 days improved from 43.6% to 82.5%, and the known outcomes at 28 days improved from 32.8% to 71.5% following a telephone call. Conclusions: Previous cohort studies of birth outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa have not followed the mothers and babies after leaving the birth facility. This cohort is the first to record birth outcomes up to 28 days after the birth. Mobile telephone communications have made an invaluable contribution in intervention studies. This study has shown that mobile telephone follow-up is also an important tool in an observational study.