Dataset Information

"Communicate to vaccinate": the development of a taxonomy of communication interventions to improve routine childhood vaccination.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vaccination is a cost-effective public health measure and is central to the Millennium Development Goal of reducing child mortality. However, childhood vaccination coverage remains sub-optimal in many settings. While communication is a key feature of vaccination programmes, we are not aware of any comprehensive approach to organising the broad range of communication interventions that can be delivered to parents and communities to improve vaccination coverage. Developing a classification system (taxonomy) organised into conceptually similar categories will aid in: understanding the relationships between different types of communication interventions; facilitating conceptual mapping of these interventions; clarifying the key purposes and features of interventions to aid implementation and evaluation; and identifying areas where evidence is strong and where there are gaps. This paper reports on the development of the 'Communicate to vaccinate' taxonomy.

Methods

The taxonomy was developed in two stages. Stage 1 included: 1) forming an advisory group; 2) searching for descriptions of interventions in trials (CENTRAL database) and general health literature (Medline); 3) developing a sampling strategy; 4) screening the search results; 5) developing a data extraction form; and 6) extracting intervention data. Stage 2 included: 1) grouping the interventions according to purpose; 2) holding deliberative forums in English and French with key vaccination stakeholders to gather feedback; 3) conducting a targeted search of grey literature to supplement the taxonomy; 4) finalising the taxonomy based on the input provided.

Results

The taxonomy includes seven main categories of communication interventions: inform or educate, remind or recall, teach skills, provide support, facilitate decision making, enable communication and enhance community ownership. These categories are broken down into 43 intervention types across three target groups: parents or soon-to-be-parents; communities, community members or volunteers; and health care providers.

Conclusions

Our taxonomy illuminates and organises this field and identifies the range of available communication interventions to increase routine childhood vaccination uptake. We have utilised a variety of data sources, capturing information from rigorous evaluations such as randomised trials as well as experiences and knowledge of practitioners and vaccination stakeholders. The taxonomy reflects current public health practice and can guide the future development of vaccination programmes.

SUBMITTER: Willis N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3655915 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommunication can be used to generate demand for vaccination or address vaccine hesitancy, and is crucial to successful childhood vaccination programmes. Research efforts have primarily focused on communication for routine vaccination. However, vaccination campaigns, particularly in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs), also use communication in diverse ways. Without a comprehensive framework integrating communication interventions from routine and campaign contexts, it is not possible to conceptualise the full range of possible vaccination communication interventions. Therefore, vaccine programme managers may be unaware of potential communication options and researchers may not focus on building evidence for interventions used in practice. In this paper, we broaden the scope of our existing taxonomy of communication interventions for routine vaccination to include communication used in campaigns, and integrate these into a comprehensive taxonomy of vaccination communication interventions.MethodsBuilding on our taxonomy of communication for routine vaccination, we identified communication interventions used in vaccination campaigns through a targeted literature search; observation of vaccination activities in Cameroon, Mozambique and Nigeria; and stakeholder consultations. We added these interventions to descriptions of routine vaccination communication and categorised the interventions according to their intended purposes, building from an earlier taxonomy of communication related to routine vaccination.ResultsThe comprehensive taxonomy groups communication used in campaigns and routine childhood vaccination into seven purpose categories: 'Inform or Educate'; 'Remind or Recall'; 'Enhance Community Ownership'; 'Teach Skills'; 'Provide Support'; 'Facilitate Decision Making' and 'Enable Communication'. Consultations with LMIC stakeholders and experts informed the taxonomy's definitions and structure and established its potential uses.ConclusionsThis taxonomy provides a standardised way to think and speak about vaccination communication. It is categorised by purpose to help conceptualise communication interventions as potential solutions to address needs or problems. It can be utilised by programme planners, implementers, researchers and funders to see the range of communication interventions used in practice, facilitate evidence synthesis and identify evidence gaps.

Project description:BackgroundImproved communication about childhood vaccination is fundamental to increasing vaccine uptake in low-income countries. Mozambique, with 64% of children fully vaccinated, uses a range of communication interventions to promote uptake of childhood immunisation.ObjectivesUsing a taxonomy developed by the 'Communicate to Vaccinate' (COMMVAC) project, the study aims to identify and classify the existing communication interventions for vaccination in Mozambique and to find the gaps.MethodsWe used a qualitative research approach to identify the range of communication interventions used in Mozambique. In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with key purposively selected personnel at national level and relevant documents were collected and analysed. These data were complemented with observations of communication during routine vaccination and campaigns in Nampula province. We used the COMMVAC taxonomy, which organises vaccination communication intervention according to its intended purpose and the population targeted, to map both routine and campaign interventions.ResultsWe identified interventions used in campaign and routine vaccination, or in both, fitting five of the seven taxonomy purposes, with informing or educating community members predominating. We did not identify any interventions that aimed to provide support or facilitate decision-making. There were interventions for all main target groups, although fewer for health providers. Overlap occurred: for example, interventions often targeted both parents and community members.ConclusionsWe consider that the predominant focus on informing and educating community members is appropriate in the Mozambican context, where there is a high level of illiteracy and poor knowledge of the reasons for vaccination. We recommend increasing interventions for health providers, in particular training them in better communication for vaccination. The taxonomy was useful for identifying gaps, but needs to be more user-friendly if it is to be employed as a tool by health service managers.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the advances in vaccination, there are still several challenges in reaching millions of children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this review, we present an extensive summary of the various strategies used for improving routine immunization in LMICs to aid program implementers in designing vaccination interventions.MethodsExperimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations conducted in LMICs evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in improving routine immunization of children aged 0-5 years or the intermediate outcomes were included from 3ie's review of systematic reviews. Some additional impact evaluation studies published in recent years in select LMICs with large number of unvaccinated children were also included. Studies were coded to identify interventions and the barriers in the study context using the intervention framework developed in 3ie's Evidence Gap Map and the WHO's Behavioral and Social Drivers (BeSD) of vaccination framework, respectively. Qualitative analysis of the content was conducted to analyze the intervention strategies and the vaccination barriers that they addressed.Results and conclusionOne hundred and forty-two impact evaluations were included to summarize the interventions. To address attitudinal and knowledge related barriers to vaccination and to motivate caregivers, sensitization and educational programs, media campaigns, and monetary or non-monetary incentives to caregivers, that may or may not be conditional upon certain health behaviors, have been used across contexts. To improve knowledge of vaccination, its place, time, and schedule, automated voice messages and written or pictorial messages have been used as standalone or multicomponent strategies. Interventions used to improve service quality included training and education of health workers and providing monetary or non-monetary perks to them or sending reminders to them on different aspects of provision of vaccination services. Interventions like effective planning or outreach activities, follow-up of children, tracking of children that have missed vaccinations, pay-for-performance schemes and health system strengthening have also been used to improve service access and quality. Interventions aimed at mobilizing and collaborating with the community to impact social norms, attitudes, and empower communities to make health decisions have also been widely implemented.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and analyse the interventions delivered opportunistically in secondary or tertiary medical settings, focused on improving routine vaccination uptake in children and young people.DesignScoping review.Search strategyWe searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies in English published between 1989 and 2021 detailing interventions delivered in secondary or tertiary care that aimed to improve childhood vaccination coverage. Title, abstract and full-text screening were performed by two independent reviewers.ResultsAfter deduplication, the search returned 3456 titles. Following screening and discussion between reviewers, 53 studies were included in the review. Most papers were single-centre studies from high-income countries and varied considerably in terms of their study design, population, target vaccination, clinical setting and intervention delivered. To present and analyse the study findings, and to depict the complexity of vaccination interventions in hospital settings, findings were presented and described as a sequential pathway to opportunistic vaccination in secondary and tertiary care comprising the following stages: (1) identify patients eligible for vaccination; (2) take consent and offer immunisations; (3) order/prescribe vaccine; (4) dispense vaccine; (5) administer vaccine; (6) communicate with primary care; and (7) ongoing benefits of vaccination.ConclusionsMost published studies report improved vaccination coverage associated with opportunistic vaccination interventions in secondary and tertiary care. Children attending hospital appear to have lower baseline vaccination coverage and are likely to benefit from vaccination interventions in these settings. Checking immunisation status is challenging, however, and electronic immunisation registers are required to enable this to be done quickly and accurately in hospital settings. Further research is required in this area, particularly multicentre studies and cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions need to be developed prior to the feasibility and piloting phase of a study. There are a variety of published approaches to developing interventions, programmes or innovations to improve health. Identifying different types of approach, and synthesising the range of actions taken within this endeavour, can inform future intervention development.MethodsThis study is a systematic methods overview of approaches to intervention development. Approaches were considered for inclusion if they described how to develop or adapt an intervention in a book, website or journal article published after 2007, or were cited in a primary research study reporting the development of a specific intervention published in 2015 or 2016. Approaches were read, a taxonomy of approaches was developed and the range of actions taken across different approaches were synthesised.ResultsEight categories of approach to intervention development were identified. (1) Partnership, where people who will use the intervention participate equally with the research team in decision-making about the intervention throughout the development process. (2) Target population-centred, where the intervention is based on the views and actions of the people who will use it. (3) Evidence and theory-based, where the intervention is based on published research evidence and existing theories. (4) Implementation-based, where the intervention is developed with attention to ensuring it will be used in the real world. (5) Efficiency-based, where components of an intervention are tested using experimental designs to select components which will optimise efficiency. (6) Stepped or phased, where interventions are developed with an emphasis on following a systematic set of processes. (7) Intervention-specific, where an approach is constructed for a specific type of intervention. (8) Combination, where existing approaches to intervention development are formally combined. The actions from approaches in all eight categories were synthesised to identify 18 actions to consider when developing interventions.ConclusionsThis overview of approaches to intervention development can help researchers to understand the variety of existing approaches, and to understand the range of possible actions involved in intervention development, prior to assessing feasibility or piloting the intervention. Findings from this overview will contribute to future guidance on intervention development.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017080553.

Project description:BackgroundBy mid 2023, European countries reached 75% of vaccine coverage for COVID-19 and although vaccination rates are quite high, many people are still hesitant. A plethora of studies have investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, however, insufficient attention has been paid to the reasons why people get vaccinated against COVID-19. Our work aims to investigate the role of reasons in the decision to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in a representative sample of 1,689 adult Italians (March-April 2021) balanced in terms of age, gender, educational level and area of residence.MethodsThrough an online questionnaire, we asked participants to freely report up to three reasons for and against COVID-19 vaccination, and the weight each had in the decision to get vaccinated. We first investigated the role of emotional competence and COVID-19 risk perception in the generation of both reasons using regression models. Next, we studied the role that the different reasons had in the vaccination decision, considering both the intention to vaccinate (using a beta regression model) and the decision made by the participants who already had the opportunity to get vaccinated (using a logistic regression model). Finally, two different classification tree analyses were carried out to characterize profiles with a low or high willingness to get vaccinated or with a low or high probability to accept/book the vaccine.ResultsHigh emotional competence positively influences the generation of both reasons (ORs > 1.5), whereas high risk perception increases the generation of positive reasons (ORs > 1.4) while decreasing reasons against vaccination (OR = 0.64). As pro-reasons increase, vaccination acceptance increases, while the opposite happens as against-reasons increase (all p < 0.001). One strong reason in favor of vaccines is enough to unbalance the decision toward acceptance of vaccination, even when reasons against it are also present (p < 0.001). Protection and absence of distrust are the reasons that mostly drive willingness to be vaccinated and acceptance of an offered vaccine.ConclusionsKnowing the reasons that drive people's decision about such an important choice can suggest new communication insights to reduce possible negative reactions toward vaccination and people's hesitancy. Results are discussed considering results of other national and international studies.