Dataset Information

Designing an SMS reminder intervention to improve vaccination uptake in Northern Nigeria: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Penta3 coverage in Nigeria was low at 33 % in 2017. The most reported reason for non-vaccination was lack of knowledge about the immunization place, time, and need. To address knowledge gaps and improve vaccination uptake, we designed an Immunization Reminder and Information SMS System (IRISS) to educate and remind parents/caregivers about immunization using SMS. A formative study was conducted to understand the contextual and behavioural factors that would inform the IRISS intervention design and implementation.

Methods

We conducted the study in four Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Kebbi State Nigeria in October 2018, amongst a diverse selection of participants. Data on social norms about vaccinations, barriers to immunization uptake, mobile phone use, SMS message testing, and willingness to accept SMS reminders were collected from focus group discussions (N = 11), in-depth interviews (N = 12), and key informant interviews (N = 13). In addition, we assessed 33 messages covering schedule reminders, normative, motivational, educational, and informative contents for clarity, comprehensibility, relevance, cultural appropriateness, and ability to motivate action among community members from Argungu and Fakai LGAs. All interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

Results

We interviewed 135 people, and 90 % were community members. While we found positive perceptions about immunizations among those interviewed, pockets of misconceptions existed among community members. Lack of awareness on the importance of vaccination was a consistent reason for under-vaccination across the LGAs. In addition, most community members do not own phones, could not read SMS messages, and were unaware of how to check/open text messages received. Despite concerns about low literacy levels and phone ownership, community members still saw a role in SMS reminders when phone owners receive messages. For instance, community leaders can disseminate said messages to community members through existing channels such as town announcers and religious gatherings. Therefore, the SMS becomes a source of information, with phone owners acting as a conduit to community dissemination mechanisms. We generally found the tested messages to be relevant, motivating, and culturally acceptable.

Conclusions

SMS reminders have the potential to bridge the information gap in community awareness for vaccination, which can translate to improved immunization uptake. In rural communities with low literacy levels and phone ownership, immunization information can be disseminated when existing community leadership structures are engaged.

SUBMITTER: Obi-Jeff C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8379866 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundShort Message Service (SMS) reminders have improved vaccine uptake in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the limited use of SMS reminders in LMICs requires evaluating the intervention's internal and external validity to improve adoption and sustainability. Using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, we qualitatively assessed the impact of a SMS reminder intervention implemented in Kebbi State, Northwest Nigeria between May 20, 2019 and May 31, 2020. This will guide and inform future SMS reminder interventions to improve childhood immunization uptake in LMICs.MethodsIn June 2020, we conducted 14 focus group discussions, 13 in-depth interviews, and 20 key informant interviews among 144 purposively selected participants from five local government areas of Kebbi State. For analysis, we used a deductive approach to develop preliminary codes based on the RE-AIM framework and the inductive approach to generate themes that emerged from the interviews.ResultsThe perceived importance and impact of the SMS reminder in improving demand and uptake for vaccinations were the consistent contributing factors that encouraged participants' participation. Other facilitators included the involvement of health workers in supporting SMS reminder registration and community gatekeepers using existing structures to convey messages on scheduled immunization services. Policymakers adopted the intervention because it aligns with the state's priority to improve immunization coverage. Similarly, the SMS reminder appealed to health workers and program managers because it reduced their workload and served as a performance monitoring tool to track immunization and intervention defaulters. Despite these, low mobile phone ownership and the inability to read text messages due to the low literacy level were the main barriers during implementation. Finally, data availability on cost-effectiveness and the intervention's impact on improving coverage was critical for scalability.ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that SMS reminders in local languages could improve vaccination demand and uptake in resource-constrained settings due to their perceived importance and impact. Addressing the cited implementation barriers and promoting the facilitators is critical to its adoption and sustainability. Costing and impact data are needed to collaborate findings on the effectiveness of the SMS reminder to improve childhood vaccination uptake.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The NHS Health Check (NHS HC) is a cardiovascular risk assessment to prevent cardiovascular disease. Public Health England (PHE) wants to increase uptake. METHODS:We explored the impact of behaviourally informed invitation letters and pre-notification and reminder SMS on uptake of NHS HCs. Patients at 28 General Practices in the London Borough of Southwark who were eligible to receive an NHS HC between 1st November 2013 and 31st December 2014 were included. A double-blind randomised controlled trial with a mixed 2 (pre-notification SMS - yes or no) × 4 (letter - national template control, open-ended, time-limited, social norm) × 2 (reminder SMS - yes or no) factorial design was used. The open-ended letter used simplification, behavioural instruction and a personalised planning prompt for patients to record the date and time of their NHS HC. The time-limited letter was similar but stated the NHS HC was due in a named forthcoming month. The social norms letter was similar to the open-ended letter but included a descriptive social norms message and testimonials from local residents and no planning prompt. The outcome measure was attendance at an NHS HC. RESULTS:Data for 12, 244 invites were analysed. Uptake increased in almost all letter and SMS combinations compared to the control letter without SMS (Uptake 18%), with increases of up to 12 percentage points for the time-limited letter with pre-notification and reminder (Uptake 30%; Adjusted Odds Ratio AOR 1.86; 95% CI 1.45-2.83; p < 0.00); 10 percentage points for the open-ended letter with reminder (Uptake 27%; AOR 1.68; 95% CI 1.31-2.17; p < 0.00) and a 9 percentage point increase using the time-limited letter with reminder (Uptake 27%; AOR 1.61; 95% CI 1.25-2.10; p < 0.00). The reminder SMS increased uptake for all intervention letters. The pre-notification did not add to this effect. CONCLUSIONS:This large randomised controlled trial adds support to the evidence that small, low cost behaviourally informed changes to letter-based invitations can increase uptake of NHS HCs. It also provides novel evidence on the effect of SMS reminders and pre-notification on NHS HC attendance. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Retrospectively Registered (24/01/2014) ISRCTN36027094 .

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of increasing incentive size and reminder calls on the measles vaccine uptake rate.DesignRandomized controlled trial, randomized at individual level, stratified by clinic.SettingNigeria.Participants1088 caregivers with children aged nine months or older; had received at least one previous conditional cash transfer (CCT) at a program clinic, had received their Penta-3 immunization but had not yet received their measles immunization, and the caregiver had provided a phone number.InterventionNine clinics were randomized to two models; caregivers in Model 1 received a default of 2000 Nigerian Naira (NGN) for completing the measles vaccine, and those in Model 2 received by 3000 NGN. Caregivers from the respective clinics were then randomized to one of the four arms: 1) control (baseline amount of 2000 NGN or 3000 NGN), 2) baseline amount plus a reminder call, 3) baseline amount plus 1000 NGN and a reminder call, and 4) baseline amount plus 3000 NGN and a reminder call.Main outcome measureReceipt of measles vaccine as reported on a child health card.ResultsOverall, there was no clear trend that increasing the incentive amount resulted in an increase in vaccine uptake rates. In Model 1 households, an additional 1000 NGN and 3000 NGN resulted in a 6.4 percentage point (95% CI: -2.3-15, p-value = 0.15) and 11.8 percentage point (95% CI: 3.9-19.6, p-value = 0.003) increase in the probability of completing the measles vaccines, respectively. This increase, however, was only significant for the 3000 NGN increase. On the other hand, in Model 2 households, increasing the incentive by 1000 NGN and 3000 NGN increased the probability by 3.3 (95% CI: -3.8-10.4, p-value = 0.36) and 3.3 (95% CI: -3.7-10.4, p-value = 0.35) percentage points. These increases were not statistically significant. Adding reminder calls to CCTs increased the probability of completing the measles vaccine; caregivers who received reminder calls plus CCTs were 5.1 percentage points more likely to get their children vaccinated (95% CI: 0.50-9.8, p-value = 0.03) compared to those who received CCTs and did not receive a reminder call. These results were largely driven by caregivers who went to clinics in Model 1.ConclusionA combination of increasing incentive amounts and reminder calls modestly improves measles immunization rates. However, this program also shows that there is substantial regional heterogeneity in response to both incentives and calls. While one possible conclusion is that a larger incentive and phone reminders are more likely to work in higher income and higher baseline coverage settings, the study is not designed to evaluate this claim. Rather, policymakers could consider experimenting with a similar low-cost calling study as part of the design of other cash transfer programs to identify whether adding reminder phone calls could increase the impact of the program.

Project description:ObjectivesIncentivising vaccine consent form return may improve vaccine uptake and be seen as less coercive than incentivising vaccination itself. We assessed the acceptability of financial incentives in this context among adolescent females and explored potential mechanisms by which incentives might change behaviour.DesignFocus groups and analysis of free-text questionnaire responses.MethodsStudy 1: 36 female secondary students in London (age 13-14) participated in six focus groups exploring the use of incentives in the context of vaccination. Data were analysed thematically. Study 2: was conducted to triangulate the findings of Study 1, by analysing free-text questionnaire responses from 181 female secondary students in London (age 12-13) reporting their opinion of incentivising consent form return. Data from Study 1 was also used to explore perceived potential mechanisms of action by which incentives might encourage consent form return.ResultsFocus group participants had positive attitudes towards incentives, with 61% of free-text responses also expressing this. Most focus group participants thought that incentives would encourage consent form return (18% of free-text respondents spontaneously also mentioned this). While incentivising consent form return was seen as ethical, focus group participants who incorrectly thought that vaccine receipt was being incentivised raised concerns about bribery, although only 4% of free text respondents reported these concerns. Frequently raised mechanisms of action included incentives increasing engagement with, and the perceived value of consent form return.ConclusionsAdolescents had positive views of financially incentivising consent form return to promote vaccine uptake, although care must be taken to reduce misconceptions regarding what is being incentivised. Incentivising vaccination was seen as coercive, but incentivising actions that increase the likelihood of vaccination (i.e. consent form return) were not. Incentives may encourage adolescents to return consent forms by helping them engage with this behaviour or increasing its' perceived value.