2_SAGE_Appendicies_Background_final

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Title/ First author/year of publicationCan lay healthworkers increasethe uptake ofchildhoodimmunisation?Systematic reviewand typology,Glenton, C., 2011[5]Description of the reviewsGeneralPurpose andsettingTo assess theeffects of layhealth workers(LHWs)interventionson childhoodimmunizationuptakeInclusion /Exclusion criteriahistorical articles,case reports,commentaries,clinical guidelinesandrecommendationsInclusion:Randomizedcontrolled trials(RCTs), nonrandomizedcontrolled trials(NRCTs),interrupted-timeseries(ITS)studies, controlledbefore–afterstudies and studieswhere theintervention’s aimwas to increaseimmunizationcoverage amongchildren
Title/ First author/year of publicationInterventions forimprovingcoverage of childimmunization inlow- and middleincomecountries,Oyo-Ita, A., 2011[9]Description of the reviewsGeneralPurpose andsettingTo evaluatetheeffectivenessof interventionstrategies toboost andsustain highchildhoodimmunizationcoverage inLMICInclusion /Exclusion criteriaLHWs were usedas a substitute fortrained healthprofessionals or inaddition to healthprofessionalsPublished untilFebruary 2009Exclusion:Studies basedoutside of primaryhealth care, suchas in hospitals orschoolsInclusion:RCTs, NRCTs,and ITS studiesInterventionstargeting childrenaged 0 to 4 years,caregivers, andhealth providersComparisons withroutineimmunizationpractices in thestudy setting orwith differentinterventions orsimilarinterventionsimplemented withdifferent degreesMainoutcomemeasureProportionof targetpopulationfullyimmunizedwithrecommendedvaccines,by ageNumber ofchildrenaged twoyears fullyimmunizedper vaccineNb ofstudiesincluded6(5 clusterRCTs)Qualityassessmentof studiesReported(4 studiesat high riskof bias)Main conclusionsModerate quality evidence:Evidence-based discussions probably improve DPT3 andmeasles coverageInformation campaigns probably increase uptake of at least adose of a vaccine.Low quality evidence:Facility based health education alone or in combination withredesigned immunization cards may improve the uptake ofcombined vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus(DPT3) coverage.One study suggests that this monetary incentive may lead tolittle or no difference in the uptake of MMR or DPT1.Training of immunization managers to provide supportivesupervision for health providers was assessed by one study andmay improve the uptake for DPT3, OPV3, and hepatitisB3.Home visits may improve OPV3 and measles coverage.A combination of monetary incentives (patient oriented);quality assurance (provider oriented); and provision ofequipment, drugs and materials (health system oriented)82
Page 1:
APPENDICES TO THEREPORT OF THE SAGE
Page 4 and 5:
vaccine hesitancy in low income cou
Page 6 and 7:
INDIVIDUAL andGROUPINFLUENCESInflue
Page 8 and 9:
Another model reviewed by the Worki
Page 10 and 11:
Appendix for Section 4Appendix A4.1
Page 13 and 14:
epresented mostly low and middle in
Page 15 and 16:
was more hesitant than the younger
Page 17 and 18:
a variable or to a lack of understa
Page 19 and 20:
References[1] World Health Organiza
Page 21 and 22:
Country FVaccine hesitancy is not a
Page 23 and 24:
Figure 1. IMs’ opinions regarding
Page 25 and 26:
DefinitionVaccination confidence is
Page 27 and 28:
Of all participating countries, 19%
Page 29 and 30:
Countries from all 3 regions provid
Page 31 and 32: Table 5: Income level of countries
Page 33 and 34: variety of determinants of vaccine
Page 35 and 36: Uruguay no no responseVenezuela no
Page 37 and 38: RussianFederationyesQuestioning dur
Page 39 and 40: Question 2:Was this % measured or e
Page 41 and 42: Of those countries which submitted
Page 43 and 44: Indicator 2:Indicator 2 was modifie
Page 45 and 46: Table 4. Top three reasons for vacc
Page 47 and 48: The overall response rate to both i
Page 49 and 50: Czech Republic No 1. The fear of si
Page 51 and 52: Kyrgyzstan Yes В 2013 году в
Page 53 and 54: Table A5.3 .1: Survey questions to
Page 55 and 56: Table A5.3.1: Survey questions to a
Page 57 and 58: Table A5.3.2: Survey questions to a
Page 59 and 60: Appendix A5.4 WHO EUR Tailoring Imm
Page 61 and 62: Objective 2 - Characteristics of ev
Page 63 and 64: Most interventions targeted parents
Page 65 and 66: Table 2. PICO questions proposed by
Page 67 and 68: Dialogue-based interventionsEleven
Page 69 and 70: The impact of information-based tra
Page 71 and 72: Conclusions and implicationsLiterat
Page 73 and 74: Appendix A6A.2 Strategies to addres
Page 75 and 76: change in attitudes).- Most studies
Page 77 and 78: Strategies to address vaccine hesit
Page 79 and 80: Table 1.Summary of published litera
Page 81: Title/ First author/year of publica
Page 85 and 86: Title/ First author/year of publica
Page 91 and 92: References1. Williams, S.E., What a
Page 93 and 94: Appendix A6C.1 Vaccine Hesitancy La
Page 95 and 96: ii. Google (Hong Kong)• Used the
Page 97 and 98: Categories Key Actors Areas ofWork/
Page 101 and 102: Categories Key Actors Areas ofActio
Page 107 and 108: This landscape analysis, along with
Page 109 and 110: References for Vaccine Hesitancy La
Page 111: 67 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
show all

2_SAGE_Appendicies_Background_final

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?