Interventions designed to improve vaccination uptake: Scoping review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses - (version 1)
Heneghan, C.; Pluddemann, A.; Spencer, E. A.; Brassey, J.; Rosca, E. C.; ONAKPOYA, I.; Evans, D.; Conly, J.; Jefferson, T.
Show abstract
BackgroundResources 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.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Community Engagement to support COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A living systematic review protocol 97%
- COVID-19 vaccines and evidence-based medicine 95%
- Exploring intersectional determinants of, and interventions for, low uptake of human papillomavirus vaccine in Sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review protocol 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Meta-Analysis of Influenza Vaccination Following Correspondence: Considerations for COVID-19 97%
- What is the quality of evidence informing vaccine clinical practice recommendations in Australia? 97%
- Safety of COVID-19 vaccines, their components or their platforms for pregnant women: A rapid review 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Implementation strategies to increase human papillomavirus vaccination uptake for adolescent girls in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review protocol 94%
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 94%
- COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Marginalized Populations in the U.S. and Canada: Protocol for a Scoping Review 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Information nudges for influenza vaccination: Evidence from a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial 92%
- Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis 91%
- Uptake of infant and pre-school immunisations in Scotland and England during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study of routinely collected data 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- When do persuasive messages on vaccine safety steer COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and recommendations? Behavioral insights from a randomised controlled experiment in Malaysia 93%
- Epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccination in Kenya 92%
- Public engagement and crowdfunding for health research: A global qualitative evidence synthesis and TDR pilot 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.