Back

Perspectives from EPI personnel on immunization programme performance in Kenya: a thematic, complex adaptive systems and leverage-points analysis

Karanja-Chege, C.

2026-10-01 public and global health
10.64898/2026.09.26.26364071 medRxiv
Show abstract

Abstract Immunisation system performance depends on effective service delivery and the generation of high-quality data to support planning and decision-making. With the recent scaling down of external health funding, Kenya must identify sustainable strategies to strengthen the resilience of its immunisation programme. We conducted a three-part qualitative study comprising thematic analysis, application of complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory, and the Meadows leverage-points framework. Thematic key personnel interviews were conducted with selected Essential Programme on Immunisation (EPI) personnel from 14 counties and sub-counties in Kenya to explore factors influencing immunisation system performance. Vaccine distribution, health workforce shortages and immunisation financing emerged as the dominant themes affecting immunisation performance. Analysis through a CAS lens revealed that reinforcing feedback loops were more dominant than balancing loops, suggesting that system dysfunctions were more influential than adaptive self-correcting mechanisms, resulting in a tendency toward negative system behaviour. Application of the Meadows framework showed that existing interventions were largely concentrated at lower leverage levels, which are more likely to generate short-term operational improvements, while higher-leverage interventions with the potential for long-term system transformation remained underutilised. We concluded that systems-thinking approaches offer a powerful framework for understanding and improving immunisation system performance. They facilitate the identification of vulnerabilities and bottlenecks, while informing the design of higher-leverage interventions capable of producing sustainable and transformative improvements across the system.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.