↓ Skip to main content

Strategies to increase the demand for childhood vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Strategies to increase the demand for childhood vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, March 2015
DOI 10.2471/blt.14.146951
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mira Johri, Myriam Cielo Pérez, Catherine Arsenault, Jitendar K Sharma, Nitika Pant Pai, Smriti Pahwa, Marie-Pierre Sylvestre

Abstract

To investigate which strategies to increase demand for vaccination are effective in increasing child vaccine coverage in low- and middle-income countries. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, POPLINE, ECONLIT, CINAHL, LILACS, BDSP, Web of Science and Scopus databases for relevant studies, published in English, French, German, Hindi, Portuguese and Spanish up to 25 March 2014. We included studies of interventions intended to increase demand for routine childhood vaccination. Studies were eligible if conducted in low- and middle-income countries and employing a randomized controlled trial, non-randomized controlled trial, controlled before-and-after or interrupted time series design. We estimated risk of bias using Cochrane collaboration guidelines and performed random-effects meta-analysis. We identified 11 studies comprising four randomized controlled trials, six cluster randomized controlled trials and one controlled before-and-after study published in English between 1996 and 2013. Participants were generally parents of young children exposed to an eligible intervention. Six studies demonstrated low risk of bias and five studies had moderate to high risk of bias. We conducted a pooled analysis considering all 11 studies, with data from 11 512 participants. Demand-side interventions were associated with significantly higher receipt of vaccines, relative risk (RR): 1.30, (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.17-1.44). Subgroup analyses also demonstrated significant effects of seven education and knowledge translation studies, RR: 1.40 (95% CI: 1.20-1.63) and of four studies which used incentives, RR: 1.28 (95% CI: 1.12-1.45). Demand-side interventions lead to significant gains in child vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries. Educational approaches and use of incentives were both effective strategies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 188 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 19%
Student > Master 34 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 16%
Student > Postgraduate 15 8%
Other 10 5%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 35 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 29%
Social Sciences 28 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Psychology 8 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 41 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2021.
All research outputs
#5,861,557
of 19,338,160 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#1,842
of 4,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,919
of 245,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#16
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,338,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 245,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.