Improving Equity in Urban Immunization in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Qualitative Document Review.

INTRODUCTION: As the world continues to urbanize, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, understanding the barriers and effective interventions to improve urban immunization equity is critical to achieving both Immunization Agenda 2030 targets and the Sustainable Development Goals. Approximately 25 million children missed one or more doses of the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP3) vaccine in 2021 and it is estimated that close to 30% of the world's children missing the first dose of DTP, known as zero-dose, live in urban and peri-urban settings. METHODS: The aim of this research is to improve understanding of urban immunization equity through a qualitative review of mixed method studies, urban immunization strategies and funding proposals across more than 70 urban areas developed between 2016 and 2020, supported by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. These research studies and strategies created a body of evidence regarding the barriers to vaccination in urban settings and potential interventions relevant to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with a focus on the vaccination of urban poor, populations of concern and residents of informal settlements. Through the document review we identified common challenges to achieving equitable coverage in urban areas and mapped proposed interventions. RESULTS: We identified 70 documents as part of the review and categorized results across (1) social determinants of health, (2) immunization service-delivery barriers and (3) quality of services. Barriers and solutions identified in the documents were categorized in these thematic areas, drawing information from results in more than 21 countries. CONCLUSION: Populations of concern such as migrants, refugees, residents of informal settlements and the urban poor face barriers to accessing care which include poor availability and quality of service. Example solutions proposed to these challenges include tailored delivery strategies, improved use of digital data collection and child-friendly services. More research is required on the efficacy of the proposed interventions identified and on gender-specific dynamics in urban poor areas affecting equitable immunization coverage.

Using ISARIC 4C mortality score to predict dynamic changes in mortality risk in COVID-19 patients during hospital admission.

As SARS-CoV-2 infections continue to cause hospital admissions around the world, there is a continued need to accurately assess those at highest risk of death to guide resource use and clinical management. The ISARIC 4C mortality score provides mortality risk prediction at admission to hospital based on demographic and physiological parameters. Here we evaluate dynamic use of the 4C score at different points following admission. Score components were extracted for 6,373 patients admitted to Barts Health NHS Trust hospitals between 1st August 2020 and 19th July 2021 and total score calculated every 48 hours for 28 days. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) statistics were used to evaluate discrimination of the score at admission and subsequent inpatient days. Patients who were still in hospital at day 6 were more likely to die if they had a higher score at day 6 than others also still in hospital who had the same score at admission. Discrimination of dynamic scoring in those still in hospital was superior with the area under the curve 0.71 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) at admission and 0.82 (0.80-0.85) by day 8. Clinically useful changes in the dynamic parts of the score are unlikely to be associated with subject-level measurements. Dynamic use of the ISARIC 4C score is likely to provide accurate and timely information on mortality risk during a patient's hospital admission.

What is the cost of delivering routine vaccinations at GP practices in England? A comparative time-driven activity-based costing analysis.

Background: The expansion of available vaccines in recent years has increased the overall costs of the vaccine program and put pressure on providers responsible for vaccination. In England in 2016-17, GP practices responsible for vaccinating their local population were paid £227 million. However, the costs to general practice of delivering the program and the factors influencing these costs are unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the costs of delivering the routine vaccination program at GP practices in England, to identify organizational factors impacting costs, and to compare these to the funding received.Methods: Time Driven Activity Based Costing was undertaken at a convenience sample of nine geographically and socio-economically diverse GP practices in 2017-2018. Cost data were gathered for the preceding year using a survey and clinical and administrative staff kept activity logs for a 2-week period.Results: The mean cost of delivering a childhood vaccination appointment was £18.20 (range £9.71-£25.97) and an adult appointment cost £14.05 (range £7.59-£20.88), of which 75% was for staff, 24% for facility costs and 1% for consumables. Organizational factors contributing to lower costs include: shorter length of allocated appointment; greater use of administrative and reception staff; lower working time for practice manager and practice nurse; and use of health-care assistants for adult vaccinations. The costs identified are lower than payments at all practices.Conclusions: Funding received for vaccination activities was higher than costs at included practices. Several organizational factors have been identified that impact on program delivery costs that could be modified.

Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage.

BACKGROUND: The vaccine system in England underwent radical changes in 2013 following the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act. There have since been multi-year decreases in coverage of many vaccines. Healthcare professionals have reported finding the new system fragmented and challenging. This study aims to produce a logic model of the new system and evaluate the available evidence for interventions to improve coverage. METHODS: We undertook qualitative document analysis to develop the logic model using process evaluation methods. We performed a systematic review by searching 12 databases with a broad search strategy to identify interventions studied in England conducted between 2006 and 2016 and evaluated their effectiveness. We then compared the evidence base to the logic model. RESULTS: We analysed 83 documents and developed a logic model describing the core inputs, processes, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of the new vaccination system alongside the programmatic assumptions for each stage. Of 9,615 unique articles, we screened 624 abstracts, 45 full-text articles, and included 16 studies: 8 randomised controlled trials and 8 quasi-experimental studies. Four studies suggest that modifications to the contracting and incentive systems can increase coverage, but changes to other programme inputs (e.g. human or capital resources) were not evaluated. Four multi-component intervention studies modified activities and outputs from within a GP practice to increase coverage, but were part of campaigns or projects. Thus, many potentially modifiable factors relating to routine programme implementation remain unexplored. Reminder/recall systems are under-studied in England; incentive payments to adolescents may be effective; and only two studies evaluated carer information. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for interventions to increase immunisation coverage in the new system in England are limited by a small number of studies and by significant risk of bias. Several areas important to primary care remain unexplored as targets for interventions, especially modification to organisational management.

A process evaluation of how the routine vaccination programme is implemented at GP practices in England.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the incidence of several pathogens of public health importance (measles, mumps, pertussis and rubella) has increased in Europe, leading to outbreaks. This has included England, where GP practices implement the vaccination programme based on government guidance. However, there has been no study of how implementation takes place, which makes it difficult to identify organisational variation and thus limits the ability to recommend interventions to improve coverage. The aim of this study is to undertake a comparative process evaluation of the implementation of the routine vaccination programme at GP practices in England. METHODS: We recruited a sample of geographically and demographically diverse GP practices through a national research network and collected quantitative and qualitative data as part of a Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing analysis between May 2017 and February 2018. We conducted semi-structured interviews with practice staff involved in vaccination, who then completed an activity log for 2 weeks. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a framework method. RESULTS: Nine practices completed data collection from diverse geographic and socio-economic contexts, and 52 clinical and non-clinical staff participated in 26 interviews. Information relating to 372 vaccination appointments (233 childhood and 139 adult appointments) was captured using activity logs. We have defined a 14-stage care delivery value chain and detailed process map for vaccination. Areas of greatest variation include the method of reminder and recall activities, structure of vaccination appointments and task allocation between staff groups. For childhood vaccination, mean appointment length was 15.9 min (range 9.0-22.0 min) and 10.9 min for adults (range 6.8-14.1 min). Non-clinical administrative activities comprised 59.7% total activity (range 48.4-67.0%). Appointment length and total time were not related to coverage, whereas capacity in terms of appointments per eligible patient may improve coverage. Administrative tasks had lower fidelity of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: There is variation in how GP practices in England implement the delivery of the routine vaccination programme. Further work is required to evaluate capacity factors in a wider range of practices, alongside other contextual factors, including the working culture within practices.

Extracting general practice data for timely vaccine coverage estimates: The England experience.

In England, primary care providers use standardised coding systems to record health events such as vaccination as well as patient characteristics. This information can be automatically extracted to estimate coverage for vaccine programmes delivered through primary care, in the general population as well as in specific geographical, ethnic, age or clinical groups. This system provides timely vaccine coverage estimates as well as the flexibility to extract tailored data in order to directly inform a continuously evolving national vaccine programme. It is however limited by the quality and completeness of clinical coding in primary care. A centralised, individual-level register would however improve data quality, completeness and reliability and remains the gold standard.

Immunization, urbanization and slums - a systematic review of factors and interventions.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, over half (54%) of the world's population lived in urban areas and this proportion will increase to 66% by 2050. This urbanizing trend has been accompanied by an increasing number of people living in urban poor communities and slums. Lower immunization coverage is found in poorer urban dwellers in many contexts. This study aims to identify factors associated with immunization coverage in poor urban areas and slums, and to identify interventions to improve coverage. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching Medline, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Database with broad search terms for studies published between 2000 and 2016. RESULTS: Of 4872 unique articles, 327 abstracts were screened, leading to 63 included studies: 44 considering factors and 20 evaluating interventions (one in both categories) in 16 low or middle-income countries. A wide range of socio-economic characteristics were associated with coverage in different contexts. Recent rural-urban migration had a universally negative effect. Parents commonly reported lack of awareness of immunization importance and difficulty accessing services as reasons for under-immunization of their children. Physical distance to clinics and aspects of service quality also impacted uptake. We found evidence of effectiveness for interventions involving multiple components, especially if they have been designed with community involvement. Outreach programmes were effective where physical distance was identified as a barrier. Some evidence was found for the effective use of SMS (text) messaging services, community-based education programmes and financial incentives, which warrant further evaluation. No interventions were identified that provided services to migrants from rural areas. CONCLUSION: Different factors affect immunization coverage in different urban poor and slum contexts. Immunization services should be designed in collaboration with slum-dwelling communities, considering the local context. Interventions should be designed and tested to increase immunization in migrants from rural areas.

The International Finance Facility for Immunisation: stakeholders' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate stakeholders' understanding and opinions of the International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm); to identify factors affecting funding levels; and to explore the future use of IFFIm. METHODS: Between July and September 2015, we interviewed 33 individuals from 25 organizations identified as stakeholders in IFFIm. In total 22.5 hours of semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a framework method. FINDINGS: Stakeholders' understanding of IFFIm's financing mechanism and its outcomes varied and many stakeholders wanted more information. Participants highlighted that the change in the macro-economic environment following the 2008 financial crisis affected national policy in donor countries and subsequently the number of new commitments IFFIm received. Since Gavi is now seen as a successful and mature organization, participants stated that donors prefer to donate directly to Gavi. The pharmaceutical industry valued IFFIm for providing funding stability and flexibility. Other stakeholders valued IFFIm's ability to access funds early and enable Gavi to increase vaccine coverage. Overall, stakeholders thought IFFIm was successful, but they had divergent views about IFFIm's on-going role. Participants listed two issues where bond financing mechanisms may be suitable: emergency preparedness and outcome-based time-limited interventions. CONCLUSION: The benefit of pledging funds through IFFIm needs to be re-evaluated. There are potential uses for bond financing to raise funds for other global health issues, but these must be carefully considered against criteria to establish effectiveness, with quantifiable pre-defined outcome indicators to evaluate performance.

Interventions to reduce inequalities in vaccine uptake in children and adolescents aged <19†years: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In high-income countries, substantial differences exist in vaccine uptake relating to socioeconomic status, gender, ethnic group, geographic location and religious belief. This paper updates a 2009 systematic review on effective interventions to decrease vaccine uptake inequalities in light of new technologies applied to vaccination and new vaccine programmes (eg, human papillomavirus in adolescents). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ASSIA, The Campbell Collaboration, CINAHL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Eppi Centre, Eric and PsychINFO for intervention, cohort or ecological studies conducted at primary/community care level in children and young people from birth to 19 years in OECD countries, with vaccine uptake or coverage as outcomes, published between 2008 and 2015. RESULTS: The 41 included studies evaluated complex multicomponent interventions (n=16), reminder/recall systems (n=18), outreach programmes (n=3) or computer-based interventions (n=2). Complex, locally designed interventions demonstrated the best evidence for effectiveness in reducing inequalities in deprived, urban, ethnically diverse communities. There is some evidence that postal and telephone reminders are effective, however, evidence remains mixed for text-message reminders, although these may be more effective in adolescents. Interventions that escalated in intensity appeared particularly effective. Computer-based interventions were not effective. Few studies targeted an inequality specifically, although several reported differential effects by the ethnic group. CONCLUSIONS: Locally designed, multicomponent interventions should be used in urban, ethnically diverse, deprived populations. Some evidence is emerging for text-message reminders, particularly in adolescents. Further research should be conducted in the UK and Europe with a focus on reducing specific inequalities.

Appraising the quality of sub-Saharan African cancer registration systems that contributed to GLOBOCAN 2008: a review of the literature and critical appraisal.

OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the quality of sub-Saharan African cancer registration systems that submitted data to GLOBOCAN 2008 with respect to population coverage using publicly available information and to show the use of GLOBOCAN statistics in determining global health priorities. DESIGN: Sources of cancer registration data for twenty-six sub-Saharan African cancer registries were identified from GLOBOCAN 2008 factsheets. Additional information was extracted from International Agency for Research on Cancer publications. A literature search was conducted to identify studies that reported additional information on data collection methods and provided 27 studies. The websites of the 10 largest funders of development assistance for health were searched for GLOBOCAN citations. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six sub-Saharan African cancer registration systems submitting data to GLOBOCAN 2008 in relation to 21 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Information on 15 quality variables were extracted and compared with the international gold standard for cancer registration systems. RESULTS: Population coverage of the cancer registries ranged from from 2.3% of the population in Kenya to 100% in The Gambia, with a heavy urban bias in all countries. However, 20 countries (300 million people) had no cancer registration systems. Nineteen of the 26 registries failed to meet more than five of the 15 quality criteria and only one country met more than 10. Seven of the 10 largest funders of development assistance for health cite GLOBOCAN statistics in support of policy priorities. CONCLUSIONS: GLOBOCAN 2008 estimates are based on data drawn from poor quality cancer registration systems, with limited or no population registry coverage. It is essential the GLOBOCAN 2012 estimates should provide information on the quality of the data collection and explain the limitations of the estimates. Development organisations and the World Health Organization need to take a more cautious approach when using these data to determine priorities and allocating resources.