Community engagement to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a living systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Widespread vaccination against COVID-19 is one of the most effective ways to control, and ideally, end the global COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy and vaccine rates vary widely across countries and populations and are influenced by complex sociocultural, political, economic and psychological factors. Community engagement is an integral strategy within immunisation campaigns and has been shown to improve vaccine acceptance. As evidence on community engagement to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake is emerging and constantly changing, research that lessens the knowledge-to-practice gap by providing regular and up-to-date evidence on current best-practice is essential. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A living systematic review will be conducted which includes an initial systematic review and bimonthly review updates. Searching and screening for the review and subsequent updates will be done in four streams: a systematic search of six databases, grey literature review, preprint review and citizen sourcing. The screening will be done by a minimum of two reviewers at title/abstract and full-text in Covidence, a systematic review management software. Data will be extracted across predefined fields in an excel spreadsheet that includes information about article characteristics, context and population, community engagement approaches, and outcomes. Synthesis will occur using the convergent integrated approach. We will explore the potential to quantitatively synthesise primary outcomes depending on heterogeneity of the studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The initial review and subsequent bimonthly searches and their results will be disseminated transparently via open-access methods. Quarterly briefs will be shared on the reviews' social media platforms and across other interested networks and repositories. A dedicated web link will be created on the Community Health-Community of Practice site for sharing findings and obtaining feedback. A mailing list will be developed and interested parties can subscribe for updates. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022301996.

Media and Digital Technologies for Mixed Methods Research in Public Health Emergencies Such as COVID-19: Lessons Learned From Using Interactive Radio-SMS for Social Research in Somalia.

Radio shows which invite audience participation via short message service (SMS)-interactive radio-SMS-can be designed as a mixed methods approach for applied social research during COVID-19 and other crises in low and middle income countries. In the aftermath of a cholera outbreak in Somalia, we illustrate how this method provides social insights that would have been missed if a purely qualitative or quantitative approach were used. We then examine the strengths and limitations associated with interactive radio-SMS through an evaluation using a multimethod comparison. Our research contributes an application of a mixed methods approach which addresses a specific challenge raised by COVID-19, namely utilizing media and digital technologies for social research in low and middle income countries.

Developing an evidence assessment framework and appraising the academic literature on migrant health in Malaysia: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: A large number of international migrants in Malaysia face challenges in obtaining good health, the extent of which is still relatively unknown. This study aims to map the existing academic literature on migrant health in Malaysia and to provide an overview of the topical coverage, quality and level of evidence of these scientific studies. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using six databases, including Econlit, Embase, Global Health, Medline, PsycINFO and Social Policy and Practice. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were conducted in Malaysia, peer-reviewed, focused on a health dimension according to the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII) framework, and targeted the vulnerable international migrant population. Data were extracted by using the BARHII framework and a newly developed decision tree to identify the type of study design and corresponding level of evidence. Modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklists were used to assess study quality, and a multiple-correspondence analysis (MCA) was conducted to identify associations between different variables. RESULTS: 67 publications met the selection criteria and were included in the study. The majority (n=41) of studies included foreign workers. Over two-thirds (n=46) focused on disease and injury, and a similar number (n=46) had descriptive designs. The average quality of the papers was low, yet quality differed significantly among them. The MCA showed that high-quality studies were mostly qualitative designs that included refugees and focused on living conditions, while prevalence and analytical cross-sectional studies were mostly of low quality. CONCLUSION: This study provides an overview of the scientific literature on migrant health in Malaysia published between 1965 and 2019. In general, the quality of these studies is low, and various health dimensions have not been thoroughly researched. Therefore, researchers should address these issues to improve the evidence base to support policy-makers with high-quality evidence for decision-making.