Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To support evidence informed decision-making, we systematically examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community engagement interventions on routine childhood immunisation outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and identify contextual, design and implementation features associated with effectiveness. DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: 21 databases of academic and grey literature and 12 additional websites were searched in May 2019 and May 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included experimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations of community engagement interventions considering outcomes related to routine child immunisation in LMICs. No language, publication type, or date restrictions were imposed. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent researchers extracted summary data from published reports and appraised quantitative risk of bias using adapted Cochrane tools. Random effects meta-analysis was used to examine effects on the primary outcome, full immunisation coverage. RESULTS: Our search identified over 43 000 studies and 61 were eligible for analysis. The average pooled effect of community engagement interventions on full immunisation coverage was standardised mean difference 0.14 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.23, I2=94.46). The most common source of risk to the quality of evidence (risk of bias) was outcome reporting bias: most studies used caregiver-reported measures of vaccinations received by a child in the absence or incompleteness of immunisation cards. Reasons consistently cited for intervention success include appropriate intervention design, including building in community engagement features; addressing common contextual barriers of immunisation and leveraging facilitators; and accounting for existing implementation constraints. The median intervention cost per treated child per vaccine dose (excluding the cost of vaccines) to increase absolute immunisation coverage by one percent was US$3.68. CONCLUSION: Community engagement interventions are successful in improving outcomes related to routine child immunisation. The findings are robust to exclusion of studies assessed as high risk of bias.

Improving routine childhood immunisation outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries: an evidence gap map.

OBJECTIVE: To support evidence-informed decision-making, we created an evidence gap map to characterise the evidence base on the effectiveness of interventions in improving routine childhood immunisation outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We developed an intervention-outcome matrix with 38 interventions and 43 outcomes. We searched academic databases and grey literature sources for relevant impact evaluations (IEs) and systematic reviews (SRs). Search results were screened on title/abstract. Those included on title/abstract were retrieved for full review. Studies meeting the eligibility criteria were included and data were extracted for each included study. All screening and data extraction was done by two independent reviewers. We analysed these data to identify trends in the geographic distribution of evidence, the concentration of evidence across intervention and outcome categories, and attention to vulnerable populations in the literature. RESULTS: We identified 309 studies, comprising 226 completed IEs, 58 completed SRs, 24 ongoing IEs and 1 ongoing SR. Evidence from IEs is heavily concentrated in a handful of countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Among interventions, the most frequently evaluated are those related to education and material incentives for caregivers or health workers. There are gaps in the study of non-material incentives and outreach to vulnerable populations. Among outcomes, those related to vaccine coverage and health are well covered. However, evidence on intermediate outcomes related to health system capacity or barriers faced by caregivers is much more limited. CONCLUSIONS: There is valuable evidence available to decision-makers for use in identifying and deploying effective strategies to increase routine immunisation in LMICs. However, additional research is needed to address gaps in the evidence base.

Making the most of existing research: an evidence gap map of the effects of food systems interventions in low-income and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: Identify and describe the available evidence on the effects food systems interventions on food security and nutrition outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: An adapted version of the high-level panel of experts food systems framework defined the interventions and outcomes included studies. Included study designs were experimental and quasi-experimental quantitative impact evaluations and systematic reviews. Following standards for evidence gap maps developed by 3ie, a systematic search of 17 academic databases and 31 sector-specific repositories in May 2020 identified articles for inclusion. Trained consultants screened titles/abstracts, then full texts of identified articles. Studies meeting eligibility criteria had meta-data systematically extracted and were descriptively analysed. Systematic reviews were critically appraised. RESULTS: The map includes 1838 impact evaluations and 178 systematic reviews. The most common interventions, with over 100 impact evaluations and 20 systematic reviews each, were: provision of supplements, fortification, nutrition classes, direct provision of foods and peer support/counselling. Few studies addressed national-level interventions or women's empowerment. The most common final outcomes were: anthropometry, micronutrient status, and diet quality and adequacy. Intermediate outcomes were less studied.Most evaluations were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (33%) or South Asia (20%). Many studies occurred in lower-middle-income countries (43%); few (7%) were in fragile countries. Among studies in a specific age group, infants were most frequently included (19%); 14% of these also considered mothers.Few evaluations considered qualitative or cost analysis; 75% used randomisation as the main identification strategy. DISCUSSION: The uneven distribution of research means that some interventions have established impacts while other interventions, often affecting large populations, are underevaluated. Areas for future research include the evaluation of national level policies, evaluation of efforts to support women's empowerment within the food system, and the synthesis of dietary quality. Quasi-experimental approaches should be adopted to evaluate difficult to randomise interventions.

Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Immunisation is one of the most cost-effective interventions to prevent and control life-threatening infectious diseases. Nonetheless, rates of routine vaccination of children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are strikingly low or stagnant. In 2019, an estimated 19.7 million infants did not receive routine immunisations. Community engagement interventions are increasingly being emphasised in international and national policy frameworks as a means to improve immunisation coverage and reach marginalised communities. This systematic review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community engagement interventions on outcomes related to childhood immunisation in LMICs and identifies contextual, design and implementation features that may be associated with effectiveness. We identified 61 quantitative and mixed methods impact evaluations and 47 associated qualitative studies related to community engagement interventions for inclusion in the reteview. For cost-effectiveness analysis 14 of the 61 studies had the needed combination of cost and effectiveness data. The 61 included impact evaluations were concentrated in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa and spread across 19 LMICs. The review found that community engagement interventions had a small but significant, positive effect on all primary immunisation outcomes related to coverage and their timeliness. The findings are robust to exclusion of studies assessed as high risk of bias. Qualitative evidence indicates appropriate intervention design, including building in community engagement features; addressing common contextual barriers of immunisation and leveraging facilitators; and accounting for existing implementation constraints and practicalities on the ground are consistently cited as reasons for intervention success. Among the studies for which we were able to calculate cost-effectiveness, we find that the median non-vaccine cost per dose of intervention to increase immunisation coverage by 1% was US $3.68. Given the broad scope of the review in terms of interventions and outcomes, there is significant variation in findings. Among the various types of community engagement interventions, those that involve creation of community buy-in or development of new cadres of community-based structures were found to have consistent positive effect on more primary vaccination coverage outcomes than if the engagement is limited to the design or delivery of an intervention or is a combination of the various types. The evidence base for sub-group analysis for female children was sparse (only two studies) and the effect on coverage of both full immunisation and third dose of diphtheria pertussis tetanus for this group was insignificant.

Introspection.

Two main questions about introspection are addressed: whether it exists, and whether it is a reliable source of self-knowledge. Most philosophers have assumed that the answers to both questions are positive, whereas an increasing number of cognitive scientists take the view that introspection is either nonexistent (with self-attributions of mental states being made on the same sort of interpretative basis as attributions of mental states to other people) or unreliable. A number of different models of self-knowledge are discussed, and the evidence bearing on the existence and reliability of introspection is reviewed. New experiments are required to tease apart some of the alternatives. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.