MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407972955 · doi:10.17533/udea.rfnsp.v34n2a13

Estrategias para incrementar la demanda de vacunación infantil en países de ingresos bajos y medios: una revisión sistemática y un metanálisis

2016· article· es· W2407972955 on OpenAlexaff
Mira Johri, Myriam Cielo Pérez, Catherine Arsenault, Jitendar Sharma, Nitika Pant Pai, Smriti Pahwa, Sylvestre Marie-Pierre

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialRelative riskPsychological interventionPediatricsConfidence intervalInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate which strategies to increase demand for vaccination are effective in increasing child vaccine coverage in low- and middle-income countries. Methodology: 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 metaanalysis. Results: it was 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). Conclusion: 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.038
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Facultad Nacional de Salud PúblicaSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207