MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613150879 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30184-5

Community engagement and integrated health and polio immunisation campaigns in conflict-affected areas of Pakistan: a cluster randomised controlled trial

2017· article· en· W2613150879 on OpenAlexaff
Atif Habib, Sajid Soofi, Simon Cousens, Saeed Anwar, Najib ul Haque, Imran Ahmed, Noshad Ali, Rehman Tahir, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Immunology Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersUNICEFBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPoliomyelitis eradicationPoliomyelitisMedicinePsychological interventionEnvironmental healthTransmission (telecommunications)OutreachPublic healthPoliovirusFamily medicinePediatricsNursingEconomic growthImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pakistan faces huge challenges in eradicating polio due to widespread poliovirus transmission and security challenges. Innovative interventions are urgently needed to strengthen community buy-in, to increase the coverage of oral polio vaccine (OPV) and other routine immunisations, and to enhance immunity through the introduction of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) in combination with OPV. We aimed to evaluate the acceptability and effect on immunisation coverage of an integrated strategy for community engagement and maternal and child health immunisation campaigns in insecure and conflict-affected polio-endemic districts of Pakistan. METHODS: We did a community-based three-arm cluster randomised trial in healthy children aged 1 month to 5 years that resided within the study sites in three districts of Pakistan at high risk of polio. Clusters were randomly assigned by a computer algorithm using restricted randomisation in blocks of 20 by an external statistician (1:1:1) to receive routine polio programme activities (control, arm A), additional interventions with community outreach and mobilisation using an enhanced communication package and provision of short-term preventive maternal and child health services and routine immunisation (health camps), including OPV (arm B), or all interventions of arm B with additional provision of IPV delivered at the maternal and child health camps (arm C). An independent team conducted surveys at baseline, endline, and after each round of supplementary immunisation activity for acceptability and effect. The primary outcome measures for the study were coverage of OPV, IPV, and routine extended programme on immunisation vaccines and changes in the proportion of unvaccinated and fully vaccinated children. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01908114. FINDINGS: Between June 4, 2013, and May 31, 2014, 387 clusters were randomised (131 to arm A, 127 to arm B, and 129 to arm C). At baseline, 28 760 children younger than 5 years were recorded in arm A, 30 098 in arm B, and 29 126 in arm C. 359 clusters remained in the trial until the end (116 in arm A, 120 in arm B, and 123 in arm C; with 23 334 children younger than 5 years in arm A, 26 110 in arm B, and 25 745 in arm C). The estimated OPV coverage was 75% in arm A compared with 82% in arm B (difference vs arm A 6·6%; 95% CI 4·8-8·3) and 84% in arm C (8·5%, 6·8-10·1; overall p<0·0001). The mean proportion of routine vaccine doses received by children younger than 24 months of age was 43% in arm A, 52% in arm B (9%, 7-11) and 54% in arm C (11%, 9-13; overall p<0·0001). No serious adverse events requiring hospitalisation were reported after immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Despite the challenges associated with the polio end-game in high-risk, conflict-affected areas of Pakistan, a strategy of community mobilisation and targeted community-based health and immunisation camps during polio immunisation campaigns was successful in increasing vaccine coverage, including polio vaccine coverage. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations106
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicViral Infections and Immunology ResearchFrench-language works237,207