What are the barriers and facilitators to polio vaccination and eradication programs? A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global efforts to eradicate polio by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative agency partners and country-level stakeholders have led to the implementation of global polio vaccination programs. This study presents the findings of existing studies regarding the barriers and facilitators that countries face when implementing polio interventions. A comprehensive search was conducted in OVID Medline, OVID Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science. Eligible studies underwent quality assessment. A qualitative evidence synthesis approach was conducted and aligned to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The search identified 4147 citations, and following the removal of duplicates and screening according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, 20 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review. Twelve countries were represented in this review, with India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan having the most representation of available studies. We identified 36 barriers and 16 facilitators. Seven themes emerged from these barriers and facilitators: fear, community trust, infrastructure, beliefs about the intervention, influential opinions, intervention design, and geo-politics. The most frequently cited CFIR constructs for the facilitators and barriers were knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, followed by available resources. This study identified a wide range of barriers and facilitators to polio vaccination implementation across the globe, adding to the scarce body of literature on these barriers and facilitators from an implementation perspective and using a determinant framework. The diversity of factors among different groups of people or countries highlights the relevance of contexts. Implementers should be conversant with the contexts within which polio eradication programs boost intervention coverage and capacity. This study provides policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with a tool for planning and designing polio immunization programs. Trial registration: A protocol for this systematic review was developed and uploaded onto the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews database (Registration number: CRD42020222115).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it