MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309135029 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0001283

What are the barriers and facilitators to polio vaccination and eradication programs? A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4309135029 on OpenAlexaff
Obidimma Ezezika, Meron Mengistu, Eric Evans Osei Opoku, Aiman Farheen, Anuradha Chauhan, Kathryn Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPolio VaccinationPoliomyelitisPsychological interventionPoliomyelitis eradicationInclusion (mineral)MedicineImplementation researchQualitative researchIntervention (counseling)Developing countryNursingMedical educationFamily medicinePsychologyEconomic growthSociologySocial psychologyPediatricsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicZoonotic diseases and public healthFrench-language works237,207