Impact of Maternal Education on Knowledge and Adherence to Immunization Schedules: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Maternal education is a critical determinant of immunization knowledge and adherence, yet vaccine uptake remains suboptimal in many regions. This review evaluates the impact of maternal education and related interventions on improving immunization outcomes. Methods: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines identified 13 studies from PubMed, Scopus, and Consensus databases. Interventions included formal education, community-based programs, mass media campaigns, and simplified materials. Quality assessments were conducted using Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa tools, and thematic synthesis was applied. Results: Formal education significantly improved maternal immunization knowledge and adherence, with higher maternal education linked to better vaccination rates. Community-based programs were effective in underserved areas, offering culturally tailored approaches that enhanced vaccine adherence. Mass media campaigns increased general awareness but faced challenges in overcoming with cultural barriers, while simplified materials showed limited impact in low-literacy populations. Quality assessments rated six studies as high, five as medium, and two as low quality. Conclusions: Maternal education plays a key role in improving immunization outcomes. Multi-level strategies, including community programs and culturally sensitive interventions, are essential for bridging knowledge gaps in knowledge and vaccine hesitancy globally.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".