Moving from evidence to implementation for childhood vaccination communication strategies: synthesising programme experience from low income countries

2013 Québec City

Lewin S¹, Hill S², Ames H³, Bensaude de Castro Freire S⁴, Bosch-Capblanch X⁵, Cliff J⁶, Glenton C³, Kaufman J², Lin V⁷, Muloliwa A⁸, Oku A⁹, Oyo-Ita A⁹, Rada G¹⁰

¹Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services and MRC South Africa, Norway

²Centre for Health Communication and Participation, La Trobe University, Australia

³Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Norway

⁴International Union for Health Promotion and Education, France

⁵Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Switzerland

⁶Eduardo Mondlane University, Mozambique

⁷School of Public Health, La Trobe University, Australia

⁸Ministry of Health of Mozambique, Mozambique

⁹University of Calabar, Nigeria

¹⁰Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

Background:

Caregivers’ knowledge and perceptions regarding vaccination are key determinants of childhood vaccination status, and communication interventions are therefore important in providing information. A key challenge for policy makers in low income countries (LICs) is how best to integrate evidence-based communication strategies into vaccination programme delivery at scale. To address this challenge, the ‘Communicate to vaccinate 2’ (COMMVAC 2) project will develop guidance for policy makers on how to strengthen vaccine delivery and increase vaccination uptake in LICs through the integration of evidence-based communication strategies that are adapted for local conditions. Aim To describe how the ‘Communicate to vaccinate 2’ (COMMVAC 2) project will improve knowledge translation for childhood vaccination communication efforts in LICs.

Methods:

COMMVAC 2 has two components: firstly, to extend earlier work on mapping the evidence on communication (see: www.commvac.com/publications.html) to include mass vaccination campaigns; and then to develop a taxonomy of these strategies and a framework for outcomes associated with vaccination communication interventions. Secondly, we will build an evidence base to guide the implementation of these strategies. This will involve a systematic review of factors affecting the successful implementation of communication interventions at scale and then integrating this evidence with that from systematic reviews of the effectiveness of vaccination communication interventions. The synthesized product will be the starting point for developing a range of best practice optionswith local applicability issues factored in, and which can be applied to routine and supplementary immunization activities.

Conclusions:

This project will contribute to improving childhood vaccination coverage in LICs by building the evidence needed to implement effective vaccination communication interventions. The systematic reviews will provide a deeper understanding of the range of vaccination communication interventions being delivered in LICs and the factors associated with their implementation at scale. The project will also translate this evidence into guidance for policymakers.