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

Article type
Authors
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
Abstract
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.