Can an evidence-informed taxonomy be used to map vaccination communication interventions in ‘real world’ settings? Findings from Nigeria

Tags: Oral
Oku A1, Oyo-ita A1, Lewin S2, Glenton C2, Fretheim A2, Ames H2, Kaufmann J3, Hill S3, Cartier Y4, Cliff J5, Muloliwa A6, Rada G7, Bosch-Capblanch X8
1University of Calabar, Nigeria, 2The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Norway, 3La Trobe University, Australia., Australia, 4International Union for Health Promotion and Education, France, 5Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Mozambique, 6Provincial Directorate of Health, Mozambique, 7Catholic University of Chile, Chile, 8Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute and University of Basel , Switzerland

Background: Effective communication is key to improving childhood vaccination coverage and is the focus of the Communicate to Vaccinate (COMMVAC) project. In earlier work, we developed a taxonomy of communication interventions to help decision makers understand and consider options for communication. As interventions in systematic reviews become more complex and multifaceted, such taxonomies are also assuming greater relevance for systematic review methods.

Objectives: To describe the application in the Nigerian context of a taxonomy of vaccination communication interventions and to explore the usefulness of the taxonomy for grouping and describing interventions and identifying important gaps.

Methods: The study was conducted in Bauchi and Cross River States in North and Southeast Nigeria respectively. Interviews were carried out amongst purposively selected stakeholders in the health services and in agencies involved in vaccination communication planning. Document review was also conducted. The COMMVAC taxonomy of vaccination communication interventions was used to organize the identified strategies based on their intended communication purpose and their target group.

Results: Most of the communication strategies identified fell into the COMMVAC taxonomy categories of ‘inform and educate’, targeting caregivers and community members, and ‘enhancing community ownership’. Religious and traditional leaders, community mobilizers and women’s groups were common targets for immunization messages and for efforts to sustain community demand in both Bauchi and Cross River, though more visibly in Bauchi. Most communication interventions were used in the context of vaccination campaigns rather than routine immunization programmes, and interventions targeting health workers were also limited.

Conclusions: The evidence-informed taxonomy was helpful in mapping communication strategies for childhood vaccination. It could assist programme managers to identify gaps and consider the communication purposes of the interventions they are using. The study suggests that evidence-informed taxonomies may be a useful tool for mapping interventions in 'real world' settings.