4.2 Review

Why children are not vaccinated: a review of the grey literature

Journal

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 229-238

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.inhe.2012.07.004

Keywords

Vaccination; Under-vaccination; Immunization; Dropout; Left-out; Missed opportunity

Funding

  1. IMMUNIZATIONbasics project
  2. Maternal and Child Health Integrated Program
  3. U.S. Agency for International Development [GHS-A-00-04-00004-00, GHS-A-00-08-0002-00]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In collaboration with WHO, IMMUNIZATIONbasics analyzed 126 documents from the global grey literature to identify reasons why eligible children had incomplete or no vaccinations. The main reasons for under-vaccination were related to immunization services and to parental knowledge and attitudes. The most frequently cited factors were: access to services, health staff attitudes and practices, reliability of services, false contraindications, parents' practical knowledge of vaccination, fear of side effects, conflicting priorities and parental beliefs. Some family demographic characteristics were strong, but underlying, risk factors for under-vaccination. Studies must be well designed to capture a complete picture of the simultaneous causes of under-vaccination and to avoid biased results. Although the grey literature contains studies of varying quality, it includes many well-designed studies. Every immunization program should strive to provide quality services that are accessible, convenient, reliable, friendly, affordable and acceptable, and should solicit feedback from families and community leaders. Every program should monitor missed and under-vaccinated children and assess and address the causes. Although global reviews, such as this one, can play a useful role in identifying key questions for local study, local enquiry and follow-up remain essential. (C) 2012 Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available