4.5 Review

Parental reminder, recall and educational interventions to improve early childhood immunisation uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

VACCINE
卷 33, 期 25, 页码 2862-2880

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.085

关键词

Vaccination; Early childhood; Intervention; Recall and reminder; Education; Uptake

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vaccination is one of the most effective ways of reducing childhood mortality. Despite global uptake of childhood vaccinations increasing, rates remain sub-optimal, meaning that vaccine-preventable diseases still pose a public health risk. A range of interventions to promote vaccine uptake have been developed, although this range has not specifically been reviewed in early childhood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of parental interventions to improve early childhood (0-5 years) vaccine uptake. Twenty-eight controlled studies contributed to six separate meta-analyses evaluating aspects of parental reminders and education. All interventions were to some extent effective, although findings were generally heterogeneous and random effects models were estimated. Receiving both postal and telephone reminders was the most effective reminder-based intervention (RD = 0.1132; 95% Cl = 0.033-0.193). Sub-group analyses suggested that educational interventions were more effective in low- and middle-income countries (RD = 0.13; 95% Cl = 0.05-0.22) and when conducted through discussion (RD = 0.12; 95% Cl = 0.02-0.21). Current evidence most supports the use of postal reminders as part of the standard management of childhood immunisations. Parents at high risk of noncompliance may benefit from recall strategies and/or discussion-based forums, however further research is needed to assess the appropriateness of these strategies. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据