International Journal of Public Health Science (IJPHS)

Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2021, pp. 646~656

ISSN: 2252-8806, DOI: 10.11591/ijphs.v10i3.20875  646

Interventions to improve vaccination coverage of children

in hard-to-reach population: A systematic review

Cyntia Puspa Pitaloka1, Samsriyaningsih Handayani2

1
Master Program of Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
2
Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: In the last decade, vaccination has reduced a quarter of child deaths
worldwide. Vaccination coverage increased, but the coverage remains low in
Received Feb 1, 2021 the hard-to-reach population. We searched articles from Pubmed MEDLINE,
Revised Jun 6, 2021 SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Science Direct to systematically review
Accepted Jun 21, 2021 interventions to improve children's vaccination coverage in hard-to-reach
populations. The expected outcome was vaccination coverage, which
mentioned Odds Ratio, mean difference, or difference-in-difference with a
Keywords: 95% CI or p-value. Out of 102 articles identified, five articles from four
different countries met the inclusion criteria. Four of the five studies reported
Immunization coverage a positive impact in increasing vaccination coverage. Interventions that
Immunization programs showed good effectiveness in increasing the coverage of childhood
Infection prevention immunizations were the application of mHealth given to vaccinators,
Remote area multiple interventions involving the community, modification of
Vaccine uptake immunization schedules during outreach activities, and immunization
screening cards. Despite the inconsistent finding, mHealth with SMS
reminders was the most effective intervention to increase vaccination
coverage and relatively low-cost. More research was needed in developing a
strategic intervention to increase vaccination coverage of children in hard-to-
reach populations.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Samsriyaningsih Handayani
Faculty of Medicine
Universitas Airlangga
Fakultas Kedokteran, Kampus A, Jl. Mayjen Prof. Dr. Moestopo 47, Surabaya, 60131, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
The global vaccine action plan (GVAP) central vision is a world free from vaccine-preventable
diseases [1]. Since 2010, immunization has contributed significantly to reducing a quarter of the number of
child deaths due to vaccine-preventable disease worldwide, from 52 to 39 deaths per 1,000 live births
[2]. Vaccinations prevented 10 million deaths between 2010 and 2015, and many more since 2000 [3].
Vaccination coverage has also reportedly increased. The second dose of measles-containing-vaccine (MCV)
coverage increased from 42% in 2010 to 69% in 2018. There are 95 countries with DPT3 coverage of 90% in
each region, exceeding the GVAP target of 80% in every district [4]. However, there still are disparities. In
some regions with conflicts and weak health systems, remote areas, or urban slums, childhood vaccination
coverage remains low [5].
Low vaccination coverage levels prevent herd immunity to build, hence vulnerable to an outbreak.
Two doses of the measles vaccine with a minimum coverage of 97% are required to obtain herd immunity
against the measles virus in Europe [6]. Although national coverage of measles vaccine over World Health

Journal homepage: http://ijphs.iaescore.com

Int. J. Public Health Sci. ISSN: 2252-8806  647

Organization (WHO) standards, if the clustering of non-vaccination children exists, outbreaks can occur
because of the decreasing local immunity threshold [7], [8]. There are several causes for the low coverage of
immunization: marginalized economic and social status, poor urban areas, remote and rural areas [2]. This
condition is related to access and reachability. Hard-to-reach populations for vaccination are groups of people
who experience vaccination barriers due to distance and geographic location, non-permanent residence,
unavailability of health services, inadequate immunization systems, conflict, and war [9]. In Middle East,
conflict-stricken populations are low in vaccination coverage and treatable disease, resulting in cholera and
polio outbreaks [10]. Not only vaccination problems but also maternal health such as birth preparedness and
readiness level are also lower in hard-to-reach areas [11]. All this evidence suggests that addressing hard-to-
reach populations as a target intervention to improve maternal and child health, especially immunization, is
crucial in achieving 14 of the 17 sustainable development goals [12].
Special efforts are needed to conduct vaccination in hard-to-reach and areas. This kind of
intervention is usually high-cost [13], with non-vaccine cost (program management, human resources, social
mobilization, surveillance, capacity building) was higher than vaccine cost [14]. However, the finding from a
previous modeling study in Kenya showed that unvaccinated children with measles vaccine from 2016 to
2020 resulted in a loss of $9.5 million in medical costs and productivity, and conducting vaccination in
geography hard-to-reach area are highly cost-effective [15]. A modeled vaccination strategy in the
Democratic Republic of Congo also showed that delivering a second dose of MCV would save more than the
US $199 million [16]. This figure also indicates the importance of increasing vaccination coverage in hard-
to-reach populations.
A systematic review on delivering prevention of infectious disease in women and children in
conflict hard-to-reach settings had been conducted previously [17], but not evaluating the coverage increased
of interventions implemented. There has been no systematic review of which strategies effectively increase
childhood immunization coverage in hard-to-reach populations. Therefore, this systematic review was
prepared to evaluate interventions to increase child vaccination coverage in hard-to-reach populations.

2. RESEARCH METHOD
We conducted a systematic review of interventions to increase child vaccination coverage in hard-
to-reach populations. We used the PRISMA checklist as a writing guideline to ensure all steps are carried out
correctly [18]. Two reviewers were responsible for reviewing titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusions.
Population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) framework was used to clarify the eligibility criteria
for inclusion and exclusion of relevant articles [19], summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. PICO for inclusion and exclusion criteria

Include Exclude
Population Studies on pregnant women, children under five years Studies on school-age children, adult, elderly, and
old, health care staffs from hard-to-reach settings animals
Interventions Studies evaluated interventions to scaling up Studies which interventions to improve childhood
childhood vaccination coverage during routine vaccination coverage was conducted due to response
immunization, campaign, or new program for disease outbreak.
implementation.
Comparison Standard health care service/ usual practice, or other No comparison of different actions to improve
interventions to improve childhood vaccination vaccination coverage
coverage; conditions before implementing
interventions
Outcome The outcome of interest was childhood vaccination The outcome of interest was the proportion of
coverage before and after an intervention. The childhood vaccination coverage in descriptive
expected outcome measure was the Odds Ratio, mean statistics only, without further data analysis.
difference, or difference in difference (DID) with a
95% Confidence Interval or p-value.

We only included studies in English. Study designs included as inclusion criteria were trials,
observational analytic studies, and before-after studies. Other exclusion criteria were studies with the pure
qualitative design, modeling, review, editorial, opinion, and commentary. Inaccessible studies were also an
exclusion criterion. To minimize the risk of bias, gray literature and studies that have not been peer-reviewed
were not included.
In conducting our search, we used a combination of five sets of keywords: i) Child, infant,
pediatrics; ii) hard-to-reach communities, hard-to-reach population, hard-to-reach area, remote area, difficult
area; ii) vaccination, immunization; iv) uptake, coverage, rates, outcomes; v) strategies, programs, interventions.

Interventions to improve vaccination coverage of children in… (Cyntia Puspa Pitaloka)

648  ISSN: 2252-8806

The search was conducted on four journal databases, Pubmed MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of
Science, and Science Direct. We searched for all studies published since 2012, one year after the initiation of
GVAP, hoping that the selected studies will reflect the follow-up of the launch of GVAP in 2011. All articles
obtained from the database search were imported into the Zotero database manager to identify duplicate
journals, review titles, and abstracts. Data extraction was carried out on selected articles for full-text review
by two reviewers independently. We use Microsoft Excel to tabulate extracted data. We included authors,
year of publication, study purpose, setting, design, subjects/ participants, interventions, outcomes, and
limitations of the study.
To minimize the risk of bias, we used several tools to assess risk of bias specific to each study
design. We used ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies for interventions [20] and RoB 2 for randomized
trials [21], with additional considerations for cluster-randomized trials [22]. For uniformity in judging the
overall risk of bias, we classified serious and critical risk of bias in ROBINS-I and high risk of bias in RoB 2
as "high risk". Otherwise, we categorized it as "low risk". In the event of disagreement, we resolved any
discrepancy by discussion and consensus. In this systematic review, each study's level of evidence was
assessed using the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) criteria [23].

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Results
We conducted an article search on 13-20 December 2020 and identified 102 articles from
four databases. After removing duplication, there were 58 articles to screen for titles and abstracts. After
eliminating irrelevant articles, we found 14 articles to be thoroughly reviewed and leaving three articles for
analysis. Two articles were added manually by searching on the included studies' bibliography as shown Figure 1.

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram

The five included studies came from four different countries: Bangladesh (n=2), Afghanistan (n=1),
Pakistan (n=1), and India (n=1). Two articles had a cluster-randomized trial design, two quasi-experimental,
and one cross-sectional before-after study. The intervention duration varied with a minimum of 12 months
and a maximum of four years as shown in Table 2.

Int. J. Public Health Sci., Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2021 : 646 – 656
Int. J. Public Health Sci. ISSN: 2252-8806  649

Table 2. Summary of the design and intervention of the studies

Author, Length of
Setting Participants Interventions and Comparators
year study
[24] Bangladesh April 2013 520 children in baseline and 520 Intervention:
to March children in end line from rural MHealth mTika android and web-based
Sunamgonj 2014 interventions area application which functions are:
district and 518 children in baseline and 520 (1) Registration of pregnant women
Dhaka city children in end line from urban (2) Receive short message service (SMS)
interventions area notifications of baby birth sent by mothers
2,080 children from the control area (3) Sending automatic SMS immunization
reminders for mothers
(4) Vaccination reminders for health workers
(5) Monitoring of immunization programs by
health supervisors
Comparator:
The pre-existing public health system in
Bangladesh
[25] Afghanistan March 338,798 pregnant women Intervention:
2013 to 1,693,872 children under five years Mobile health teams (MHTs) that focus on
54 March maternal and child health (MCH) were
intervention 2017 implemented in the intervention areas.
districts and MHT consists of midwife nurses and
56 control vaccination officers. MHT visits remote and
districts conflict-affected villages for 1 to 2 days every
two months for outreach.
MHT-MCH services are
(1) Vaccination outreach
(2) Mobile clinics for adults
(3) Scheduled health services for mothers and
children under five years
Comparator:
Standard ministry of health services include
vaccination outreach and mobile health
services for adults
[26] Bangladesh April 2008 1,440 mothers and children in the Group A
to baseline survey and 1,441 mothers (1) Refresher training for immunization
Sunamgonj May 2010 and children in the end-line survey officers on valid dose and adverse events.
district in Sunamgonj district (2) Re-design vaccine supply system
(haor area) 1,440 mothers and children in the (3) Modification of immunization schedule
and baseline survey and 1. mothers and (4) Community support groups
Rangamati children in the end-line survey in Group B
district (hill Rangamati district (1) Refresher training for immunization
area) officers on valid dose and adverse events.
(2) Re-design vaccine supply system
(3) Immunization screening checklist
[27] Pakistan Jun. 4, Baseline: Arm A
2013, to 28,760 children under five in arm A Routine immunization package with the
Banjar, May 31, 30,098 children under five in arm B addition of oral polio vaccine (OPV)
Karachi, and 2014 29,126 children under five in arm C supplementary immunization activities
Kashmore End-line Arm B:
23.334 children under five in arm A (1) Arm A plus
26,110 children under five in arm B (2) Community and mobilization outreach
25,745 children under five in arm C (3) Improved communications
(4) Provision of maternal and child health
services through low-cost health camps
Arm C:
(1) Arm B plus
(2) Providing additional inactivated polio
vaccine (IPV) through maternal and child
health camps
[28] India February Intervention: Intervention:
2016 to 1,571 mothers with children aged 1- The use of ImTeCHO mHealth application by
6 tribal blocks January 4 months assisted social health activists (ASHAs)
in Bharuch 2017 1,757 mothers with children aged 6- Comparator:
and Namada 9 months Standard health care of ASHAs
districts Control:
1,452 mothers with children aged 1-
4 months
1,713 mothers with children aged 6-
9 months

Interventions to improve vaccination coverage of children in… (Cyntia Puspa Pitaloka)

650  ISSN: 2252-8806

Three studies evaluated single interventions, i.e., service innovation using mHealth application [24],
[28], and mobile outreach services under challenging locations [25]. Two other studies evaluated multiple
interventions consisting of refresher training, modification immunization schedule, community engagement,
immunization screening checklist [26], and community outreach to provide maternal and child health service
[27]. Four of the five studies reported a positive impact in increasing vaccination coverage [24]-[27], and one
study did not show superiority over than standard package [28]. Interventions that show good effectiveness in
increasing the coverage of childhood immunizations are the application of mHealth, given to vaccinators
with SMS reminders (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.9, p<0.001). Multiple interventions involving the community,
modification of immunization schedules during outreach activities, and immunization screening cards also
effectively increased coverage (OR 3.02, 95% CI 2.58 to 3.54, p<0.01). Only one study using multiple
interventions reached the WHO target for immunization coverage >80% [26]. Changes in vaccination
coverage after intervention can be seen in Table 3 (see in appendix).
Four of five studies had a low to moderate risk of bias due to randomization. One study had critical
risk because it was not randomized, and no clear baseline for each group [25]. Deviations from intended
interventions were observed in two studies [24], [26], which reported no standardized interventions delivered
because of the context of intervention. All five studies had some concerns in measuring the outcome;
caregiver recall was used to obtain vaccination status. Although this method had quality concerns [29], this
method was still acceptable, especially in lower and middle-income countries, and encouraged to be used in
combination with vaccination cards and health care facilities documentation [30]. Due to the design of quasi-
experimental, repeated cross-sectional studies, there was unclear evidence of missing outcome data in three
studies [24]-[26]. Based on our pre-existing criteria assessment, four studies were categorized as low [24],
[26]-[28], and one study categorized as high risk of bias [25].

3.2. Discussion
This systematic review aimed to identify appropriate interventions to increase child vaccination
coverage in hard-to-reach populations. The five selected studies provided an overview of potential interventions
to increase child vaccination coverage in hard-to-reach populations. The limited number of studies that raised
this issue showed that child immunization in hard-to-reach populations had not been given much attention, even
though child vaccination coverage is still one of the world's global health problems [31].

3.2.1. Post-intervention vaccination coverage

One of the essential meanings of vaccination coverage is finding out community access to healthcare
[32]. Measles coverage is an important indicator of achieving sustainable development goal (SDG) 3,
―ensure healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages‖. The high rate of measles transmission
requires at least 95% of measles1 and measles2 vaccines coverage to prevent transmission [33]. Our findings
in this study indicate that despite a significant increase in coverage after interventions were reached, none of
the studies achieved a minimum coverage of measles immunization of 95% as shown in Table 3 (see in
appendix). Other findings in this study also show that only one study achieved the target of at least 80% of all
childhood immunization coverage in every district [4]. The low post-intervention coverage indicates
that difficult-to-reach populations were still a significant challenge in the immunization program. Remote and
conflict-prone areas have worse maternal and child health than other areas due to the difficulty of providing
prevention and treatment services [34]. More than just temporary interventions were needed. Interventions
that were sustainable and applied to a broader location were expected to increase vaccination coverage with
long-term impacts. Communication about the importance of vaccination and vaccine safety should be
improved, and a strategy for tracking drop-out cases should also be a priority [35].

3.2.2. Intervention strategies to increase vaccination coverage

Of the five articles selected for this study, interventions that seem to give rise significantly compared
to the coverage number of baseline conditions is the application of mHealth mTika and the multiple
interventions in Bangladesh, with each having a value of OR more than three [24], [26]. One study with
multiple interventions: community mobilization, improved communication, and health camps increased 3 to
15% over baseline despite requiring higher costs [27]. The intervention with the mobile health team in the
Afghanistan study did not record baseline values and therefore could not be compared [25]. The
mHealth intervention with ImTeCHO did not show a significant increase in coverage [36].
mTika mHealth application showed the largest size of the impact of increasing coverage in the
intervention area with OR 3.6. This strategy worked well in Bangladesh [24] but not India [28]. We estimate
this is due to differences in application users. In Bangladesh, the mTika application was given directly to
vaccine officers to carry out direct tracking [24]. Furthermore, periodic automatic SMS reminders to mothers
before the immunization schedule made the mTika application more effective in increasing vaccination

Int. J. Public Health Sci., Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2021 : 646 – 656
Int. J. Public Health Sci. ISSN: 2252-8806  651

coverage than ImTeCHO. In India, ImTeCHO application was no superior to standard immunization
services. A previous study identified gaps in the performance of ASHAs in mobilizing mothers and children
for immunization [36]. However, giving mobile phones to ASHAs did not answer this problem. This
inconsistent benefit was also reported in a previous systematic review conducted by Cock et al. [37]
Furthermore, Oliver-Williams et al. [38] reported that only a little evidence supports mobile apps' use to
increase vaccination coverage. Therefore, despite 4.5 billion people have mobile phones and SMS technology
has proven to improve maternal and child health services in developing countries [39], the use of mobile apps
to increase vaccination coverage in hard-to-reach populations still needs further research.
Travel to health services affects infant vaccination coverage. Penta3 vaccination coverage was lower in
children who live with travel time to health services >60 minutes than <30 minutes [40]. In this case, mobile
health teams effectively reduced travel time to health care centers. A mobile clinic was a unit that aims to
provide medical services, diagnosis, and treatment for patients in remote areas [41]. Although common
obstacles to this type of intervention are financial problems, human resources, and logistical limitations [42],
this service is considered cost-effective compared to build a permanent health unit in remote and hard-to-reach
areas [41]. Therefore, to have sustainability in implementing this type of service, good planning of various
programs and funding must be done simultaneously by stakeholders.
A good schedule of team visits also enhanced mobile health teams' effectiveness. Studies in Nigeria
showed that immunization utilization was affected by health care problems. Lack of services, lack of health
personnel, and vaccines' absence on a predetermined schedule lead to low immunization utilization [43].
Modifications to the immunization schedule such as those carried out in Bangladesh were a strategic way of
dealing with this. Changing the outreach schedule by mobile immunization from one day monthly to every
two months for two days provides more opportunities for every child to access immunizations. More children
can be served by staying longer because the vaccination service is not limited to particular hours. Parents
who work in the morning can bring their child in the afternoon or the following day. For officers, this
schedule modification also saves expenses because they do not need to come every month. This schedule
change is also in accordance with the WHO routine immunization schedule recommendations, which allows
intervals between DPT vaccines of four and eight weeks [44].
One of the things that are very crucial in immunization services besides coverage is the quality of
vaccines. The most potential of the vaccine can be achieved if the cold chain system is well implemented. This
includes vaccine storage and transportation from factories to health facilities where vaccinations are carried out
and outreach locations. Various methods were developed to improve the vaccine delivery system, namely
preventing vaccine freezing using cold water instead of ice, temperature monitoring systems in vials, and better
cold chain related control and regulatory systems [45]. One of the efforts made to maintain the cold chain
system's integrity in hard-to-reach areas is re-designing the vaccine delivery system, as reported by Uddin et al.
in Bangladesh. Vaccines were no longer sent from an area's capital but rather sent from adjacent cities [26]. The
goal was to cut the mileage and reduce travel time to reduce vaccine damage due to the long trip. This method is
good enough but requires more coordination with other districts as it will also change their cold chain system.
This needed additional work by officials from other districts to get the vaccine to a certain point, which requires
additional costs and therefore should be included in the evaluation component.
In Bangladesh, the establishment of a community support group consisting of immunization hosts,
mothers with fully immunized children, village defense members, male and female students, representatives
of non-profit organizations, traditional birth attendants, and traditional healers increased vaccination
coverage [26]. A study from Pakistan also reported increased vaccination coverage after training lady health
workers and traditional birth attendants as community mobilizers [46]. Habib et al. reported that community
communication campaigns have also effectively increased oral polio immunization coverage [27]. However,
this kind of intervention is usually hindered by funding constraints, inadequate infrastructure and equipment,
community stakeholders' attitudes, and political factors [47].
Uddin et al. reported positive outcomes from multiple interventions to improve the health system
[26]. Refresher training for Public Health staff, re-design vaccine supply system, and providing immunization
screening checklist increased complete immunization coverage 26 to 29%. The combination of this
intervention with community engagement increased the coverage even more remarkable, with OR 3.02,
compared to baseline. These interventions were worldwide accepted and recommended to improve
vaccination coverage. Refresher training has been routinely recommended to strengthen the immunization
program. It is recommended by WHO [48], and UNICEF recommended rapid card check for immunization
to evaluate immunization program at the household level [49]. Thus, the combination of these interventions
was worked better.

Interventions to improve vaccination coverage of children in… (Cyntia Puspa Pitaloka)

652  ISSN: 2252-8806

3.2.3. Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions

Vaccination was known as a lifetime investment. Even in the lower and middle-income countries,
vaccination contributed as protection against poverty [50]. Nevertheless, the cost is high in hard-to-reach
geography. Of the five studies, mHealth mTika intervention was the most cost-effective because only using
SMS reminders to obtain a significant increase in vaccination coverage. Mobile health teams and health
camps that take the form of outreach activities, whether conducted in Afghanistan or Pakistan, are considered
to be at a high-cost [25], [27]. Habib et al. noted that the cost of adding a low-cost health camp was not low.
Apart from the additional costs, additional human resources, training, and supervision were added to standard
immunization services. Therefore, these interventions cannot replace existing standard immunization
services, although they can increase vaccination coverage [27]. The thing that needs to be considered in high-
cost activities is the sustainability of these activities related to funding. If the funds needed are not available,
the program's continuity is threatened so that there is concern that coverage will decline.
Uddin et al. wrote that multiple interventions at the study sites were provided without additional
costs because they were implementing their intervention by using existing resources [26]. This kind of
intervention needs to do with caution because the additional work without additional appreciation could
jeopardize the system's sustainability. A study in Myanmar of health workers and cadres in hard-to-reach
areas showed that government incentives, transportation support, training, and residents' acceptance affected
their work productivity [51].
A study reported that ImTeCHO was cost-effective in improving India's infant mortality [52].
However, there was no record of its cost-effectiveness in overall maternal and child health programs,
especially in increasing vaccination coverage. Furthermore, considering that the costs incurred with this
system not only the purchase of equipment but also credit and the cost of service, and replacement when lost
or stolen, the use of ImTeCHO was ineffective and costly in improving vaccination coverage.

3.2.4. Limitations
This systematic review's major limitation was the small number of studies identified. Differences in
design between studies make it difficult to conclude the size of the impact of more controlled interventions.
There were only two randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies with a low risk of bias, two quasi-
experimental studies with a low risk of bias, and one cross-sectional study with a high risk of bias in this
systematic review. Therefore, conclusions regarding the intervention's effectiveness are varying. Considering
all these limitations, the level of evidence for interventions to increase vaccination coverage for children in
hard-to-reach populations is therefore low (NHMRC level of evidence III-3).

4. CONCLUSION
To our knowledge, this is the first article that systematically reviewed interventions to improve
vaccination coverage in hard-to-reach populations. Our systematic review shows that the mHealth application
shows high effectiveness if appropriately addressed, although it needs further research. Multiple interventions
involving existing health systems are highly effective and low-cost. Mobilization of health teams to hard-to-
reach areas can increase vaccination coverage but requires high costs and additional resources to carry out
these activities. Costs can be reduced if the intervention is integrated with the existing health system so that
there is no need to bring in additional human resources. However, we recommend that additional incentives
be provided to health workers and community groups who conduct outreach to motivate them to carry out
their duties. Given the costs incurred, better program planning and targeting a broader program are needed to
increase the effectiveness of the already incurred costs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Universitas Airlangga library for providing access to journal
databases.

REFERENCES
[1] N. MacDonald et al., "Global vaccine action plan lessons learned I: Recommendations for the next decade,"
Vaccine, vol. 38, no. 33, pp. 5364-5371, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.003.
[2] World Health Organization, "Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization. The Global Vaccine Action
Plan 2011-2020. Review and Lessons Learned," World Health Organization, Geneva, WHO/IVB/19.07, 2019.
[3] World Health Organization, "Ten years in public health, 2007-2017: report by Dr Margaret Chan," Geneva: World
Health Organization, 2017.

Int. J. Public Health Sci., Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2021 : 646 – 656
Int. J. Public Health Sci. ISSN: 2252-8806  653

[4] M. Chan, A. Lake, A. Fauci, and S. Berkley, "Global Vaccine Action Plan," Vaccine, vol. 31, pp. B5-B31, Apr.
2013, doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.02.015.
[5] M. Chopra et al., "Addressing the persistent inequities in immunization coverage," Bull World Health Organ, vol.
98, no. 2, pp. 146-148, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.2471/BLT.19.241620.
[6] P. Plans-Rubió, "Are the Objectives Proposed by the WHO for Routine Measles Vaccination Coverage and
Population Measles Immunity Sufficient to Achieve Measles Elimination from Europe?," Vaccines, vol. 8, no. 2, p.
218, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.3390/vaccines8020218.
[7] A. Kundrick et al., "Sub-national variation in measles vaccine coverage and outbreak risk: a case study from a 2010
outbreak in Malawi," BMC Public Health, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 741, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5628-x.
[8] N. B. Masters, M. C. Eisenberg, P. L. Delamater, M. Kay, M. L. Boulton, and J. Zelner, "Fine-scale spatial
clustering of measles nonvaccination that increases outbreak potential is obscured by aggregated reporting data",
PNAS, vol. 117, no. 45, pp. 28506-28514, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2011529117.
[9] S. Ozawa, T. T. Yemeke, D. R. Evans, S. E. Pallas, A. S. Wallace, and B. Y. Lee, "Defining hard-to-reach
populations for vaccination," Vaccine, vol. 37, no. 37, pp. 5525-5534, Sep. 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.06.081.
[10] S. Nouri, "Effects of conflict, displacement, and migration on the health of refugee and conflict-stricken
populations in the Middle East," International Journal of Public Health Science, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 359, Sep. 2019,
doi: 10.11591/ijphs.v8i3.18590.
[11] M. Moinuddin et al., "Birth preparedness and complication readiness (BPCR) among pregnant women in hard-to-
reach areas in Bangladesh", PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 12, p. e0189365, Dec. 2017, doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0189365.
[12] Gavi, "Sustainable Development Goals," Gavi the vaccine alliance, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.gavi.org/our-alliance/global-health-development/sustainable-development-goals
[13] C. Schütte et al., "Cost analysis of routine immunisation in Zambia," Vaccine, vol. 33 no. Suppl 1, pp. A47-52,
May 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.040.
[14] M. Songane, "Challenges for nationwide vaccine delivery in African countries," Int J Health Econ Manag., vol. 18,
no. 2, pp. 197-219, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10754-017-9229-5.
[15] B. Y. Lee et al., "Economic value of vaccinating geographically hard-to-reach populations with measles vaccine: A
modeling application in Kenya," Vaccine, vol. 37, no. 17, p. 2377, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.03.007.
[16] R. H. Doshi et al., "Assessing the cost-effectiveness of different measles vaccination strategies for children in the
Democratic Republic of Congo," Vaccine, vol. 35, no. 45, pp. 6187-6194, Oct. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.038.
[17] S. Meteke et al., "Delivering infectious disease interventions to women and children in conflict settings: a
systematic reviefw," BMJ Glob Health, vol. 5, no. Suppl 1, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001967.
[18] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and PRISMA Group, "Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement," BMJ, vol. 339, p. b2535, Jul. 2009, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535.
[19] A. Pollock and E. Berge, "How to do a systematic review," International Journal of Stroke, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 138-
156, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1177/1747493017743796.
[20] J. A. Sterne et al., "ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions," BMJ, p.
i4919, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919.
[21] J. Higgins, J. Savović, M. Page, R. Elbers, and J. Sterne, "Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial.
In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors)," in Cochrane Handbook
for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2, Cochrane, 2021.
[22] S. Eldridge et al., "Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) Additional considerations for
cluster-randomized trials (RoB 2 CRT)," Cochrane, Nov. 10, 2020, [Online]. Available:
https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/
[23] National Health and Medical Research Council, "NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for
recommendations for developers of guidelines Stage 2 Consultation," 2009, [Online]. Available:
https://www.mja.com.au/sites/default/files/NHMRC.levels.of.evidence.2008-09.pdf
[24] Md. J. Uddin et al., "Use of mobile phones for improving vaccination coverage among children living in rural hard-
to-reach areas and urban streets of Bangladesh," Vaccine, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 276-283, Jan. 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.024.
[25] K. Edmond et al., "Mobile outreach health services for mothers and children in conflict-affected and remote areas:
a population-based study from Afghanistan," Arch Dis Child, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 18-25, Jan. 2020, doi:
10.1136/archdischild-2019-316802.
[26] Md. J. Uddin et al., "Improving low coverage of child immunization in rural hard-to-reach areas of Bangladesh:
Findings from a project using multiple interventions," Vaccine, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 168-179, Jan. 2012, doi:
10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.030.
[27] M. A. Habib et al., "Community engagement and integrated health and polio immunisation campaigns in conflict-
affected areas of Pakistan: a cluster randomised controlled trial," The Lancet Global Health, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. e593-
e603, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30184-5.
[28] D. Modi et al., "mHealth intervention ―ImTeCHO‖ to improve delivery of maternal, neonatal, and child care
services—A cluster-randomized trial in tribal areas of Gujarat, India," PLoS Med, vol. 16, no. 10, Oct. 2019, doi:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1002939.

Interventions to improve vaccination coverage of children in… (Cyntia Puspa Pitaloka)

654  ISSN: 2252-8806

[29] R. N. Modi, C. King, N. Bar-Zeev, and T. Colbourn, "Caregiver recall in childhood vaccination surveys:
Systematic review of recall quality and use in low- and middle-income settings," Vaccine, vol. 36, no. 29, pp. 4161-
4170, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.089.
[30] M. C. Danovaro-Holliday, E. Dansereau, D. A. Rhoda, D. W. Brown, F. T. Cutts, and M. Gacic-Dobo, "Collecting
and using reliable vaccination coverage survey estimates: Summary and recommendations from the ―Meeting to
share lessons learnt from the roll-out of the updated WHO Vaccination Coverage Cluster Survey Reference Manual
and to set an operational research agenda around vaccination coverage surveys," Geneva, 18–21 April 2017,"
Vaccine, vol. 36, no. 34, pp. 5150-5159, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.019.
[31] World Health Organization, "10 global health issues to track in 2021," 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/10-global-health-issues-to-track-in-2021
[32] F. T. Cutts, P. Claquin, M. C. Danovaro-Holliday, and D. A. Rhoda, "Monitoring vaccination coverage: Defining
the role of surveys," Vaccine, vol. 34, no. 35, pp. 4103-4109, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.06.053.
[33] IA2030, "Immunization Agenda 2030. A global strategy to leave no one behind," World Health Organization,
2020.
[34] L. Meiqari, M. Hoetjes, L. Baxter, and A. Lenglet, "Impact of war on child health in northern Syria: the experience
of Médecins Sans Frontières," Eur J Pediatr, vol. 177, no. 3, pp. 371-380, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s00431-017-
3057-y.
[35] L. R. Feldstein, S. Mariat, M. Gacic-Dobo, M. S. Diallo, L. M. Conklin, and A. S. Wallace, "Global Routine
Vaccination Coverage, 2016," MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, vol. 66, no. 45, pp. 1252-1255, Nov. 2017, doi:
10.15585/mmwr.mm6645a3.
[36] D. Modi et al., "Development and formative evaluation of an innovative mHealth intervention for improving
coverage of community-based maternal, newborn and child health services in rural areas of India," Global Health
Action, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 26769, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.3402/gha.v8.26769.
[37] C. de Cock, M. van Velthoven, M. Milne-Ives, M. Mooney, and E. Meinert, "Use of Apps to Promote Childhood
Vaccination: Systematic Review," JMIR mHealth and uHealth, vol. 8, no. 5, May 2020, doi: 10.2196/17371.
[38] C. Oliver-Williams, E. Brown, S. Devereux, C. Fairhead, and I. Holeman, "Using Mobile Phones to Improve
Vaccination Uptake in 21 Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review," JMIR mHealth and uHealth,
vol. 5, no. 10, p. e7792, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7792.
[39] C. Kruse, J. Betancourt, S. Ortiz, S. M. Valdes Luna, I. K. Bamrah, and N. Segovia, "Barriers to the Use of Mobile
Health in Improving Health Outcomes in Developing Countries: Systematic Review," J. Med Internet Res, vol. 21,
no. 10, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.2196/13263.
[40] Y. B. Okwaraji, K. Mulholland, J. R. M. A. Schellenberg, G. Andarge, M. Admassu, and K. M. Edmond, "The
association between travel time to health facilities and childhood vaccine coverage in rural Ethiopia. A community
based cross sectional study," BMC Public Health, vol. 12, p. 476, Jun. 2012, doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-476.
[41] A. B. Khanna and S. A. Narula, "Mobile health units: Mobilizing healthcare to reach unreachable," International
Journal of Healthcare Management, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 58-66, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1080/20479700.2015.1101915.
[42] N. M. Neke, G. Gadau, and J. Wasem, "Policy makers’ perspective on the provision of maternal health services via
mobile health clinics in Tanzania-Findings from key informant interviews," PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 9, p. e0203588,
2018, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203588.
[43] N. N. Akwataghibe, E. A. Ogunsola, J. E. W. Broerse, O. A. Popoola, A. Agbo I., and M. A. Dieleman, "Exploring
Factors Influencing Immunization Utilization in Nigeria-A Mixed Methods Study," Frontiers in Public Health, vol.
7, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00392.
[44] World Health Organization, "WHO recommendations for routine immunization-summary tables," 2020. [Online].
Available: https://www.who.int/teams/maternal-newborn-child-adolescent-health-and-ageing/maternal-
health/about/immunization-vaccines-and-biologicals
[45] U. Kartoglu and J. Milstien, "Tools and approaches to ensure quality of vaccines throughout the cold chain," Expert
Rev Vaccines, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 843-854, Jul. 2014, doi: 10.1586/14760584.2014.923761.
[46] A. Sahito, S. Ahmed, and Z. Fatmi, "Covering the last mile for vaccination: Feasibility and acceptability of
traditional birth attendant-based referral system in hard-to-reach areas in rural Pakistan," J. Glob Health, vol. 10,
no. 2, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.021303.
[47] A. Oku et al., "Factors affecting the implementation of childhood vaccination communication strategies in Nigeria:
a qualitative study," BMC Public Health, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 200, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4020-6.
[48] R. J. Biellik and W. A. Orenstein, "Strengthening routine immunization through measles-rubella elimination’,
Vaccine, vol. 36, no. 37, pp. 5645-5650, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.029.
[49] F. Agushybana, S. Bm, S. P. Jati, M. Martini, and A. Sriatmi, "Description of complete basic immunization
coverage among infant," International Journal of Public Helath Science, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 174, Jun. 2019, doi:
10.11591/ijphs.v8i2.18888.
[50] P. Piot et al., "Immunization: vital progress, unfinished agenda," Nature, vol. 575, no. 7781, pp. 119-129, Nov.
2019, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1656-7.
[51] A. Sommanustweechai et al., "Community health worker in hard-to-reach rural areas of Myanmar: filling primary
health care service gaps," Hum Resour Health, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 64, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1186/s12960-016-0161-4.
[52] D. Modi et al., "Costing and Cost-Effectiveness of a Mobile Health Intervention (ImTeCHO) in Improving Infant
Mortality in Tribal Areas of Gujarat, India: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial," JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, vol. 8,
no. 10, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.2196/17066.

Int. J. Public Health Sci., Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2021 : 646 – 656
Int. J. Public Health Sci. ISSN: 2252-8806  655

APPENDIX

Table 3. Vaccine coverage before and after interventions

Post
Author, Pre Change RoB
% (95% Importance
year % (95% CI) % (95% CI) /NHMRC
CI)
Children aged >298 days received complete BCG + Penta3 + MR vaccination Low
Intervention (rural) /III-2
(+)18.8 (5.7 to
DID (+)29.5 OR 3.6 (1.5 to 8.9)
58.9 76.8 31.9)
p<0.001
p<0.001
Control (rural)
There was an increase in coverage in the intervention
(-)10.7 (-25.2
group and decreased coverage in the control group, which
65.9 55.2 to 3.9)
were statistically significant.
P<0.001
[24]
Children aged >298 days never vaccinated.
Intervention (rural)
DID (-)9.9 OR 0.04 (0 to 0.09)
(-)7.7 (-13.4 to
p<0.001
9.2 1.4 -2.0)
There was a statistically significant reduction in the
p<0.001
coverage of children who never
Control (rural)
(+)2.2 (-2.2 to Received the vaccine in the intervention areas.
0.8 3.0
6.6)
High
The proportion of infants receiving Penta3 vaccine
/III-3
Intervention Mean difference 7.55 (-4.2 to 19.3)
No data 76.4 SD 28.7 p 0.20
[25]
Control There was no statistically significant difference between
the intervention and control groups for the proportion of
No data 62.4 SD 33.9
infants receiving the Penta3 vaccine.
The proportion of infants receiving measles vaccine-1
Intervention Mean difference 12.78 (2.08 to 23.48)
No data 73.8 SD 26.6 p 0.02
Control There was a statistically significant difference in the mean
proportion of infants receiving measles1 vaccine between
No data 57.3 SD 30.5
the intervention and control groups
Vaccination coverage for children aged 12-23 months Low
Group A haor /III-2
Complete BCG-DPT3-Measles immunization
54 (49.7 to
29 83 58.3)
[26]
p <0.001
Immunization left-out
13 (30.6 to Complete immunization for children aged 12-23 months
15 2 39.3) Group B compared to group A:
p<0.001 OR 2.09 (1.73 to 2.53)
Group A hill p <0.01
Complete BCG-DPT3-Measles immunization
20 (15.9 to End-line versus baseline:
69 89 24.1) OR 3.02 (2.58 to 3.54)
p<0.001 p <0.01
Immunization left-out
6 0 -6 (0) Hill versus haor:
Group B haor OR 1.54 (1.30 to 1.82)
Complete BCG-DPT3-Measles immunization p <0.01
29 (24.4 to
52 81 33.6) The increase in vaccination coverage for children aged 12-
p<0.001 23 was statistically significant in the intervention groups
Immunization left-out A and B, with groups B and hill having a higher
3 (1.3 to 4.6) probability of experiencing an increase in coverage.
4 1
p<0.001
Group B hill
Complete BCG-DPT3-Measles immunization
26 (21.4 to
55 81 30.6)
p<0.001
Immunization left-out
4 (1.4 to 6.6)
9 5
p<0.001
Complete immunization according to age Increased proportion of complete immunizations Low
Arm A Arm B versus arm A /II
[27]
25 (22 to 7.3 (4.5 to 10.0)
22 (22 to 24) 3
27) Arm C versus arm A
Interventions to improve vaccination coverage of children in… (Cyntia Puspa Pitaloka)
656  ISSN: 2252-8806

Arm B 9.5 (6.9 to 12.0)

32 (29 to p<0.0001
22 (19 to 24) 10
35) There was a significant increase in the proportion of
Arm C children who received complete immunization after the
34 (31 to intervention in arm B and C compared to arm A (control)
22 (20 to 24) 12
37)
Immunization left out
Arm A
36(32 to
42 (39 to 46) 6
40)
Arm B
28 (25 to
42 (38 to 46) 14
31)
Arm C
27 (24 to
42 (38 to 46) 15
30)
The proportion of mean vaccine dose
Intervention B effect 9% (7 to 11)
received during the scheduled supplemental
Intervention C effect 11% (9 to 13)
immunization
Arm A
43 (40 to
39 (37 to 42) 4
45)
p<0.0001
Arm B
There was an increase in the mean proportion of vaccines
52 (49 to
39 (36 to 41) 13 received as the addition of interventions (B and C) was
55)
statistically significant.
Arm C
54 (51 to
39 (36 to 42) 15
56)
Adjusted effect size: 1.1 Low
[28] Percentage of Penta3 vaccine acceptance in (-2.7 to 4.9) /II
infants aged 6-9 months p 0.589
Intervention: 73.0 (70.3 to 75.8) There was no significant difference between the
Control: 73.6 (70.9 to 76.4) intervention and control groups receiving the Penta3 dose
for infants aged 6-9 months.
RoB – Risk of Bias; NHMRC - National Health and Medical Research Council

Int. J. Public Health Sci., Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2021 : 646 – 656