Aaron S Wallace1, Kenny Peetosutan2, Andi Untung3, Marisa Ricardo4, Prima Yosephine5, Kathleen Wannemuehler6, David W Brown7, Deborah A McFarland8, Walter A Orenstein9, Eli S Rosenberg10, Saad B Omer8, Danni Daniels6. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States; Global Immunization Division, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30333, United States. Electronic address: awallace@cdc.gov. 2. Maternal and Child Health Team, UNICEF, Jakarta, Indonesia. 3. Health Communications Team, Ministry of Health, Jakarta, Indonesia. 4. Maternal and Child Health Team, UNICEF, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 5. National Immunization Program, Ministry of Health, Jakarta, Indonesia. 6. Global Immunization Division, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30333, United States. 7. Brown Consulting Group International LLC, Cornelius, NC, 28031, United States. 8. Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States. 9. Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States. 10. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany 12222, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence is available about the effectiveness of strategies to remind caregivers when to bring children back for future vaccinations in low- and middle-income country settings. We evaluated the effectiveness of two reminder strategies based on home-based vaccination records (HBR) in Indonesia. METHODS: In this cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 3616 children <1 year of age, 90 health facilities were randomly assigned to either a control group or one of two intervention groups: (1) HBR-only group, where healthcare workers provided an HBR to any child without an HBR during a vaccination visit and instructed the caregiver to keep it at home between visits, or (2) HBR + sticker group, where, in addition to HBR provision, healthcare workers placed vaccination appointment reminder stickers on the HBR. The primary outcome was receipt of the third dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-containing vaccine (DTPcv3) within 7 months and the secondary outcome was receipt of a timely DTPcv3 dose. RESULTS: Control group DTPcv3 coverage was 81%. In intention-to-treat analysis, neither intervention group had significantly different DTPcv3 coverage compared with the control group (RR = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87; 1.02 for HBR-only group; RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90; 1.04 for HBR + sticker group) by study end. However, children in the HBR + sticker group were 50% more likely to have received a DTPcv3 vaccination (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.02, 2.09) within 60 days of DTPcv1 vaccination, compared with children in the control group; children in the HBR-only group were not more likely to have done so (RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.71, 1.55). DISCUSSION: Reminder stickers had an immediate effect on coverage by improving the proportion of children who received a timely DTPcv3 dose but no effect on the proportion who received DTPcv3 after 7 months. Coupling reminder stickers with strategies to address other reasons why children do not return for vaccination visits should be further explored. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence is available about the effectiveness of strategies to remind caregivers when to bring children back for future vaccinations in low- and middle-income country settings. We evaluated the effectiveness of two reminder strategies based on home-based vaccination records (HBR) in Indonesia. METHODS: In this cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 3616 children <1 year of age, 90 health facilities were randomly assigned to either a control group or one of two intervention groups: (1) HBR-only group, where healthcare workers provided an HBR to any child without an HBR during a vaccination visit and instructed the caregiver to keep it at home between visits, or (2) HBR + sticker group, where, in addition to HBR provision, healthcare workers placed vaccination appointment reminder stickers on the HBR. The primary outcome was receipt of the third dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-containing vaccine (DTPcv3) within 7 months and the secondary outcome was receipt of a timely DTPcv3 dose. RESULTS: Control group DTPcv3 coverage was 81%. In intention-to-treat analysis, neither intervention group had significantly different DTPcv3 coverage compared with the control group (RR = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87; 1.02 for HBR-only group; RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90; 1.04 for HBR + sticker group) by study end. However, children in the HBR + sticker group were 50% more likely to have received a DTPcv3 vaccination (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.02, 2.09) within 60 days of DTPcv1 vaccination, compared with children in the control group; children in the HBR-only group were not more likely to have done so (RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.71, 1.55). DISCUSSION: Reminder stickers had an immediate effect on coverage by improving the proportion of children who received a timely DTPcv3 dose but no effect on the proportion who received DTPcv3 after 7 months. Coupling reminder stickers with strategies to address other reasons why children do not return for vaccination visits should be further explored. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Authors: Hussain R Usman; Mohammad H Rahbar; Sibylle Kristensen; Sten H Vermund; Russell S Kirby; Faiza Habib; Eric Chamot Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Deborah A Gust; Tara W Strine; Emmanuel Maurice; Philip Smith; Hussain Yusuf; Marilyn Wilkinson; Michael Battaglia; Robert Wright; Benjamin Schwartz Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Julie C Jacobson Vann; Robert M Jacobson; Tamera Coyne-Beasley; Josephine K Asafu-Adjei; Peter G Szilagyi Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-01-18