Revising the Logic Model Behind Health Care's Social Care Investments.

Policy Points This article summarizes recent evidence on how increased awareness of patients' social conditions in the health care sector may influence health and health care utilization outcomes. Using this evidence, we propose a more expansive logic model to explain the impacts of social care programs and inform future social care program investments and evaluations.

The prevalence of social care in US health care settings depends on how and whom you ask.

BACKGROUND: Despite unprecedented enthusiasm for integrating social risk screening and related interventions into US health care settings, we know relatively little about the extent to which these activities occur. We reviewed results from multiple national surveys that reported on the prevalence of social care activities. METHODS: We used snowball sampling to solicit input from 29 expert informants who were asked to share any knowledge about survey instruments that included questions on the prevalence of social care-related activities conducted in health care settings. We subsequently ran web searches on recommended surveys to identify those fielded with a national sample and conducted between Jan 1, 2007 and May 31, 2019. Finally, we analyzed and compared results across surveys. RESULTS: We reviewed 23 total survey events (19 individual surveys and 4 that had been re-administered) that included questions on the extent of social care activities across health care disciplines and settings. Samples included a wide range of health care stakeholders (including payers, health care executives, providers, and patients.) Sample sizes ranged across the types of respondents: 95-120 respondents in surveys of payers; 44-757 in surveys of health care delivery leaders; 484-2333 in surveys of clinicians; and 500-7002 in surveys of patients. In eight cases, survey reports did not include response rates; another four reports described response rates under 25%. Fifteen of the 23 surveys incorporated questions on the prevalence of social risk screening; 17 included questions on social care intervention activities. Responses about the prevalence of both screening and interventions varied widely: between 15 and 100% of respondents reported their organization conducts screening for at least one social risk; 18-100% of respondents reported providing social care interventions. Between 3 and 22% of surveyed patients reported being screened or assisted with a social risk. In the four surveys that were administered in different years, we found no significant differences in results between survey administrations. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that caution is warranted in interpreting survey findings from any single survey since existing surveys report a wide range of prevalence estimates for social risk screening and interventions.

Priority-setting in public health research funding organisations: an exploratory qualitative study among five high-profile funders.

BACKGROUND: Priority-driven funding streams for population and public health are an important part of the health research landscape and contribute to orienting future scholarship in the field. While research priorities are often made public through targeted calls for research, less is known about how research funding organisations arrive at said priorities. Our objective was to explore how public health research funding organisations develop priorities for strategic extramural research funding programmes. METHODS: Content analysis of published academic and grey literature and key informant interviews for five public and private funders of public health research in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and France were performed. RESULTS: We found important distinctions in how funding organisations processed potential research priorities through four non-sequential phases, namely idea generation, idea analysis, idea socialisation and idea selection. Funders generally involved the public health research community and public health decision-makers in idea generation and socialisation, but other groups of stakeholders (e.g. the public, advocacy organisations) were not as frequently included. CONCLUSIONS: Priority-setting for strategic funding programmes in public health research involves consultation mainly with researchers in the early phase of the process. There is an opportunity for greater breadth of participation and more transparency in priority-setting mechanisms for strategic funding programmes in population and public health research.

The comprehensive 'Communicate to Vaccinate' taxonomy of communication interventions for childhood vaccination in routine and campaign contexts.

BACKGROUND: Communication can be used to generate demand for vaccination or address vaccine hesitancy, and is crucial to successful childhood vaccination programmes. Research efforts have primarily focused on communication for routine vaccination. However, vaccination campaigns, particularly in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs), also use communication in diverse ways. Without a comprehensive framework integrating communication interventions from routine and campaign contexts, it is not possible to conceptualise the full range of possible vaccination communication interventions. Therefore, vaccine programme managers may be unaware of potential communication options and researchers may not focus on building evidence for interventions used in practice. In this paper, we broaden the scope of our existing taxonomy of communication interventions for routine vaccination to include communication used in campaigns, and integrate these into a comprehensive taxonomy of vaccination communication interventions. METHODS: Building on our taxonomy of communication for routine vaccination, we identified communication interventions used in vaccination campaigns through a targeted literature search; observation of vaccination activities in Cameroon, Mozambique and Nigeria; and stakeholder consultations. We added these interventions to descriptions of routine vaccination communication and categorised the interventions according to their intended purposes, building from an earlier taxonomy of communication related to routine vaccination. RESULTS: The comprehensive taxonomy groups communication used in campaigns and routine childhood vaccination into seven purpose categories: 'Inform or Educate'; 'Remind or Recall'; 'Enhance Community Ownership'; 'Teach Skills'; 'Provide Support'; 'Facilitate Decision Making' and 'Enable Communication'. Consultations with LMIC stakeholders and experts informed the taxonomy's definitions and structure and established its potential uses. CONCLUSIONS: This taxonomy provides a standardised way to think and speak about vaccination communication. It is categorised by purpose to help conceptualise communication interventions as potential solutions to address needs or problems. It can be utilised by programme planners, implementers, researchers and funders to see the range of communication interventions used in practice, facilitate evidence synthesis and identify evidence gaps.

Factors affecting the implementation of childhood vaccination communication strategies in Nigeria: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The role of health communication in vaccination programmes cannot be overemphasized: it has contributed significantly to creating and sustaining demand for vaccination services and improving vaccination coverage. In Nigeria, numerous communication approaches have been deployed but these interventions are not without challenges. We therefore aimed to explore factors affecting the delivery of vaccination communication in Nigeria. METHODS: We used a qualitative approach and conducted the study in two states: Bauchi and Cross River States in northern and southern Nigeria respectively. We identified factors affecting the implementation of communication interventions through interviews with relevant stakeholders involved in vaccination communication in the health services. We also reviewed relevant documents. Data generated were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We used the SURE framework to organise the identified factors (barriers and facilitators) affecting vaccination communication delivery. We then grouped these into health systems and community level factors. Some of the commonly reported health system barriers amongst stakeholders interviewed included: funding constraints, human resource factors (health worker shortages, training deficiencies, poor attitude of health workers and vaccination teams), inadequate infrastructure and equipment and weak political will. Community level factors included the attitudes of community stakeholders and of parents and caregivers. We also identified factors that appeared to facilitate communication activities. These included political support, engagement of traditional and religious institutions and the use of organised communication committees. CONCLUSIONS: Communication activities are a crucial element of immunization programmes. It is therefore important for policy makers and programme managers to understand the barriers and facilitators affecting the delivery of vaccination communication so as to be able to implement communication interventions more effectively.

Mapping how information about childhood vaccination is communicated in two regions of Cameroon: What is done and where are the gaps?

BACKGROUND: The 'Communicate to vaccinate' (COMMVAC) project builds research evidence for improving communication with parents and communities about childhood vaccinations in low- and middle-income countries. Understanding and mapping the range of vaccination communication strategies used in different settings is an important component of this work. In this part of the COMMVAC project, our objectives were: (1) to identify the vaccination communication interventions used in two regions of Cameroon; (2) to apply the COMMVAC taxonomy, a global taxonomy of vaccination communication interventions, to these communication interventions to help us classify these interventions, including their purposes and target audiences; and identify whether gaps in purpose or target audiences exist; (3) to assess the COMMVAC taxonomy as a research tool for data collection and analysis. METHODS: We used the following qualitative methods to identify communication strategies in the Central and North West Regions of Cameroon in the first half of 2014: interviews with program managers, non-governmental organizations, vaccinators, parents and community members; observations and informal conversations during routine immunization clinics and three rounds of the National Polio Immunization Campaign; and document analysis of reports and mass media communications about vaccination. A survey of parents and caregivers was also done. We organised the strategies using the COMMVAC taxonomy and produced a map of Cameroon-specific interventions, which we presented to local stakeholders for feedback. RESULTS: Our map of the interventions used in Cameroon suggests that most childhood vaccination communication interventions focus on national campaigns against polio rather than routine immunisation. The map also indicates that most communication interventions target communities more broadly, rather than parents, and that very few interventions target health workers. The majority of the communication interventions aimed to inform or educate or remind or recall members of the community about vaccination. The COMMVAC taxonomy provided a useful framework for quickly and simply mapping existing vaccination communication strategies. CONCLUSIONS: By identifying the interventions used in Cameroon and developing an intervention map, we allowed stakeholders to see where they were concentrating their communication efforts and where gaps exist, allowing them to reflect on whether changes are needed to the communication strategies they are using.

If you build it, they may not come: Understanding factors influencing use of a community resource referral technology.

OBJECTIVE: Identify factors affecting the use of a community resource referral platform among local community-based organizations (CBOs) and test strategies to increase platform use. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Data sources included platform usage data and semi-structured interviews. The study took place in a small city in the Northeastern United States from 2020 to 2022. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed platform data and conducted interviews with local organizations and organizations in other communities to understand barriers to CBOs' use of the referral platform and identify strategies that might increase use. We then tested 4 strategies and assessed impacts via time trend analysis of platform usage and qualitative interviews. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Platform usage data were obtained from the platform. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff and leaders of 36 local CBOs and 9 external organizations. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Four years after launch, platform use remained relatively low. None of the tested strategies (data insight reports, a referral hub, tailored training, and a communication campaign) noticeably increased platform use. The main barrier to the use of the platform was the lack of perceived usefulness, mostly because existing processes for identifying resources and referring clients worked well enough and because many organizations were already required to use a client management or referral tool. Additional barriers included the lack of comfort with and, in some cases, active dislike of e-referrals, and lack of comfort with technology tools overall. Organizations that were most likely to find the platform useful and to use it were those that provided referrals for a wide range of needs and whose staff were not already familiar with local resources. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations seeking to implement referral platforms should not assume that local CBOs will automatically take up these platforms. For these platforms to succeed, much more attention needs to be paid to ensuring the platforms provide value to the CBOs they seek to engage.

Implementation and Impacts of California Senate Bill 1152 on Homeless Discharge Protocols.

Introduction: In recent decades, there has been a growing focus on addressing social needs in healthcare settings. California has been at the forefront of making state-level investments to improve care for patients with complex social and medical needs, including patients experiencing homelessness (PEH). Examples include Medicaid 1115 waivers such as the Whole Person Care pilot program and California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM). To date, California is also the only state to have passed a legislative mandate to address concerns related to the hospital discharge of PEH who lack sufficient resources to support self-care. To this end, California enacted Senate Bill 1152 (SB 1152), a unique legislative mandate that requires hospitals to standardize comprehensive discharge processes for PEH by providing (and documenting the provision of) social and preventive services. Understanding the implementation and impact of this law will help inform California and other states considering legislative investments in healthcare activities to improve care for PEH. Methods: To understand health system stakeholders' perceived impact of SB 1152 on hospital discharge processes and key barriers and facilitators to SB 1152's implementation, we conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with key informants across 16 general acute care hospitals in Humboldt and Los Angeles counties. Study data were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Participants perceived several positive impacts of SB 1152, including streamlined services, increased accountability, and more staff awareness about homelessness. In parallel, participants also underscored concerns about the law's limited scope and highlighted multiple implementation challenges, including lack of clarity about accountability measures, scarcity of implementation supports, and gaps in community resources. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that SB 1152 was an important step toward the goal of more universal safe discharge of PEH. However, there are also several addressable concerns. Recommendations to improve future legislation include adding targeted funding for social care staff and improving implementation training. Participants' broader concerns about the parallel need to increase community resources are more challenging to address in the immediate term, but such changes will also be necessary to improve the overall health outcomes of PEH.

Racial Health Equity and Social Needs Interventions: A Review of a Scoping Review.

Importance: Social needs interventions aim to improve health outcomes and mitigate inequities by addressing health-related social needs, such as lack of transportation or food insecurity. However, it is not clear whether these studies are reducing racial or ethnic inequities. Objective: To understand how studies of interventions addressing social needs among multiracial or multiethnic populations conceptualize and analyze differential intervention outcomes by race or ethnicity. Evidence Review: Sources included a scoping review of systematic searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1995, through November 29, 2021, expert suggestions, and hand searches of key citations. Eligible studies evaluated interventions addressing social needs; reported behavioral, health, or utilization outcomes or harms; and were conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion. The team developed a framework to assess whether the study was "conceptually thoughtful" for understanding root causes of racial health inequities (ie, noted that race or ethnicity are markers of exposure to racism) and whether analyses were "analytically informative" for advancing racial health equity research (ie, examined differential intervention impacts by race or ethnicity). Findings: Of 152 studies conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations, 44 studies included race or ethnicity in their analyses; of these, only 4 (9%) were conceptually thoughtful. Twenty-one studies (14%) were analytically informative. Seven of 21 analytically informative studies reported differences in outcomes by race or ethnicity, whereas 14 found no differences. Among the 7 that found differential outcomes, 4 found the interventions were associated with improved outcomes for minoritized racial or ethnic populations or reduced inequities between minoritized and White populations. No studies were powered to detect differences. Conclusions and Relevance: In this review of a scoping review, studies of social needs interventions in multiracial or multiethnic populations were rarely conceptually thoughtful for understanding root causes of racial health inequities and infrequently conducted informative analyses on intervention effectiveness by race or ethnicity. Future work should use a theoretically sound conceptualization of how race (as a proxy for racism) affects social drivers of health and use this understanding to ensure social needs interventions benefit minoritized racial and ethnic groups facing social and structural barriers to health.

Advancing health equity through social care interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To use evidence on addressing racism in social care intervention research to create a framework for advancing health equity for all populations with marginalized social identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation). Such groups have disproportionate social needs (e.g., food insecurity) and negative social determinants of health (SDOH; e.g., poverty). We recommend how the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) could advance health equity for marginalized populations through social care research and care delivery. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This commentary is informed by a literature review of social care interventions that were affiliated with healthcare systems; input from health equity researchers, policymakers, and community leaders attending the AHRQ Health Equity Summit; and consensus of the authors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We recommend that AHRQ: (1) create an ecosystem that values research on SDOH and the effectiveness and implementation of social care interventions in the healthcare sector; (2) work with other federal agencies to (a) develop position statements with actionable recommendations about racism and other systems that perpetuate marginalization based on social identity and (b) develop aligned, complementary approaches to research and care delivery that address social marginalization; (3) advance both inclusive care delivery and inclusive research teams; (4) advance understanding of racism as a social determinant of health and effective strategies to mitigate its adverse impact on health; (5) advance the creation and scaling of effective strategies for addressing SDOH in healthcare systems, particularly in co-creation with community partners; and (6) require social care intervention researchers to use methods that advance our understanding of social health equity. CONCLUSIONS: AHRQ, as a federal agency, could help advance health equity using a range of strategies, including using the agency's levers to ensure AHRQ stakeholders examine and address the unique experiences of socially marginalized populations in SDOH and social care intervention research.

Implementing Community Resource Referral Technology: Facilitators And Barriers Described By Early Adopters.

Health care organizations are increasingly implementing programs to address patients' social conditions. To support these efforts, new technology platforms have emerged to facilitate referrals to community social services organizations. To understand the functionalities of these platforms and identify the lessons learned by their early adopters in health care, we reviewed nine platforms that were on the market in 2018 and interviewed representatives from thirty-five early-adopter health care organizations. We identified key informants through solicited expert recommendations and web searches. With minor variations, all platforms in the sample provided similar core functionalities: screening for social risks, a resource directory, referral management, care coordination, privacy protection, systems integration, and reporting and analytics. Early adopters reported three key implementation challenges: engaging community partners, managing internal change processes, and ensuring compliance with privacy regulations. We conclude that early engagement with social services partners, funding models that support both direct and indirect costs, and stronger evidence of effectiveness together could help advance platform adoption.

Identification of preliminary core outcome domains for communication about childhood vaccination: An online Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Communication interventions for childhood vaccination are promising strategies to address vaccine hesitancy, but current research is limited by the outcomes measured. Most studies measure only vaccination-related outcomes, with minimal consideration of vaccine hesitancy-relevant intermediate outcomes. This impedes understanding of which interventions or elements are effective. It is also unknown which outcomes are important to the range of stakeholders affected by vaccine hesitancy. Outcome selection shapes the evidence base, informing future interventions and trials, and should reflect stakeholder priorities. Therefore, our aim was to identify which outcome domains (i.e. broad outcome categories) are most important to different stakeholders, identifying preliminary core outcome domains to inform evaluation of three common vaccination communication types: (i) communication to inform or educate, (ii) remind or recall, and (iii) enhance community ownership. METHODS: We conducted a two-stage online Delphi survey, involving four stakeholder groups: parents or community members, healthcare providers, researchers, and government or non-governmental organisation representatives. Participants rated the importance of eight outcome domains for each of the three communication types. They also rated specific outcomes within one domain ("attitudes or beliefs") and provided feedback about the survey. RESULTS: Collectively, stakeholder groups prioritised outcome domains differently when considering the effects of different communication types. For communication that aims to (i) inform or educate, the most important outcome domain is "knowledge or understanding"; for (ii) reminder communication, "vaccination status and behaviours"; and for (iii) community engagement communication, "community participation". All stakeholder groups rated most outcome domains as very important or critical. The highest rated specific outcome within the "attitudes or beliefs" domain was "trust". CONCLUSION: This Delphi survey expands the field of core outcomes research and identifies preliminary core outcome domains for measuring the effects of communication about childhood vaccination. The findings support the argument that vaccination communication is not a single homogenous intervention - it has a range of purposes, and vaccination communication evaluators should select outcomes accordingly.

Using the COMMVAC taxonomy to map vaccination communication interventions in Mozambique.

BACKGROUND: Improved communication about childhood vaccination is fundamental to increasing vaccine uptake in low-income countries. Mozambique, with 64% of children fully vaccinated, uses a range of communication interventions to promote uptake of childhood immunisation. OBJECTIVES: Using a taxonomy developed by the 'Communicate to Vaccinate' (COMMVAC) project, the study aims to identify and classify the existing communication interventions for vaccination in Mozambique and to find the gaps. METHODS: We used a qualitative research approach to identify the range of communication interventions used in Mozambique. In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with key purposively selected personnel at national level and relevant documents were collected and analysed. These data were complemented with observations of communication during routine vaccination and campaigns in Nampula province. We used the COMMVAC taxonomy, which organises vaccination communication intervention according to its intended purpose and the population targeted, to map both routine and campaign interventions. RESULTS: We identified interventions used in campaign and routine vaccination, or in both, fitting five of the seven taxonomy purposes, with informing or educating community members predominating. We did not identify any interventions that aimed to provide support or facilitate decision-making. There were interventions for all main target groups, although fewer for health providers. Overlap occurred: for example, interventions often targeted both parents and community members. CONCLUSIONS: We consider that the predominant focus on informing and educating community members is appropriate in the Mozambican context, where there is a high level of illiteracy and poor knowledge of the reasons for vaccination. We recommend increasing interventions for health providers, in particular training them in better communication for vaccination. The taxonomy was useful for identifying gaps, but needs to be more user-friendly if it is to be employed as a tool by health service managers.

Stakeholder perceptions of communication about vaccination in two regions of Cameroon: A qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding stakeholders' (parents', communities' and health workers') perspectives of communication about childhood vaccination, including their preferences for its format, delivery and content, is an important step towards designing better communication strategies and ensuring more informed parents. Our objectives were to explore stakeholders' views, experiences and preferences for childhood vaccination communication in Cameroon. METHODS: In 2014, in the Central and North West Regions of Cameron, we gathered qualitative data for our case study using the following methods: semi structured interviews; observations and informal conversations during routine immunization clinics and three rounds of the National Polio Immunization Campaign; document analysis of reports and mass media communications about vaccination; and a survey of parents. We conducted a thematic analysis of the qualitative data to identify themes relating to views, experiences and perceptions of vaccination information and its delivery. Survey data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: All of the parents interviewed felt that vaccinating their child was important, and trusted the information provided by health workers. However, many parents wanted more information. Parents did not always feel that they could ask questions during vaccination appointments. All participants felt that health workers and vaccination clinics were important sources of information. Social mobilisation activities such as door-to-door visits and announcements during religious services were important and accepted ways of communicating information, especially during vaccination campaigns. Information communicated through mass media and text messages was also seen as important. In general, stakeholders believed that more consistent messaging about routine vaccination through community channels would be helpful to remind parents of the importance of routine vaccination during ongoing rounds of vaccination campaigns against polio. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that parents regard information about childhood vaccination as important, but that health services need to be organized in ways that prioritize and facilitate communication, particularly about routine vaccination.

Childhood vaccination communication outcomes unpacked and organized in a taxonomy to facilitate core outcome establishment.

OBJECTIVES: We present a comprehensive taxonomy of outcomes for childhood vaccination communication interventions. Adding to our earlier map of trial outcomes, we aimed to (1) identify relevant outcomes not measured in trials, (2) identify outcomes from stakeholder focus groups, and (3) organize outcomes into a taxonomy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified additional outcomes from nonvaccination health communication literature and through parent and health care professional focus groups. We organized outcomes into the taxonomy through iterative discussion and informed by organizational principles established by leaders in core outcome research. RESULTS: The taxonomy includes three overarching core areas, divided into eight domains and then into outcomes. Core area one is psychosocial impact, including the domains "knowledge or understanding," "attitudes or beliefs," and "decision-making." Core area two is health impact, covering "vaccination status and behaviors" and "health status and well-being." Core area three is community, social, or health system impact, containing "intervention design and implementation," "community participation," and "resource use." CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this taxonomy is the first attempt to conceptualize the range of potential outcomes for vaccination communication. It can be used by researchers selecting outcomes for complex communication interventions. We will also present the taxonomy to stakeholders to establish core outcome domains.

Perceptions and experiences of childhood vaccination communication strategies among caregivers and health workers in Nigeria: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Effective vaccination communication with parents is critical in efforts to overcome barriers to childhood vaccination, tackle vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccination coverage. Health workers should be able to provide information to parents and other caregivers and support them in reaching decisions about vaccinating their children. Limited information exists regarding the perceptions of caregivers and health workers on the vaccination communication strategies employed in Nigeria. This study, which forms part of the 'Communicate to vaccinate' (COMMVAC) project, aims to explore the perceptions and experiences of caregivers and health workers in Nigeria on vaccination communication strategies implemented in their settings. METHODOLOGY: We conducted the study in two States: Bauchi in Northern Nigeria and Cross River in the south. We carried out observations (n = 40), in-depth interviews (n = 14) and focus group discussions (FGDs) (n = 12) amongst 14 purposively selected health workers, two community leaders and 84 caregivers in the two states. We transcribed data verbatim and analysed the data using a framework analysis approach. RESULTS: Caregivers were informed about vaccination activities through three main sources: health facilities (during health education sessions conducted at antenatal or immunization clinics); media outlets; and announcements (in churches/mosques, communities and markets). Caregivers reported that the information received was very useful. Their preferred sources of information included phone text messages, town announcers, media and church/mosque announcements. Some caregivers perceived the clinic environment, long waiting times and health worker attitudes as barriers to receiving vaccination information.When delivering communication interventions, health workers described issues tied to poor communication skills; poor motivation; and attitudes of community members, including vaccine resistance. CONCLUSION: Communication about vaccination involves more than the message but is also influenced by the environment and the attitudes of the deliverer and receiver. It is pertinent for health policy makers and programme managers to understand these factors so as to effectively implement communication approaches.

Communication strategies to promote the uptake of childhood vaccination in Nigeria: a systematic map.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication is a critical component in ensuring that children are fully vaccinated. Although numerous communication interventions have been proposed and implemented in various parts of Nigeria, the range of communication strategies used has not yet been mapped systematically. This study forms part of the 'Communicate to vaccinate' (COMMVAC) project, an initiative aimed at building research evidence for improving communication with parents and communities about childhood vaccinations in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to: 1) identify the communication strategies used in two states in Nigeria; 2) map these strategies against the existing COMMVAC taxonomy, a global taxonomy of vaccination communication interventions; 3) create a specific Nigerian country map of interventions organised by purpose and target; and 4) analyse gaps between the COMMVAC taxonomy and the Nigerian map. DESIGN: We conducted the study in two Nigerian states: Bauchi State in Northern Nigeria and Cross River State in Southern Nigeria. We identified vaccination communication interventions through interviews carried out among purposively selected stakeholders in the health services and relevant agencies involved in vaccination information delivery; through observations and through relevant documents. We used the COMMVAC taxonomy to organise the interventions we identified based on the intended purpose of the communication and the group to which the intervention was targeted. RESULTS: The Nigerian map revealed that most of the communication strategies identified aimed to inform and educate and remind or recall. Few aimed to teach skills, enhance community ownership, and enable communication. We did not identify any intervention that aimed to provide support or facilitate decision-making. Many interventions had more than one purpose. The main targets for most interventions were caregivers and community members, with few interventions directed at health workers. Most interventions identified were used in the context of campaigns rather than routine immunisation programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The identification and development of the Nigerian vaccination communication interventions map could assist programme managers to identify gaps in vaccination communication. The map may be a useful tool as part of efforts to address vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccination coverage in Nigeria and similar settings.

Outcomes mapping study for childhood vaccination communication: too few concepts were measured in too many ways.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article are to (1) comprehensively catalog outcomes measured in trials of childhood vaccination communication interventions and (2) analyze patterns and trends in outcome selection. To achieve these objectives, we developed a Trial Outcomes Map for vaccination communication. STUDY DESIGN: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for trials of childhood vaccination communication interventions, extracting verbatim all outcome information from included trials. Through thematic grouping, we categorized outcomes based on conceptual similarities, forming a Trial Outcomes Map. RESULTS: We identified 112 relevant trials containing 209 outcomes. Thematic analysis revealed three overarching Outcome Categories: consumer-, vaccination-, and health system-related outcomes. These categories contain 21 Outcome Types (eg, "knowledge," "cost"), measured using 66 different Outcome Variables. Vaccination outcomes were measured most frequently and health system-related outcomes least frequently. Consumer outcomes are increasingly measured in more recent trials. CONCLUSION: The number of measures used for the same outcomes complicates data synthesis and interpretation. Despite recent trends toward including consumer outcomes, intermediate outcome measurement is lacking, hampering understanding of how and why vaccination communication interventions do or do not work. This Map may improve outcome consistency in future trials and will contribute to a forthcoming core outcome set.

Tool for assessing health and equity impacts of interventions modifying air quality in urban environments.

BACKGROUND: Urban outdoor air pollution (AP) is a major public health concern but the mechanisms by which interventions impact health and social inequities are rarely assessed. Health and equity impacts of policies and interventions are questioned, but managers and policy agents in various institutional contexts have very few practical tools to help them better orient interventions in sectors other than the health sector. Our objective was to create such a tool to facilitate the assessment of health impacts of urban outdoor AP interventions by non-public health experts. METHODS: An iterative process of reviewing the academic literature, brainstorming, and consultation with experts was used to identify the chain of effects of urban outdoor AP and the major modifying factors. To test its applicability, the tool was applied to two interventions, the London Low Emission Zone and the Montréal BIXI public bicycle-sharing program. RESULTS: We identify the chain of effects, six categories of modifying factors: those controlling the source of emissions, the quantity of emissions, concentrations of emitted pollutants, their spatial distribution, personal exposure, and individual vulnerability. Modifiable and non-modifiable factors are also identified. Results are presented in the text but also graphically, as we wanted it to be a practical tool, from pollution sources to emission, exposure, and finally, health effects. CONCLUSION: The tool represents a practical first step to assessing AP-related interventions for health and equity impacts. Understanding how different factors affect health and equity through air pollution can provide insight to city policymakers pursuing Health in All Policies.

Addressing equity in interventions to reduce air pollution in urban areas: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: We did a systematic review to assess quantitative studies investigating the association between interventions aiming to reduce air pollution, health benefits and equity effects. METHODS: Three databases were searched for studies investigating the association between evaluated interventions aiming to reduce air pollution and heath-related benefits. We designed a two-stage selection process to judge how equity was assessed and we systematically determined if there was a heterogeneous effect of the intervention between subgroups or subareas. RESULTS: Of 145 identified articles, 54 were reviewed in-depth with eight satisfying the inclusion criteria. This systematic review showed that interventions aiming to reduce air pollution in urban areas have a positive impact on air quality and on mortality rates, but the documented effect on equity is less straightforward. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of equity in evidence-based public health is a great challenge nowadays. In this review we draw attention to the importance of considering equity in air pollution interventions. We also propose further methodological and theoretical challenges when assessing equity in interventions to reduce air pollution and we present opportunities to develop this research area.