Caregivers' perceptions on routine childhood vaccination: A qualitative study on vaccine hesitancy in a South Brazil state capital.

Immunization programs worldwide have been facing challenges in keeping vaccination coverage high. Even though universally known for its robust National Immunization Program, Brazil has also faced significant challenges regarding vaccination coverage. One of the reasons for this is vaccine hesitancy, a complex, multi-causal, and context-specific phenomenon. This qualitative study aims to understand the factors associated with decision-making and the drivers of vaccine hesitancy in Florianopolis, Santa Catarina state capital, regarding caregivers' perceptions of routine childhood vaccination. In-depth interviews were conducted in the Capital city of Santa Catarina State. Families with children up to 6 years old were included. Data were analyzed based on thematic content analysis. Twenty-nine caregivers in 18 families were interviewed. These caregivers were mainly mothers and fathers. Three themes emerged: 1. Access to information and the decision-making process, where we discuss the role of social circles, healthcare workers, and the internet; 2. Individual-institutions power relationships: Perceptions about the State's role and the Health institutions: 3. Reasons and motivations: The senses and meanings behind non-vaccination, where we discuss the drivers of vaccine hesitancy related to risk perception, caregivers' opinions on the medical-pharmaceutical industry, vaccines' composition and their side effects, families' lifestyles and worldviews, and the childhood routine vaccination schedule. The results of this study reaffirm the complexity of the decision-making process in childhood vaccination and further enable a better contextual understanding of the complex and challenging phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy.

Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Governance arrangements include changes in rules or processes that determine authority and accountability for health policies, organisations, commercial products and health professionals, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Changes in governance arrangements can affect health and related goals in numerous ways, generally through changes in authority, accountability, openness, participation and coherence. A broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers, their technical support staff and other stakeholders to identify strategies for addressing problems and improving the governance of their health systems. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on governance arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for governance arrangements outlined in the overview. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of governance arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use (health expenditures, healthcare provider costs, out-of-pocket payments, cost-effectiveness), healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations that were important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings of the review. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 21 of them in this overview (19 primary reviews and 2 supplementary reviews). We focus here on the results of the 19 primary reviews, one of which had important methodological limitations. The other 18 were reliable (with only minor limitations).We grouped the governance arrangements addressed in the reviews into five categories: authority and accountability for health policies (three reviews); authority and accountability for organisations (two reviews); authority and accountability for commercial products (three reviews); authority and accountability for health professionals (seven reviews); and stakeholder involvement (four reviews).Overall, we found desirable effects for the following interventions on at least one outcome, with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Decision-making about what is covered by health insurance- Placing restrictions on the medicines reimbursed by health insurance systems probably decreases the use of and spending on these medicines (moderate-certainty evidence). Stakeholder participation in policy and organisational decisions- Participatory learning and action groups for women probably improve newborn survival (moderate-certainty evidence).- Consumer involvement in preparing patient information probably improves the quality of the information and patient knowledge (moderate-certainty evidence). Disclosing performance information to patients and the public- Disclosing performance data on hospital quality to the public probably encourages hospitals to implement quality improvement activities (moderate-certainty evidence).- Disclosing performance data on individual healthcare providers to the public probably leads people to select providers that have better quality ratings (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Investigators have evaluated a wide range of governance arrangements that are relevant for low-income countries using sound systematic review methods. These strategies have been targeted at different levels in health systems, and studies have assessed a range of outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence shows desirable effects (with no undesirable effects) for some interventions. However, there are important gaps in the availability of systematic reviews and primary studies for the all of the main categories of governance arrangements.

Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: A key function of health systems is implementing interventions to improve health, but coverage of essential health interventions remains low in low-income countries. Implementing interventions can be challenging, particularly if it entails complex changes in clinical routines; in collaborative patterns among different healthcare providers and disciplines; in the behaviour of providers, patients or other stakeholders; or in the organisation of care. Decision-makers may use a range of strategies to implement health interventions, and these choices should be based on evidence of the strategies' effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on alternative implementation strategies and informing refinements of the framework for implementation strategies presented in the overview. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of implementation strategies on professional practice and patient outcomes and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the review findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 39 of them in this overview. An additional four reviews provided supplementary information. Of the 39 reviews, 32 had only minor limitations and 7 had important methodological limitations. Most studies in the reviews were from high-income countries. There were no studies from low-income countries in eight reviews.Implementation strategies addressed in the reviews were grouped into four categories - strategies targeting:1. healthcare organisations (e.g. strategies to change organisational culture; 1 review);2. healthcare workers by type of intervention (e.g. printed educational materials; 14 reviews);3. healthcare workers to address a specific problem (e.g. unnecessary antibiotic prescription; 9 reviews);4. healthcare recipients (e.g. medication adherence; 15 reviews).Overall, we found the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects.1.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers: educational meetings, nutrition training of health workers, educational outreach, practice facilitation, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, and tailored interventions.2.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers for specific types of problems: training healthcare workers to be more patient-centred in clinical consultations, use of birth kits, strategies such as clinician education and patient education to reduce antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care settings, and in-service neonatal emergency care training.3. Strategies targeted at healthcare recipients: mass media interventions to increase uptake of HIV testing; intensive self-management and adherence, intensive disease management programmes to improve health literacy; behavioural interventions and mobile phone text messages for adherence to antiretroviral therapy; a one time incentive to start or continue tuberculosis prophylaxis; default reminders for patients being treated for active tuberculosis; use of sectioned polythene bags for adherence to malaria medication; community-based health education, and reminders and recall strategies to increase vaccination uptake; interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening (invitations, education, counselling, access to health promotion nurse and intensive recruitment); health insurance information and application support. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Reliable systematic reviews have evaluated a wide range of strategies for implementing evidence-based interventions in low-income countries. Most of the available evidence is focused on strategies targeted at healthcare workers and healthcare recipients and relates to process-based outcomes. Evidence of the effects of strategies targeting healthcare organisations is scarce.

Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to anti-tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Mobile phone text messaging (SMS) has the potential to promote adherence to tuberculosis treatment. This systematic review aims to synthesize current evidence on the effectiveness of SMS interventions in improving patients' adherence to tuberculosis treatment. METHODS: We searched electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index), reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and selected websites for eligible studies available by 15 February 2013; regardless of language or publication status. Two authors independently screened selected eligible studies, and assessed risk of bias in included studies; resolving discrepancies by discussion and consensus. RESULTS: We identified four studies that compared the outcomes of the SMS intervention group with controls. Only one of the four studies was a randomized controlled trial. This was conducted in Argentina and the SMS intervention did not significantly improve adherence to tuberculosis treatment compared to self-administration of tuberculosis treatment (risk ratio [RR] 1.49, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.90 to 2.42). One of the non-randomized studies, conducted in South Africa, which compared SMS reminders to directly observed therapy short course (DOTS) reported similar rates of tuberculosis cure (62.35% vs. 66.4%) and treatment success (72.94% vs. 69.4%). A second study from South Africa, utilized SMS reminders when patients delayed in opening their pill bottles and reported increased tuberculosis cure (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.36) and smear conversion (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.42) rates compared to DOTS. In the third non-randomized study, conducted in Kenya, use of SMS reminders increased rates of clinic attendance on scheduled days compared to standard care (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.29). Using the GRADE approach, we rate the quality of the evidence as low, mainly because of the high risk of bias and heterogeneity of effects across studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that there is a paucity of high-quality data on the effectiveness of SMS interventions for improving patients' adherence to tuberculosis treatment. The low quality of the current evidence implies that further studies (in particular randomized trials) on the subject are needed. In the interim, if the intervention is implemented outside research settings an impact evaluation is warranted.