Stakeholder perspectives of immunisation delivery for adolescents with disability in specialist schools in Victoria, Australia: 'we need a vaccination pathway'.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents with disability have lower vaccination rates than the general population, including HPV vaccination. Understanding the multi-level influences on vaccination in specialist schools is crucial to achieve optimal vaccination coverage and vaccination experiences for adolescents living with disability. OBJECTIVE: To identify and improve understanding of the facilitators and barriers of HPV vaccination among adolescents with intellectual disabilities or autism in Victorian specialist schools to inform strategies to increase vaccination acceptance and uptake. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (adolescents with disabilities, parents, school and council immunisation staff) from six specialist schools in Victoria, Australia. Data were analysed thematically. Inductively derived themes were then deductively mapped across the UNICEF 'Journey to Immunization' model. RESULTS: 32 interviews were conducted with stakeholders (2 adolescents, 7 parents, 13 school staff, 10 council staff). Trust in vaccines was high, but knowledge of the HPV vaccine was limited. Barriers included lack of accessible information for parents, the consent process, behavioural challenges and vaccine-related anxiety among students. The immunisation program in special schools was perceived as convenient, however preparing students for vaccination day and catering to individual student needs were key. Participants expressed a need for more parent information about options and additional support for vaccination outside of the school program. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified a range of facilitators and barriers to the school immunisation program for students with disabilities in specialist schools. The next phase of this work will use co-design workshops to build on the suggestions for improvement and opportunities that could be leveraged to improve vaccination uptake.

Community health workers' dissemination of COVID-19 information and services in the early pandemic response: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Community health workers (CHWs) had important roles mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in vulnerable communities. We described how CHWs supported the dissemination of COVID-19 information and services during the early pandemic response. METHODS: Online article searches were conducted across five scientific databases, with review article reference lists hand searched to identify grey/unpublished literature. Articles were included if they reported on a program that engaged CHWs and aimed to prevent/control COVID-19. RESULTS: Nineteen relevant programs were identified from 18 included articles. CHWs were widely engaged in the pandemic response, especially in low- and middle-income countries and in vulnerable communities. CHWs' ability to effectively disseminate COVID-19 information/services was enabled by community trust and understanding community needs. CHWs were often underfunded and required to work in difficult conditions. Pre-existing services incorporating CHWs rapidly adapted to the new challenges brought by the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend establishing programs that employ CHWs to disseminate health information and services in communities at-risk of misinformation and poor health outcomes during non-pandemic times. CHWs are well-placed to deliver interventions should an infectious disease outbreak arise. Having pre-existing trusted relationships between CHWs and community members may help protect vulnerable groups, including when outbreaks occur.

Evaluating a peer-to-peer health education program in Australian public housing communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The cohealth Health Concierge program operated in Melbourne, Australia from July 2020 to 30 June 2022. It provided peer-to-peer support to culturally and linguistically diverse residents of high-rise public housing. During this time, the COVID-19 public health response changed frequently and included movement restriction, testing and vaccination. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to determine the Health Concierge program's impact on residents' engagement with health services and public health activities. METHODS: The evaluation, informed by a Project Reference Group, used the RE-AIM framework. We analysed data from 20,901 routinely collected forms describing interactions between Concierges and residents from August 2021 to May 2022. Additional evaluation-specific data were collected between March and May 2022 in four housing estates; we surveyed 301 residents and conducted 32 interviews with residents, Concierges and program stakeholders. RESULTS: Concierges promoted COVID-safe behaviours; linked residents with support, testing and vaccination services; and disseminated up-to-date information. Of the 20,901 recorded interactions, 8,872 (42%) included Concierges providing support around COVID-19 vaccination. Most surveyed residents (191/301, 63%) reported speaking with a Concierge in the previous six months. The self-reported two-dose COVID-19 vaccine uptake was 94% (283/301). Some residents described having meaningful, appreciated conversations with Concierges, and some described superficial interactions. While residents initially welcomed the program, many felt it failed to evolve. Poorly defined management and hiring criteria led to variable program implementation. A need for bicultural workers to continue linking residents with services was discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Concierges' impact on residents may have contributed to high community uptake of COVID-19 testing and vaccination, and had benefits beyond the COVID-19 remit. We recommend the program be revised and continued to inform further preparedness planning and support service access generally. Program models such as this have potential to inform and reassure high-risk communities during a pandemic. In addition, such programs can help overcome vaccine hesitancy and promote protective health behaviours, regardless of whether a pandemic is currently occurring. Ensuring these programs remain responsive to the changing needs of end-users needs over time is imperative.

Communication to promote and support physical distancing for COVID-19 prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: This review is an update of a rapid review undertaken in 2020 to identify relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control. The rapid review was published when little was known about transmission, treatment or future vaccination, and when physical distancing measures (isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, crowd avoidance, work and school measures) were the cornerstone of public health responses globally. This updated review includes more recent evidence to extend what we know about effective pandemic public health communication. This includes considerations of changes needed over time to maintain responsiveness to pandemic transmission waves, the (in)equities and variable needs of groups within communities due to the pandemic, and highlights again the critical role of effective communication as integral to the public health response. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the question 'What are relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control?', our primary focus was communication approaches to promote and support acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: to explore and identify key elements of effective communication for physical distancing measures for different (diverse) populations and groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from inception, with searches for this update including the period 1 January 2020 to 18 August 2021. Systematic review and study repositories and grey literature sources were searched in August 2021 and guidelines identified for the eCOVID19 Recommendations Map were screened (November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Guidelines or reviews focusing on communication (information, education, reminders, facilitating decision-making, skills acquisition, supporting behaviour change, support, involvement in decision-making) related to physical distancing measures for prevention and/or control of COVID-19 or selected other diseases (sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, Ebola virus disease (EVD) or tuberculosis (TB)) were included. New evidence was added to guidelines, reviews and primary studies included in the 2020 review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methods were based on the original rapid review, using methods developed by McMaster University and informed by Cochrane rapid review guidance. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted by one author and checked by a second author. Synthesis of results was conducted using modified framework analysis, with themes from the original review used as an initial framework. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes 68 studies, with 17 guidelines and 20 reviews added to the original 31 studies. Synthesis identified six major themes, which can be used to inform policy and decision-making related to planning and implementing communication about a public health emergency and measures to protect the community. Theme 1: Strengthening public trust and countering misinformation: essential foundations for effective public health communication Recognising the key role of public trust is essential. Working to build and maintain trust over time underpins the success of public health communications and, therefore, the effectiveness of public health prevention measures. Theme 2: Two-way communication: involving communities to improve the dissemination, accessibility and acceptability of information Two-way communication (engagement) with the public is needed over the course of a public health emergency: at first, recognition of a health threat (despite uncertainties), and regularly as public health measures are introduced or adjusted. Engagement needs to be embedded at all stages of the response and inform tailoring of communications and implementation of public health measures over time. Theme 3: Development of and preparation for public communication: target audience, equity and tailoring Communication and information must be tailored to reach all groups within populations, and explicitly consider existing inequities and the needs of disadvantaged groups, including those who are underserved, vulnerable, from diverse cultural or language groups, or who have lower educational attainment. Awareness that implementing public health measures may magnify existing or emerging inequities is also needed in response planning, enactment and adjustment over time. Theme 4: Public communication features: content, timing and duration, delivery Public communication needs to be based on clear, consistent, actionable and timely (up-to-date) information about preventive measures, including the benefits (whether for individual, social groupings or wider society), harms (likewise) and rationale for use, and include information about supports available to help follow recommended measures. Communication needs to occur through multiple channels and/or formats to build public trust and reach more of the community. Theme 5: Supporting behaviour change at individual and population levels Supporting implementation of public health measures with practical supports and services (e.g. essential supplies, financial support) is critical. Information about available supports must be widely disseminated and well understood. Supports and communication related to them require flexibility and tailoring to explicitly consider community needs, including those of vulnerable groups. Proactively monitoring and countering stigma related to preventive measures (e.g. quarantine) is also necessary to support adherence. Theme 6: Fostering and sustaining receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication Efforts to foster and sustain public receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication are needed throughout a public health emergency. Trust, acceptance and behaviours change over time, and communication needs to be adaptive and responsive to these changing needs. Ongoing community engagement efforts should inform communication and public health response measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice Evidence highlights the critical role of communication throughout a public health emergency. Like any intervention, communication can be done well or poorly, but the consequences of poor communication during a pandemic may mean the difference between life and death. The approaches to effective communication identified in this review can be used by policymakers and decision-makers, working closely with communication teams, to plan, implement and adjust public communications over the course of a public health emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications for research Despite massive growth in research during the COVID-19 period, gaps in the evidence persist and require high-quality, meaningful research. This includes investigating the experiences of people at heightened COVID-19 risk, and identifying barriers to implementing public communication and protective health measures particular to lower- and middle-income countries, and how to overcome these.

Factors influencing uptake of the COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Australia: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence shows the risk of COVID-19 on perinatal outcomes, as well as the safety and efficacy of vaccination during pregnancy. However, little is known about vaccine uptake among pregnant women in Australia, including women who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD), and about sources of information pregnant women use when making decisions about vaccines. We aimed to determine the proportion of pregnant women who had been vaccinated and to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake or decline during pregnancy. METHOD: A cross-sectional, anonymous, online survey was conducted from October 2021 to January 2022 in two metropolitan hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. RESULTS: Of 914 pregnant women, 406 (44%) did not speak English at home. Overall, 101 (11%) received a vaccine prepregnancy and 699 (76%) during pregnancy. In the nonvaccinated cohort, 87 (76%) declined vaccination during pregnancy. The uptake was more than 87% among women during pregnancy who received information from government or health professional websites but 37% when received from personal blogs. The main reasons for vaccine uptake were (1) hearing that COVID-19 affects pregnant women, (2) being concerned about the COVID-19 outbreak, and (3) receiving vaccine recommendation from a general practitioner. In a multivariable logistic regression, three main factors associated with declining or feeling unsure about vaccination were (1) concerns about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, (2) lack of trust and being unsatisfied with the information received about COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, and (3) doubting the importance of COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: Clinicians play a critical role in counseling women to alleviate vaccine fear, support vaccine acceptance, and direct women to use reliable information sources, such as government and professional healthcare organizations, for information about vaccines.

Effect of persuasive messaging about COVID-19 vaccines for 5- to 11-year-old children on parent intention to vaccinate.

AIM: Uptake of COVID-19 vaccines for children aged 5-11 years old in Australia has plateaued. Persuasive messaging is an efficient and adaptable potential intervention to promote vaccine uptake, but evidence for its effectiveness is varied and dependent on context and cultural values. This study aimed to test persuasive messages to promote COVID-19 vaccines for children in Australia. METHODS: A parallel, online, randomised control experiment was conducted between 14 and 21 January 2022. Participants were Australian parents of a child aged 5-11 years who had not vaccinated their child with a COVID-19 vaccine. After providing demographic details and level of vaccine hesitancy, parents viewed either the control message or one of four intervention texts emphasising (i) personal health benefits; (ii) community health benefits; (iii) non-health benefits; or (iv) personal agency. The primary outcome was parents' intention to vaccinate their child. RESULTS: The analysis included 463 participants, of whom 58.7% (272/463) were hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines for children. Intention to vaccinate was higher in the community health (7.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.3% to 21.0%) and non-health (6.9%, 95% CI -6.4% to 20.3%) groups, and lower in the personal agency group (-3.9, 95% CI -17.7 to 9.9) compared to control, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. The effects of the messages among hesitant parents were similar to the overall study population. CONCLUSION: Short, text-based messages alone are unlikely to influence parental intention to vaccinate their child with the COVID-19 vaccine. Multiple strategies tailored for the target audience should also be utilised.

Designing a multi-component intervention (P3-MumBubVax) to promote vaccination in antenatal care in Australia.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Coverage of maternal influenza and pertussis vaccines remains suboptimal in Australia, and pockets of low childhood vaccine coverage persist nationwide. Maternal vaccine uptake is estimated to be between 35% and 60% for influenza vaccination and between 65% and 80% for pertussis vaccination. Australian midwives are highly trusted and ideally placed to discuss vaccines with expectant parents, but there are no evidence-based interventions to optimise these discussions and promote maternal and childhood vaccine acceptance in the Australian public antenatal setting. METHODS: We gathered qualitative data from Australian midwives, reviewed theoretical models, and adapted existing vaccine communication tools to develop the multi-component P3-MumBubVax intervention. Through 12 interviews at two Australian hospitals, we explored midwives' vaccination attitudes and values, perceived role in vaccine advocacy and delivery, and barriers and enablers to intervention implementation. Applying the theory-based P3 intervention model, we designed intervention components targeting the Practice, Provider and Parent levels. Midwives provided feedback on prototype intervention features through two focus groups. RESULTS: The P3-MumBubVax intervention includes practice-level prompts and identification of a vaccine champion. Provider-level components are a vaccine communication training module, learning exercise, and website with printable fact sheets. Parent-level intervention components include text message reminders to receive influenza and pertussis vaccines in pregnancy, as well as online information on vaccine safety, effectiveness and disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: The P3-MumBubVax intervention is the first Australian antenatal intervention designed to support both maternal and childhood vaccine uptake. A pilot study is underway to inform a planned cluster randomised controlled trial. SO WHAT?: Barriers to vaccine acceptance and uptake are complex. The P3 model is a promising evidence-informed multi-component intervention strategy targeting all three levels influencing health care decision-making.

Clinical trial recruitment of adult African American smokers from economically disadvantaged urban communities.

This investigation evaluated the effectiveness and challenges of multiple recruitment methods, described as proactive, reactive, and combination methods, among adult African American smokers (N = 527) from economically disadvantaged urban communities enrolled to test progressively reduced nicotine content investigational cigarettes. The study evaluated success using descriptive statistics to measure the volume of phone calls and percentage of eligible participants per method. Reactive and combination strategies effectively prompted participants to call about the study. Combination methods yielded the highest eligibility rates. Findings demonstrate the unique recruitment successes within this population across a range of recruitment methods and may inform improved methods to recruit and engage African Americans in clinical trials.

Face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Early childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.All included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).Low-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents' anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents' experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.Face-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.

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.

Co-designing an intervention to improve the childhood catch-up vaccination process for migrant parents in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Catch-up vaccination is a personalised process through which children with missing recommended vaccinations or incomplete vaccination records are brought up to date with the Australian vaccination schedule. Navigating childhood catch-up vaccination can be difficult for migrant parents with inadequate health system knowledge and competing priorities during settlement. This study aimed to understand the experiences of migrant parents with childhood catch-up vaccination and co-design an intervention to improve the process. METHODS: We recruited migrant parents who had attended the City of Melbourne Immunisation Service in Melbourne, Australia to participate in a qualitative co-design study between June and August 2022. Expression of interest emails were sent by the service, and we recruited eligible participants. In Phase One, we conducted group interviews with parents to understand their experiences and preferences for an intervention, these were analysed using inductive and framework analysis. In Phase Two, we designed prototype interventions based on parents' preferences and suggestions. In Phase Three, parents shared their feedback on each prototype. RESULTS: Fourteen migrant parents participated in the study. Most parents did not discover the need for catch-up vaccination until childcare or kindergarten enrolment. The lack of information received about vaccination requirements and difficulty navigating the health system made the process challenging and time-consuming. Based on these Phase One themes, we designed a printout, mobile application, and website prototype. All three were well-received in Phase Three. Overall, parents' top three considerations for any intervention were 1) digital and online accessibility, 2) inclusion of step-by-step processes outlining catch-up vaccination; and 3) inclusion of a checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Migrant parents lack information about childhood catch-up vaccination in Australia. A relatively simple intervention could help parents more easily navigate the process, thereby saving time and stress. The next steps are to seek funding to pilot such an intervention to assess practicality and usefulness.