ObjectiveTo synthesise lessons learnt and determinants of success from human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine demonstration projects and national programmes in low- and middle-income countries (LAMICs).MethodsInterviews were conducted with 56 key informants. A systematic literature review identified 2936 abstracts from five databases; after screening 61 full texts were included. Unpublished literature, including evaluation reports, was solicited from country representatives; 188 documents were received. A data extraction tool and interview topic guide outlining key areas of inquiry were informed by World Health Organization guidelines for new vaccine introduction. Results were synthesised thematically.ResultsData were analysed from 12 national programmes and 66 demonstration projects in 46 countries. Among demonstration projects, 30 were supported by the GARDASIL® Access Program, 20 by Gavi, four by PATH and 12 by other means. School-based vaccine delivery supplemented with health facility-based delivery for out-of-school girls attained high coverage. There were limited data on facility-only strategies and little evaluation of strategies to reach out-of-school girls. Early engagement of teachers as partners in social mobilisation, consent, vaccination day coordination, follow-up of non-completers and adverse events was considered invaluable. Micro-planning using school/ facility registers most effectively enumerated target populations; other estimates proved inaccurate, leading to vaccine under- or over-estimation. Refresher training on adverse events and safe injection procedures was usually necessary.ConclusionConsiderable experience in HPV vaccine delivery in LAMICs is available. Lessons are generally consistent across countries and dissemination of these could improve HPV vaccine introduction.
BackgroundThe WHO health systems Building Blocks framework has become ubiquitous in health systems research. However, it was not developed as a research instrument, but rather to facilitate investments of resources in health systems. In this paper, we reflect on the advantages and limitations of using the framework in applied research, as experienced in three empirical vaccine studies we have undertaken.DiscussionWe argue that while the Building Blocks framework is valuable because of its simplicity and ability to provide a common language for researchers, it is not suitable for analysing dynamic, complex and inter-linked systems impacts. In our three studies, we found that the mechanical segmentation of effects by the WHO building blocks, without recognition of their interactions, hindered the understanding of impacts on systems as a whole. Other important limitations were the artificial equal weight given to each building block and the challenge in capturing longer term effects and opportunity costs. Another criticism is not of the framework per se, but rather how it is typically used, with a focus on the six building blocks to the neglect of the dynamic process and outcome aspects of health systems.We believe the framework would be improved by making three amendments: integrating the missing “demand” component; incorporating an overarching, holistic health systems viewpoint and including scope for interactions between components. If researchers choose to use the Building Blocks framework, we recommend that it be adapted to the specific study question and context, with formative research and piloting conducted in order to inform this adaptation.SummaryAs with frameworks in general, the WHO Building Blocks framework is valuable because it creates a common language and shared understanding. However, for applied research, it falls short of what is needed to holistically evaluate the impact of specific interventions on health systems. We propose that if researchers use the framework, it should be adapted and made context-specific.
Cyberbullying is associated with considerable negative mental and psychosocial consequences in children and young people, making it a serious public health concern. To review the highest level of available evidence, a systematic mapping review was conducted to identify systematic reviews that investigated the relationship between cyberbullying and mental and psychological outcomes in young people. Topic-relevant bibliographic databases and online resources were searched to identify reviews published since 2007. Data were extracted using a coding tool developed for this study. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR criteria. Nineteen systematic reviews satisfied the inclusion criteria and they reported a strong negative association between cyberbullying and mental health outcomes in young people. Meta-analysis was performed in 11 reviews and narrative synthesis in 8 reviews. Data were derived from predominantly cross-sectional studies and a clear causal relationship between cyberbullying and mental outcomes cannot be established. Two-third of the included reviews were classified to be of low or unclear quality, due to the lack of quality assessment of the primary studies included in individual reviews. This systematic map consolidates available evidence at review level and confirms the existing gaps in longitudinal and qualitative evidence synthesis. Closer examination of the moderating factors influencing cyberbullying behaviors in future research can advance our understanding and inform the development of tailored programs of intervention to mitigate the negative impact of this phenomenon.
A validated framework of applicability and transferability would help those aiming to encourage research use, as well as those conducting research. Greater understanding of applicability and transferability could help to encourage the appropriate use of research and the development of research that is more useful.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.