Cost-effectiveness of SMS appointment reminders in increasing vaccination uptake in Lagos, Nigeria: A multi-centered randomized controlled trial

Kawakatsu, Yoshito; Adesina, Adefunke Oyeniyi; Kadoi, Nobuhiro; Aiga, Hirotsugu

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.07.075

Cited by 21 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meta-analysis conducted by excluding the studies with fewer than 200 participants in either arm also produced similar results: RR=1.18; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.23; I 2 =65.2%. Also, pooled estimates of studies excluding two studies with outlying sample size 49 51 equally produced similar results; RR=1.23; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.38; I 2 =89.3%. Lastly, pooled estimates excluding studies that reported only DPT-3 data showed similar results; RR=1.20; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.28; I 2 =72.9%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…57 A total of 32 712 infants (17 135 in intervention groups and 15 577 in control groups) were included in this review. Studies were undertaken in 11 different countries, including Nigeria (n=5), 49 52 57 61 62 Guatemala (n=3), 47 59 60 Kenya (n=2), 48 63 and one each in Bangladesh, 55 Burkina Faso, 53 Cote D’ivoire, 58 India, 54 Pakistan, 50 South Africa, 56 Vietnam 51 and Zimbabwe. 46 Included studies reported 19 different interventions: 9 in urban settings, 7 in rural settings and 3 were in mixed settings.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17 Additionally, mobile phone interventions require extensive infrastructure for mobile communication and mothers to have the facilities for charging their phones which might not always be the case, especially in rural communities. 49 57 Also, SMS reminders depend on mothers being able to read SMS messages. Mothers in some studies have indicated preference for mobile phone calls to SMS as this allows two-way communication for questions and clarifications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SMS reminders do not help address other prominent challenges such as accessibility (transportation, transport costs), attitude of healthcare workers, availability of vaccines, awareness of the importance of vaccination and outright rejection of vaccination. 49 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies (n=4689) were excluded. After eligibility and critical appraisal of the full texts of 39 records, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria for data extraction, qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] while 21 studies were excluded for the following reasons: intervention was not SMS reminder (n=9), [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72] study setting was not an LMIC (n=2), 73 74 conference abstract (n=2), 75 76 literature reviews (n=2), 77 78 could not extract data on specific effect of SMS reminder (n=2), 79 80 observational case-control study (n=1), 81 no comparator/control arm (n=1), 82 control arm not usual care (n=1) 83 and outcome was not DPT-3, Penta-3 or overall immunisation (n=1). 84 Characteristics of included studies Table 1 summarises the main characteristics of the 18 studies included in the analysis.…”

Section: Selection Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Short message service (SMS) reminders for childhood immunisation in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionChildhood vaccine delivery services in the low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are struggling to reach every child with lifesaving vaccines. Short message service (SMS) reminders have demonstrated positive impact on a number of attrition-prone healthcare delivery services. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of SMS reminders in improving immunisation coverage and timeliness in LMICs.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, CNKI, PsycINFO and Web of Science including grey literatures and Google Scholar were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that evaluated the effect of SMS reminders on childhood immunisation and timeliness in LMICs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 assessment tool for RCTs and Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool for non-RCTs. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of risk ratio (RR).Results18 studies, 13 RCTs and 5 non-RCTs involving 32 712 infants (17 135 in intervention groups and 15 577 in control groups) from 11 LMICs met inclusion criteria. Pooled estimates showed that SMS reminders significantly improved childhood immunisation coverage (RR=1.16; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.21; I2=90.4%). Meta-analysis of 12 included studies involving 25 257 infants showed that SMS reminders significantly improved timely receipt of childhood vaccines (RR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.30; I2=87.3%). Subgroup analysis showed that SMS reminders are significantly more effective in raising childhood immunisation coverage in lower middle-income and low-income countries than in upper middle-income countries (p<0.001) and sending more than two SMS reminders significantly improves timely receipt of childhood vaccines than one or two SMS reminders (p=0.040).ConclusionCurrent evidence from LMICs, although with significant heterogeneity, suggests that SMS reminders can contribute to achieving high and timely childhood immunisation coverage.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021225843.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 66%