12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Vaccine hesitancy among mobile pastoralists in Chad: a qualitative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Demand side barriers to vaccination among rural and hard-to-reach populations in Chad are not yet well understood. Although innovative approaches such as linking human and animal vaccination increase vaccination uptake among mobile pastoralist communities, vaccination coverage in these communities is still lower than for rural settled populations. We hypothesize that mobile pastoralists’ communities in Chad face specific demand side barriers to access vaccination services. Understanding the factors that caregivers in these communities consider, explicitly or implicitly, in order to decide whether or not to vaccinate a child, in addition to understanding the provider’s perspectives, are essential elements to tailor vaccination programmes towards increasing vaccination acceptance and uptake.

          Methods

          We conducted a qualitative study in a rural health district in southern Chad in April 2016 with 12 key informant in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions (FGDs) including 35 male and female participants. Participants in the study included caregivers, traditional chiefs, local and religious leaders from mobile pastoralist communities, and health officials and staff. We conducted a content analysis using a pre-defined set of categories for vaccine hesitancy covering issues on harmful effects of vaccination, mistrust with vaccination programmes/services, issues with the health system and other issues.

          Results

          The groups of demand side barriers reported most frequently in focus group discussions were mistrust on the expanded programme on immunization (EPI) and polio vaccination outreach services (53%, n = 94), followed by health system issues (34%, n = 94), and concerns related to potential harm of vaccines (13%, n = 94). Concerns identified by caregivers, health professionals and community leaders followed a similar pattern with issues on programme mistrust being most frequently reported and issues with harm least frequently reported. None of the health professionals reported concerns about vaccinations being potentially harmful.

          Conclusion

          Mobile pastoralist communities face specific demand side barriers to vaccination. Understanding these barriers is essential to reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccination uptake. Local health systems must plan for the periodic presence of pastoralist communities in their zones of responsibility and create more mutual trust.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cost-effectiveness and economic benefits of vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

          Public health interventions that prevent mortality and morbidity have greatly increased over the past decade. Immunization is one of these preventive interventions, with a potential to bring economic benefits beyond just health benefits. While vaccines are considered to be a cost-effective public health intervention, implementation has become increasingly challenging. As vaccine costs rise and competing priorities increase, economic evidence is likely to play an increasingly important role in vaccination decisions. To assist policy decisions today and potential investments in the future, we provide a systematic review of the literature on the cost-effectiveness and economic benefits of vaccines in low- and middle-income countries from 2000 to 2010. The review identified 108 relevant articles from 51 countries spanning 23 vaccines from three major electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase and Econlit). Among the 44 articles that reported costs per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted, vaccines cost less than or equal to $100 per DALY averted in 23 articles (52%). Vaccines cost less than $500 per DALY averted in 34 articles (77%), and less than $1000 per DALY averted in 38 articles (86%) in one of the scenarios. 24 articles (22%) examined broad level economic benefits of vaccines such as greater future wage-earning capacity and cost savings from averting disease outbreaks. 60 articles (56%) gathered data from a primary source. There were little data on long-term and societal economic benefits such as morbidity-related productivity gains, averting catastrophic health expenditures, growth in gross domestic product (GDP), and economic implications of demographic changes resulting from vaccination. This review documents the available evidence and shows that vaccination in low- and middle-income countries brings important economic benefits. The cost-effectiveness studies reviewed suggest to policy makers that vaccines are an efficient investment. This review further highlights key gaps in the available literature that would benefit from additional research, especially in the area of evaluating the broader economic benefits of vaccination in the developing world. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Inequalities in full immunization coverage: trends in low- and middle-income countries

            Abstract Objective To investigate disparities in full immunization coverage across and within 86 low- and middle-income countries. Methods In May 2015, using data from the most recent Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, we investigated inequalities in full immunization coverage – i.e. one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and three doses of polio vaccine – in 86 low- or middle-income countries. We then investigated temporal trends in the level and inequality of such coverage in eight of the countries. Findings In each of the World Health Organization’s regions, it appeared that about 56–69% of eligible children in the low- and middle-income countries had received full immunization. However, within each region, the mean recorded level of such coverage varied greatly. In the African Region, for example, it varied from 11.4% in Chad to 90.3% in Rwanda. We detected pro-rich inequality in such coverage in 45 of the 83 countries for which the relevant data were available and pro-urban inequality in 35 of the 86 study countries. Among the countries in which we investigated coverage trends, Madagascar and Mozambique appeared to have made the greatest progress in improving levels of full immunization coverage over the last two decades, particularly among the poorest quintiles of their populations. Conclusion Most low- and middle-income countries are affected by pro-rich and pro-urban inequalities in full immunization coverage that are not apparent when only national mean values of such coverage are reported.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Exposing concerns about vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

              Concerns about vaccination lead to under- and no-vaccination. Our objective is to synthesise and expose evidence on individuals' and communities' concerns about vaccination to influence current debates on strategies to improve vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                fayizalhilou@gmail.com
                djimets@yahoo.fr
                f.lechthaler@swisstph.ch
                esther.schelling@swisstph.ch
                trann@who.int
                jakob.zinsstag@swisstph.ch
                daniel.cobos@swisstph.ch
                Journal
                Int J Equity Health
                Int J Equity Health
                International Journal for Equity in Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1475-9276
                14 November 2018
                14 November 2018
                2018
                : 17
                : 167
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institut de Recherche en Elevage pour le Développement, PO Box 433, N’Djamena, Chad
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0587 0574, GRID grid.416786.a, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, ; PO Box CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0642, GRID grid.6612.3, University of Basel, ; PO Box CH, 4001 Basel, Switzerland
                [4 ]Centre de Recherches en Anthropologie et Sciences Humaines (CRASH), PO Box 6542, N’Djamena, Chad
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0688 6779, GRID grid.424060.4, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, , Bern University of Applied Sciences, ; PO Box 3052, Zollikofen, Switzerland
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0574 1465, GRID grid.458360.c, The Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (AHPSR), World Health Organization, ; PO Box 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1412-2503
                Article
                873
                10.1186/s12939-018-0873-2
                6236988
                30428876
                11180442-d554-41f3-a8d2-c6475afb2074
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 24 January 2018
                : 14 October 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007855, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research;
                Award ID: 2015/594115-0
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Health & Social care
                immunization,vaccination,barriers,mobile pastoralists,chad
                Health & Social care
                immunization, vaccination, barriers, mobile pastoralists, chad

                Comments

                Comment on this article