Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32421684›Full record

SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Use of Apps to Promote Childhood Vaccination: Systematic Review.

Caroline de Cock, Michelle van Velthoven, Madison Milne-Ives, Mary Mooney, Edward Meinert

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Caroline de CockDigitally Enabled PrevenTative Health Research Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7585-9598
Michelle van VelthovenDigitally Enabled PrevenTative Health Research Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1245-8759
Madison Milne-IvesDigitally Enabled PrevenTative Health Research Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7628-882X
Mary MooneySchool of Nursing & Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-0689-7029
Edward MeinertDigitally Enabled PrevenTative Health Research Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2484-3347

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccination is a critical step in reducing child mortality; however, vaccination rates have declined in many countries in recent years. This decrease has been associated with an increase in the outbreak of vaccine-preventable diseases. The potential for leveraging mobile platforms to promote vaccination coverage has been investigated in the development of numerous mobile apps. Although many are available for public use, there is little robust evaluation of these apps.

objectiveThis systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of apps supporting childhood vaccinations in improving vaccination uptake, knowledge, and decision making as well as the usability and user perceptions of these apps.

methodsPubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) databases were systematically searched for studies published between 2008 and 2019 that evaluated childhood vaccination apps. Two authors screened and selected studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted and analyzed, and the studies were assessed for risk of bias.

resultsA total of 28 studies evaluating 25 apps met the inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. Overall, 9 studies assessed vaccination uptake, of which 4 reported significant benefits (P<.001 or P=.03) of the implementation of the app. Similarly, 4 studies indicated a significant (P≤.054) impact on knowledge and on vaccination decision making. Patient perceptions, usability, and acceptability were generally positive. The quality of the included studies was found to be moderate to poor, with many aspects of the methodology being unclear.

conclusionsThere is little evidence to support the use of childhood vaccination apps to improve vaccination uptake, knowledge, or decision making. Further research is required to understand the dichotomous effects of vaccination-related information provision and the evaluation of these apps in larger, more robust studies. The methodology of studies must be reported more comprehensively to accurately assess the effectiveness of childhood vaccination apps and the risk of bias of studies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/16929.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsBehavior TherapyChildHumansVaccinationchildhood vaccinationimmunizationinfantmobile appsmobile phonesmartphone technologyvaccinationvaccination coverage

Identifiers

PMID32421684
PMCPMC7265109

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.