Evidence mapPaperPMID 40153334Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2025

Insights from national stakeholders and health workers on learning and performance interventions in immunisation programs: a multi-country situational analysis.

Julia Bluestone, Emily Bryce, Alexander K Rowe, Naina J Ahuja, Wincate M Murathi, Rosemary N Njogu, Arshad Chandio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Julia BluestoneProgram and Technical Excellence Office, Jhpiego, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Emily BryceMonitoring, Evaluation and Research, Jhpiego, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Alexander K RoweIndependent Contractor, Health Systems and Immunisation Strengthening team, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Geneva, Switzerland.
Naina J AhujaHealth Programme Group, Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health Section, Unit for Digital Health and Information Systems, United Nations Children's Fund, New York, New York, USA.
Wincate M MurathiProgram Team, Jhpiego, Nairobi, Kenya.
Rosemary N NjoguTechnical Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Team, Jhpiego, Nairobi, Kenya.
Arshad ChandioConsultant, Jhpiego, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health workers play a key role in providing high-quality health services, but health worker practice improvements remain limited despite significant investments in learning and performance interventions. We conducted a situational analysis to explore factors affecting health worker performance, focusing on barriers and facilitators and integrating digital solutions. Methods: In the analysis we focussed on paid professional health workers. Primary data collection occurred between April-May 2022 across seven countries, involving key informant interviews with immunisation program managers and human resource representatives. In three countries, human-centred design meetings included surveys on preferred interventions for improving learning and performance. Secondary data included a desk review of the literature, including recent strategy documents from the Gavi Alliance. We used a virtual session with human-centred design facilitators to create a health worker learning journey map. Results: Our findings show a shift towards digital and innovative approaches in learning, though traditional methods, such as in-service training and supervision, still dominate. Most initiatives depend on donor funding. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of digital solutions. Integration with health workers' continuing professional development processes is limited, but career advancement motivates engagement. Challenges include inadequate staffing, limited training opportunities, and poor digital infrastructure. Preferred methods include workplace-based learning and digitally supported training. Evidence supports quality improvement or group problem-solving to improve practices, while other approaches, such as eLearning or blended learning and mentorship, require further evaluation. Conclusions: Stakeholders, including donors, should prioritise support for more effective learning approaches, combining strategies to improve outcomes. While stakeholders desire to expand digital learning, given the limited evidence, prioritising effectiveness evaluations are crucial. Educating stakeholders on evidence-based practices, promoting combined strategies, evaluating unproven interventions, and aligning donor funding with effective approaches is critical to enhancing interventions.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelImmunization ProgramsLearningStakeholder ParticipationHumansQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID40153334
PMCPMC11952180

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.