CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 155Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsICT in Developing Communities

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of mobile phones for improving vaccination coverage among children living in rural hard-to-reach areas and urban streets of Bangladesh

Open access
Uddin, Md. Jasim, Shamsuzzaman, Md., Horng, Lily, Labrique, Alain, Vasudevan, Lavanya, Zeller, Kelsey, Chowdhury, Mridul, Larson, Charles P., Bishai, David, Alam, Nurul·2016·Vaccine
DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.024PMC PMC4807732
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In Bangladesh, full vaccination rates among children living in rural hard-to-reach areas and urban streets are low. We conducted a quasi-experimental pre-post study of a 12-month mobile phone intervention to improve vaccination among 0-11 months old children in rural hard-to-reach and urban street dweller areas. Software named "mTika" was employed within the existing public health system to electronically register each child's birth and remind mothers about upcoming vaccination dates with text messages. Android smart phones with mTika were provided to all health assistants/vaccinators and supervisors in intervention areas, while mothers used plain cell phones already owned by themselves or their families. Pre and post-intervention vaccination coverage was surveyed in intervention and control areas. Among children over 298 days old, full vaccination coverage actually decreased in control areas--rural baseline 65.9% to endline 55.2% and urban baseline 44.5% to endline 33.9%--while increasing in intervention areas from rural baseline 58.9% to endline 76*8%, difference +18.8% (95% CI 5.7-31.9) and urban baseline 40.7% to endline 57.1%, difference +16.5% (95% CI 3.9-29.0). Difference-in-difference (DID) estimates were +29.5% for rural intervention versus control areas and +27.1% for urban areas for full vaccination in children over 298 days old, and logistic regression adjusting for maternal education, mobile phone ownership, and sex of child showed intervention effect odds ratio (OR) of 3.8 (95% CI 1.5-9.2) in rural areas and 3.0 (95% CI 1.4-6.4) in urban areas. Among all age groups, intervention effects on age-appropriate vaccination coverage were positive: DIDs +13.1-30.5% and ORs 2.5-4.6 (p<0.001 in all comparisons). Qualitative data showed the intervention was well-accepted. Our study demonstrated that a mobile phone intervention can improve vaccination coverage in rural hard-to-reach and urban street dweller communities in Bangladesh. This small-scale successful demonstration should serve as an example to other low-income countries with high mobile phone usage.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.024

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. United Nations Foundation – mobile phones to help meet health needs in Brazil's indigenous communities. Available at: <http://www.unfoundation.org/news-and-media/press-releases/2011/info-as-care.html>.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–153 of 153

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Uddin, M. J., Shamsuzzaman, M., Horng, L., Labrique, A., Vasudevan, L., Zeller, K., Chowdhury, M., Larson, C. P., Bishai, D., & Alam, N.
Affiliations
  • International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (BD)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Uddin, Md. Jasim
ORCID
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
276-283
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.024
PMC
PMC4807732
OpenAlex
W2173568466
Cited by
155
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 2
FWCI
15.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Vaccine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Grand Challenges Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › ICT in Developing Communities
Keywords
mobile phone intervention, childhood vaccination coverage, SMS reminders, hard-to-reach populations, street dwellers, rural health, urban health, health information technology, Bangladesh
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adult, Bangladesh, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Rural Population, Urban Population, Vaccination, Reminder Systems, Immunization Programs, Young Adult, Text Messaging, Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review