Cited by 86Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Using Mobile Phones to Improve Vaccination Uptake in 21 Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review

Open access
Oliver-Williams, Clare, Brown, Elizabeth, Devereux, Sara, Fairhead, Cassandra, Holeman, Isaac·2017·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The benefits of vaccination have been comprehensively proven; however, disparities in coverage persist because of poor health system management, limited resources, and parental knowledge and attitudes. Evidence suggests that health interventions that engage local parties in communication strategies improve vaccination uptake. As mobile technology is widely used to improve health communication, mobile health (mHealth) interventions might be used to increase coverage. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the available literature on the use of mHealth to improve vaccination in low- and middle-income countries with large numbers of unvaccinated children. METHODS: In February 2017, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Scopus, and Web of Science, as well as three health organization websites-Communication Initiative Network, TechNet-21, and PATH-were searched to identify mHealth intervention studies on vaccination uptake in 21 countries. RESULTS: Ten peer-reviewed studies and 11 studies from white or gray literature were included. Nine took place in India, three in Pakistan, two each in Malawi and Nigeria, and one each in Bangladesh, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Kenya. Ten peer-reviewed studies and 7 white or gray studies demonstrated improved vaccination uptake after interventions, including appointment reminders, mobile phone apps, and prerecorded messages. CONCLUSIONS: Although the potential for mHealth interventions to improve vaccination coverage seems clear, the evidence for such interventions is not. The dearth of studies in countries facing the greatest barriers to immunization impedes the prospects for evidence-based policy and practice in these settings.

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 · 10.2196/mhealth.7792

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oliver-Williams, C., Brown, E., Devereux, S., Fairhead, C., & Holeman, I.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2017-10-04
Volume
5
Issue
10
Pages
e148
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2761126871
Cited by
86
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
mobile health, vaccine uptake, vaccination coverage, low- and middle-income countries, appointment reminders, mobile phone app, health communication, childhood immunization, parental knowledge and attitudes

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