Community engagement to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a living systematic review protocol

  1. Brynne Gilmore
  2. Nina Gerlach
  3. Claudia Abreu Lopes
  4. Alpha A Diallo
  5. Sanghita Bhattacharyya
  6. Vergil de Claro
  7. Rawlance Ndejjo
  8. Elizabeth Nyamupachitu Mago
  9. Adalbert Tchetchia

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Widespread vaccination against COVID-19 is one of the most effective ways to control, and ideally, end the global COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy and vaccine rates vary widely across countries and populations and are influenced by complex sociocultural, political, economic and psychological factors. Community engagement is an integral strategy within immunisation campaigns and has been shown to improve vaccine acceptance. As evidence on community engagement to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake is emerging and constantly changing, research that lessens the knowledge-to-practice gap by providing regular and up-to-date evidence on current best-practice is essential.

Methods and analysis

A living systematic review will be conducted which includes an initial systematic review and bimonthly review updates. Searching and screening for the review and subsequent updates will be done in four streams: a systematic search of six databases, grey literature review, preprint review and citizen sourcing. The screening will be done by a minimum of two reviewers at title/abstract and full-text in Covidence, a systematic review management software. Data will be extracted across predefined fields in an excel spreadsheet that includes information about article characteristics, context and population, community engagement approaches, and outcomes. Synthesis will occur using the convergent integrated approach. We will explore the potential to quantitatively synthesise primary outcomes depending on heterogeneity of the studies.

Ethics and dissemination

The initial review and subsequent bimonthly searches and their results will be disseminated transparently via open-access methods. Quarterly briefs will be shared on the reviews’ social media platforms and across other interested networks and repositories. A dedicated web link will be created on the Community Health-Community of Practice site for sharing findings and obtaining feedback. A mailing list will be developed and interested parties can subscribe for updates.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022301996.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063057
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.08.22272082: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationA third reviewer will also randomly review 20% of articles screened at full-text stage for additional interrater reliability.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The following databases will be searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS and AJOL.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    The health science preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv will be searched.
    bioRxiv
    suggested: (bioRxiv, RRID:SCR_003933)
    Three search topics will be used with a combination of MESH and Boolean phrases for the database search: Vaccine, COVID-19 and community engagement.
    MESH
    suggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)
    A ‘read only’ GoogleDoc will be created, with links available in the published review from step one.
    GoogleDoc
    suggested: None
    Whereas all review files on GoogleDocs will be ‘read only’, we will have an additional page for readers to provide any additional resources, and comment on review findings and interpretation, aiming to increase both the searching process and the rigour and trustworthiness of the review.
    GoogleDocs
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    While caution on their conduct needs to be applied, especially on issues of data management and reporting, our review protocol has attempted to control for such potential limitations and learn from previous reviews. Specifically, we have included a preprint search and citizen searching, and will leverage social media via Twitter and GoogleDocs for identification of articles and feedback from the global community on the process and findings. There are, however, recognized potential limitations of this review. Firstly, there are no specific systematic review software programmes that support monthly iterative searching, resulting in foreseeable challenges in data management. To limit any effects of this, all searches and their results will be saved and catalogued prior to uploading into Covidence. It is also anticipated that multiple data management systems may need to be used, and/or that flexibility across time will be required. Secondly, conceptualizations of ‘community engagement’ will likely vary across settings. Such terminology is regular vernacular within some contexts, specifically the implementation of health programmes within low- and middle-income countries. Yet, even within this work, how community engagement is defined and what it encompasses is varied and often unclear (50,51). Moreover, the use of ‘community engagement’ as a term may be limited in contexts that implement fewer activities at the community level, for instance in high-income contexts or contexts wit...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.08.22272082 on medRxiv