Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Immunization, urbanization and slums – a systematic review of factors and interventions

  • Tim Crocker-Buque1Email author,
  • Godwin Mindra2,
  • Richard Duncan2 and
  • Sandra Mounier-Jack1
BMC Public HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:556

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4473-7

Received: 13 December 2016

Accepted: 28 May 2017

Published: 8 June 2017

Abstract

Background

In 2014, over half (54%) of the world’s population lived in urban areas and this proportion will increase to 66% by 2050. This urbanizing trend has been accompanied by an increasing number of people living in urban poor communities and slums. Lower immunization coverage is found in poorer urban dwellers in many contexts. This study aims to identify factors associated with immunization coverage in poor urban areas and slums, and to identify interventions to improve coverage.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review, searching Medline, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Database with broad search terms for studies published between 2000 and 2016.

Results

Of 4872 unique articles, 327 abstracts were screened, leading to 63 included studies: 44 considering factors and 20 evaluating interventions (one in both categories) in 16 low or middle-income countries. A wide range of socio-economic characteristics were associated with coverage in different contexts. Recent rural-urban migration had a universally negative effect. Parents commonly reported lack of awareness of immunization importance and difficulty accessing services as reasons for under-immunization of their children. Physical distance to clinics and aspects of service quality also impacted uptake. We found evidence of effectiveness for interventions involving multiple components, especially if they have been designed with community involvement. Outreach programmes were effective where physical distance was identified as a barrier. Some evidence was found for the effective use of SMS (text) messaging services, community-based education programmes and financial incentives, which warrant further evaluation. No interventions were identified that provided services to migrants from rural areas.

Conclusion

Different factors affect immunization coverage in different urban poor and slum contexts. Immunization services should be designed in collaboration with slum-dwelling communities, considering the local context. Interventions should be designed and tested to increase immunization in migrants from rural areas.

Keywords

Vaccine Immunization Urban Slum Low-income

Background

In 2014, over half (54%) of the world’s population lived in urban areas [1]. By 2050 this proportion is expected to increase to 66%, adding approximately 2.5 billion new urban dwellers, of whom 90% will be in Asia and Africa [2]. This trend towards urbanization is closely linked with an increasing population living in urban poor communities and slum environments [2]. Although the proportion of urban residents living in slums has been decreasing, the absolute number has increased substantially, from 689 million in 1990 to 880 million in 2014, and is expected to double by 2030 [3]. In order to meet the outcomes in the New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals to improve health for slum-dwellers a better understanding is needed of each individual slum environment and the factors contributing to poor health outcomes [4, 5].

Immunization and urbanization

Significant disparities exist in immunization coverage in urban areas with lower coverage observed in the urban poor in many countries (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

DTP3 coverage in selected countries ranked in order of difference between wealth quintiles

DTP3 = 3rd dose of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine. Q1 = poorest and Q5 = wealthiest urban wealth quintiles. Data from WHO Observatory [105]

Although some countries, such as Bangladesh, have achieved immunization equity, these disparities are growing in many others, including Nigeria, Ethiopia, Cameroon and Pakistan [6]. However, Demographic Health Surveys do not sample urban slums specifically Tables 1 and 2. display the results of recent studies that have reported data on immunization coverage in slums in India and in sub-Saharan African countries, showing a wide range of coverage, from 3.0% and 8.5% in rural migrant children in slums in Chandigarh and Nigeria [7, 8], to 88.7% and 93.3% in Mumbai and Ouagadougou [9, 10].
Table 1

Showing studies conducted in slum populations in sub-Saharan Africa reporting immunization status of children since 2000

Ref

First Author

Year

Population

Country

Sample size

Immunization Status (%)

Notes

Complete

Partial

Unimmunized

[10]

<<Soura

2015

Children 12–59 months

Burkina Faso

3103

93.3

6.7

 

[65]

Maina

2013

Children 12–23 months

Kenya

380

76.6

23.4

 

[64]

Egondi

2015

Children 12–23 months

Kenya

382

70.0

30.0

 

[73]

Bobossi-Serengibé

2014

Children <11 months

CAR

400

67.0

33.0

 

[66]

Mutua

2011

Children 12–23 months

Kenya

1848

58.0

42.0

 

[10]

<<Soura

2015

Children 12–59 months

Kenya

1369

55.0

45.0

 

[72]

Mohamud

2014

Children 12–23 months

Ethiopia

582

47.6

32.7

19.7

Low-income urban (not slum specifically)

[8]

Fatiregun

2013

Children 12–23 months

Nigeria

588

38.8

45.6

15.7

Low-income urban (not slum specifically)

[71]

^Antai

2012

Children >12 months

Nigeria

604

24.3

75.7

Rural

^Antai

2012

Children >12 months

Nigeria

593

15.2

84.8

Urban

^Antai

2012

Children >12 months

Nigeria

1303

8.5

91.5

Rural-Urban migrant

<< and ^ denote results from the same study disaggregated by urban, rural or migration status

Table 2

Showing studies conducted in slum populations in India reporting immunization status of children since 2000

Ref

First Author

Year

Population

Location

Sample size

Immunization Status (%)

Notes

Complete

Partial

Unimmunized

[9]

Kulkarni

2013

Children 12–23 months

Mumbai

352

88.7

11.9

Complete or incomplete

[101]

Damor

2013

Children 1–5 years

Jamnagar

450

75.0

13.3

11.6

 

[39]

Kadarkar

2016

Children 12–23 months

Mumbai

336

75.0

22.3

2.7

 

[45]

Trivedi

2014

Children 12–23 months

Rewa

210

72.4

21.9

5.7

 

[56]

Kar

2001

Children 12–23 months

South Delhi

166

69.3

15.7

15.1

 

[49]

Wadgave

2012

Children <5 years

Solapur

420

64.3

25.6

9.8

 

[53]

>Kusuma

2010

Rural-urban migrant children up to 2 years

Delhi

746

60.2

34.9

4.9

Settled migrants

[40]

Awasthi

2015

Children 12–23 months

Varanasi

384

57.0

43.0

Complete or incomplete

[41]

Khan

2015

Children 12–23 months

Jagdalpur

225

55.1

30.7

14.2

 

[57]

Desai

2003

Children 9–59 months

Surat

3035

49.3

51.7

Measles only

[50]

Sachdeva

2012

Children 12–23 months

New Delhi

210

47.8

17.2

35.2

Hep B only

[42]

Kulkarni

2014

Children 12–23 months

Hyderabad

510

44.1

32.0

23.9

 

[54]

Nath

2007

Children 12–23 months

Lucknow

510

44.1

32.0

23.9

 

[44]

Agarwal

2014

Children <5 years

Kanpur

390

41.4

44.8

13.8

 

[53]

>Kusuma

2010

Rural-urban migrant children up to 2 years

Delhi

746

39.7

54.8

5.5

Recent migrants

[102]

Gupta

2012

Children <5 years

Bhopal

790

35.2

48.2

n/a

16.4% status unknown

[47]

Angandi

2013

Children 12–23 months

Bijapur

155

34.8

62.6

2.6

 

[52]

Jain

2010

Children 12–23 months

Meerut

216

31.0

17.1

51.9

 

[103]

Sharma

2009

Children 12–23 months

Surat

300

25.1

51.7

23.1

 

[55]

Mathew

2002

Children <5 years

New Delhi

500

25.0

44.4

30.6

 

[7]

#Sharma

2015

Children 12–23 months

Chandigarh

310

23.0

73.0

3.0

Non-migrants

[51]

Ghei

2010

Children 10–23 months

Agra

1728

14.0

45.0

41.0

 

[7]

#Sharma

2015

Children 12–23 months

Chandigarh

310

3.0

91.0

6.0

Migrants

> and # denote results from the same study disaggregated by migration status

Where immunization coverage is low Vaccine Preventable Diseases (VPDs) contribute to worse health outcomes in poor urban populations, particularly in slums. Increased morbidity and mortality has been observed from measles [11, 12], mumps [13], diphtheria [14], influenza [15], and typhoid [1619]; in slums in: South Africa [11], India [12, 13, 17, 19], Bangladesh [15, 18] and Kenya [16]. Outbreaks of VPDs are more common in urban slums than in other urban areas and have a larger number of cases secondary to high population density and continuous influx of a new pool of infective agents with migratory populations [1114, 19]. Crowding is known to increase childhood mortality from VPDs [20, 21].

In addition, vaccine programmes designed for a general population may not be as effective in urban slums, which are characterized by lack of essential infrastructure (such as electricity and water), poor housing quality and where residents may be recent migrants, or have insecure legal or residential status, limiting access to basic health services, if they are available at all [22, 23].

Although low immunization coverage is not inevitable amongst the urban poor, there is no current systematic synthesis describing the associated demographic, geographic, and socio-economic factors, nor considering interventions to increase coverage. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify the factors associated with immunization coverage in low-income urban areas and slums in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), and identify the evidence for interventions to improve coverage.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement [24].

Search strategy

We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, using the strategy shown in Additional file 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies published between 2000 and July 2016 with the following characteristics were included:
  • Population: any population living in a low-income urban area or slum in a LMIC [25]. Slums have a broad operational definition, so we have included consideration of urban poor communities that have slum-like characteristics, even if they have not been formally designated as a slum [22].

  • Study design:
    • Observational studies: cross-sectional surveys and cohort studies, designed to identify factors associated with coverage levels.

    • Intervention studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental (including time-series and before-and-after studies) and ecological designs that evaluated any intervention designed to increase vaccine uptake or coverage, including any associated economic analyses.

In addition, we included primary studies identified from searching the references from other review articles identified in the search that fitted inclusion criteria.

Study selection process

One reviewer screened articles by title and manually de-duplicated records. Two reviewers screened potentially relevant abstracts independently. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion, based on the inclusion criteria. Three reviewers agreed the final inclusions.

Results

Of 4872 unique articles, 327 abstracts were screened, leading to 80 full text articles being reviewed, along with nine additional studies identified from the references of 12 review articles [6, 2636]. In total 63 studies were included (Fig. 2). Forty-four studies looked at factors associated with immunization coverage and 20 studies evaluated interventions. One study appears in both categories.
Fig. 2

PRISMA flowchart of literature selection

Factors associated with immunization coverage

The qualitative synthesis of factors identified from 44 studies is presented below, categorized into 4 groups: socio-economic characteristics; migration status; information, beliefs and behavior; and health services. All studies were cross-sectional surveys, aside from one qualitative study [37], and one ecological study [38]. Quantitative synthesis of measures of effect was not able to be performed due to heterogeneity in study design, population and methods.

Studies were conducted in populations in India (n = 23) [7, 9, 3858], Pakistan (n = 3) [5961], Iran (n = 1) [62], China (n = 1) [63], Kenya (n = 6) [10, 6468], Nigeria (n = 4) [8, 6971], Burkina Faso (n = 1) [10], Ethiopia (n = 1) [72], Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)(n = 1) [37], Central African Republic (CAR)(n = 1) [73], Zambia (n = 1) [74], and Brazil (n = 2) [75, 76],

Socio-economic and demographic characteristics

Socio-economic (SE) status was measured in a variety of ways, including using measures of wealth or income, employment status, education, or surrogate markers like receipt of government payments.

In India, the impact of SE factors has been studied extensively in low-income urban and slum areas. An ecological study using data from the Indian National Family Health Survey showed that the children in the lowest wealth quartile in urban areas have significantly lower coverage (around 40%) than in any other urban wealth group [38]. Another study examined the survey data in more detail to compare a wider range of SE factors and outcomes of 1877 children in less developed Empowered Action Group states with more developed northern counterparts and found that having an illiterate mother or father, poverty, and being a 3rd born child or greater had the greatest effect on immunization coverage [46]. However, studies conducted in individual locations paint a more heterogeneous picture. Mothers’ education was associated with lower coverage in some studies [39, 49, 51], but not in others [45, 53]. Similarly, female children had lower coverage in some studies [39, 45, 51], but no gender difference was found in others [9, 49, 50]. In one study malnutrition was also found to be much more common in unimmunized slum-dwelling children [44].

Elsewhere, a study in a slum in Karachi, Pakistan, found lower coverage in lower SE groups [59]. However, the study reported a much more significant effect of being from a marginalized ethnic group, particularly if associated with illegal or insecure residential status. Another study in Pakistan found mothers’ education was a significant predictor of measles containing vaccine (MCV) coverage in urban areas [60]. However, the impact of other SE factors was different in different localities.

The findings from sub-Saharan African countries are similar in their diversity. Across 3 slum populations in Kenya factors associated with immunization coverage included: maternal education, employment and age; child’s birth order; number of children, place of birth; and household assets and expenditure [6466]. Ethnic group was a significant predictor of MCV uptake in Nairobi [67]. A paired study conducted in slums in Nairobi and Ouagadougou found that while the SE factors in each slum were similar, children in Nairobi were 11.5 times more likely to be unvaccinated, suggesting a powerful environmental effect [10]. In Jigjiga, Ethiopia, maternal age and literacy, place of residence, tetanus immunization status, place of delivery and household visit by health workers were the most important predictors of completing immunization [72].

In Sao Palo, Brazil, a study of 258 children in a philanthropic day care centre found premature birth, malnourishment, inadequate housing and poor prenatal care to be associated with lower coverage [75]. However, a larger Brazilian study involving 17,000 children found that those in lower SE groups had higher immunization rates than their wealthier peers [76]. Although this association is not fully explained in the paper, the authors found that parents in higher socioeconomic quintiles had higher vaccine refusal rates and hypothesize that progressive reduction in VPD incidence over many years may have led to complacency, alongside unfounded vaccine safety concerns widely reported in other countries.

Migration status

Four studies demonstrated a negative effect of migration status on immunization coverage in India [7, 53], China [63], and Nigeria [71]. In India, recent migrants were found to have lower coverage than settled migrants (living in new urban location for >12 months), which then resolved to the slum-area average over time [53]. A study comparing reasons for under-immunization given by migrant and non-migratory parents in an Indian slum cited mother or both parents being too busy; parent returned to home village; parent unaware of place or time of immunization; and lack of awareness for the need for immunization as the main reasons for under-immunization [7]. In Nigeria, children of urban non-migrant mothers had 67% higher chance of being fully immunized than migrant children, which was attributed to the disrupting force of migration [71]. However, other characteristics, including: children being of higher birth order; being a mother aged <18 years; and lower SE status, also played a significant role, independent of migration status after regression modelling. Thus, there are elements of similarity of the risks of low immunization coverage as faced by all urban poor communities, but these are exacerbated by the disruptive force of migration.

Information, beliefs and behavior

Many studies that collected information on SE characteristics also asked parents why their children were not fully vaccinated. In India, frequently identified reasons included: unaware of the need for vaccines; [7, 9, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, 54, 56, 57] parents being too busy; [7, 9, 39, 42, 54, 55] traveled to place of origin; [7, 39, 5456] and unaware of clinic location or timing [7, 9, 42, 47, 52, 54].

Unfortunately, there are fewer studies available from other countries to make similar comparisons. In two studies conducted in Pakistan, maternal knowledge of immunization was an important factor; [61] and the reasons for under-immunization given by mothers were to do with ‘carelessness’ or difficulty in accessing services [60]. In Ibadan, Nigeria, a study found fear of side-effects, maternal awareness, and parents being too busy to attend clinic to be significant; [8] in neonates in Benin City, Nigeria, a study found that SE and education status were associated with delayed immunization; [69] and the 3 main reasons for under-vaccination identified in a study from Bangui, Central African Republic, were the mother being too busy, negative attitude of health workers, and lack of access to information [73].

One qualitative study conducted in a slum in DRC investigated health service access using focus group interviews [37]. It painted a detailed picture of parents conflicting views and beliefs, including concerns over out-of-pocket expenditure and being suspicious of free services (including vaccines), while seeing some services as beneficial, but not acceptable due to lack of information and distrust in the government.

Health services

A study that used mapping techniques to evaluate health service access in Agra, India, found that the presence of a health center within 2 km of the slum doubled the chances of a child being completely immunized [51]. A similar study in Lusaka, Zambia, showed that further distance from service points were associated with lower coverage [74]. Timing of services is also important, where offering services only on one particular day is associated with reduced coverage in neonates in Nigeria [69]. However, slum-dwelling populations may also be less likely to access health services due to fear of costs, risk of lost income, or lack of local knowledge [48]. A study from Nigeria showed that even when services are provided free, urban dwellers consume less than their rural counterparts [70]. However, another study found a high level of payment for services that should have been provided for free, including immunization and pre-natal care. This may be a common experience in LMICs, due to low payments made to health workers, and when present, may affect the long-term effectiveness of vaccine programmes. However, when people do access healthcare higher patient satisfaction and provision of accurate information was shown to lead to increased attendance for repeat vaccine doses in an Indian slum community [58]. Accessing pre-natal care was shown to have a positive impact on immunization coverage in India [41], Ethiopia [72], and Brazil [75].

A missed vaccination opportunity is when health workers interact with a child who is under-immunized and could have been offered a vaccination, but for some reason do not [27]. A study conducted in 6 health facilities in a Nairobi slum found that vaccine coverage could have been increased if all missed vaccination opportunities had been taken [68].

Interventions

Twenty studies were identified that looked at interventions to increase immunization uptake and are displayed in Table 3. These were conducted in India (n = 5) [7781], Pakistan (n = 5) [8286], Bangladesh (n = 3) [8789], Zambia (n = 2) [74, 90], Uganda (n = 1) [91], Kenya (n = 1) [92], Brazil (n = 1) [93], Guatemala (n = 1) [94], and Mongolia (n = 1) [95].
Table 3

Showing the results of studies examining interventions to increase immunization uptake in urban poor and slum communities in low and middle-income countries

Author, Year [Reference]

Country

(Area)

Intervention

Category

Intervention

Study design

Study population

Sample size & comparison

Outcome

Comments

Uddin, 2010 [88]

Bangladesh (Dhaka)

Multi-C

Extended hours,

provider training,

screening tool,

community group.

Before (bf) and after (aft)

Children 12–23 months in a Dhaka slum.

529 before,

526 after.

Fully immsd increased from 43% to 99% (p < 0.000)

Increases seen across range of individual vaccines, and in both children of working and non-working mothers.

Hayford, 2014 [87]

Economic evaluation

-

Cost of $20.95 per fully immsd child

Total cost for intervention for 1 year $18,300.

Pradhan, 2012 [81]

India

(Patna)

Multi-C

Outreach services,

additional staff, task shifting, link workers,

geographic monitoring, community involvement, additional supervision.

Before and after

All eligible living in slums in Patna

Estimated eligible population immsd before and after intervention.

BCG 29% bf, 64% aft

DPT1 28% bf, 62% aft

DPT3 21% bf, 49% aft

MCV 23% bf, 51% aft

TT1 15% bf, 22% aft

TT2 10% bf, 28% aft

Increases observed across a range of vaccines in a population of approx. 25,000 children, however statistical significance not reported.

Agarwal, 2008 [77]

India

(Indore)

Multi-C

Increasing awareness & demand, improve vaccine supply and accessibility, community links.

Before and after

Children aged 12–23 months living in 79 slum areas

Eligible children within estimated 150,000 study population.

Fully immsd increased from 32% to 72% between 2003 (bf) and 2006 (aft).

Primarily descriptive, with limited detail on outcomes achieved and no statistical analysis.

Khan, 2006 [85]

Pakistan (Karachi)

Multi-C

Information, education, community involvement, intensive vaccination campaign.

Cluster RCT

Children aged 2 to 16 years in squatter settlements.

21,059 children in 60 clusters.

Achieved 74% coverage in previously unvaccinated population.

Purpose of study was to test effectiveness of typhoid polysaccharide vaccine, using Hep A as a control, but also reported on campaign design.

Poulos, 2004 [96]

India

(New Delhi)

Multi-C

Mass vaccination vs. school campaign vs. targeted campaign at 2–5 year old children.

Economic evaluation

All people within a slum area in new Delhi

26 clusters

Assuming cost of $1 per typhoid vaccine:

Mass campaign = $50 per case avoided, School campaign = $41, and targeted to young children = $14.

Examination of the economic benefits of typhoid vaccine campaigns from a societal perspective using different methods in a slum area.

Mbabazi, 2012 [92]

Kenya

(Nairobi and Nyanza/Western Provinces)

Multi-C

House to house canvassing, community mobilization, mobile phone documentation, web application monitoring.

Cross-sectional (post-hoc data only)

Children in high-density urban poor communities.

164,643 households, with 161, 695 children

Post campaign monitoring found measles coverage of 96% reported (92% confirmed).

Additional strategy as part of a mass measles campaign to increase coverage of the campaign. 75% households reported acceptance of supplemental measles vaccination prior to intervention.

Lhamsuren, 2012 [95]

Mongolia (Ulaanbaatar)

Multi-C

Reaching Every District (RED) strategy [104].

Cross-sectional & qualitative.

At risk children in urban poor communities, focusing on one district of 22,726 people)

3126 at risk children under 15 years old in selected community.

Immsd an additional 477 at risk children (15% of total number of eligible children).

Detail provided on barriers to imms services. Cost in study district = $14,166, which also included other maternal and child health interventions.

Igarashi, 2010 [74]

Zambia

(Lusaka)

Outreach

Growth Monitoring Plus (GMP): outreach vaccination and other child health services into under-served slum areas using community volunteers.

Interrupted time series

Children in four slum area, split into 2 primary areas and 2 areas with 2-year time-lag.

1128 (584 in primary site, 544 in time-lag intervention site)

Full imms coverage increased from 52.6% at baseline to 68.8% at final measurement in primary area (p < 0.001) and 43.1% to 56.7% in lag area (non-significant).

Length of residence was significantly longer in primary area, which may explain the differential effect. Frequency of attendance at GMP+ services significantly associated with higher coverage (OR 1.27, P < 0.001)

Sasaki, 2011 [90]

Before and after cross-sectional surveys

Children in one slum area of 48.798 people (one of the 4 areas included in the above study).

280 sampled households.

DPT3 increased 75.7% (bf) to 87.3% (aft) and measles from 66.8% (bf) to 76.1% (aft).

Closer distances to imms service points significantly associated with higher coverage, and impact of this reduced with GMP+ outreach services.

Ansari, 2010 [78]

India

(Aligarh City)

Outreach

Immunisation outreach camps

Cross-sectional

Children <5 in slum areas of Aligarh City

2531

13,989 vaccines administered to the 2531 children attending services.

Population coverage not reported. Significantly lower imms coverage observed in female children attending.

Prabhakaran, 2014 [80]

India

(New Delhi)

Outreach

Mobile health clinic

Economic Evaluation

Children <5 years living in Dakshinpuri extension resettlement colony.

1583 children attending the clinic in 1 year.

1583 children received 8488 vaccinations through the service at a cost of 66.14 Rupees per vaccine (US$0.10)

Imms services provided alongside a range of other health services.

Uddin, 2016 [89]

Bangladesh

(Dhaka)

Reminder/ recall

SMS (text) message reminders managed using mTika software system.

Before and after

Both children aged 0–11 months in hard-to-reach rural areas and urban street children in slums.

2823 urban street children (intervention 518 bf and 520 aft, with 1785 controls)

Urban intervention: 40.7% (bf) to 57.1% (aft) compared to controls 44.5% (bf) to 33.9% (aft).

Adjusted OR = 3.0 (95% CI 1.4–6.4). Decline in control population imms coverage also noted in rural population (not shown here).

Kazi, 2014 [83]

Pakistan

(Karachi)

Reminder/ recall

SMS (text) message monitoring of immunisation activities.

Cross-sectional

20 clusters of 200–250 households in 3 high polio risk areas.

28 households with children under 5 in each cluster.

Coverage in population who replied to messages was 74.5% (95% CI 71.6–77.4) which was very similar to result found using WHO lot quality assurance sampling.

Text messages sent to parents to confirm if immunization staff had visited and vaccinated child. If no answer, follow-up phone calls made.

Domek, 2016 [94]

Guatemala

(Guatemala City)

Reminder/ recall

SMS (text) message reminders

RCT pilot

Children aged 8–14 weeks presenting at a clinic serving a low-income population.

321 (160 intervention, 161 control)

Higher proportion in intervention group completed series (84.4% vs 80.7%), which was not statistically significant.

Three reminders sent to intervention parents. Loss to follow-up 25 in intervention and 31 in control groups. Demonstrated feasibility.

Mukanga, 2005 [91]

Uganda

(Mulago II Parish, outside Kampala)

Reminder/ recall

Child health cards

Cross-sectional

Children aged 0–24 months

260 households

66% children had child health cards, and were almost 10 times more likely to be fully immsd than those without (OR = 9.55, 95% CI 3.19–29.45)

Children born in a health facility were 4 times more likely to have a health card than those born at home.

Owais, 2011 [84]

Pakistan

(Karachi)

Education

Education session delivered by community health workers using pictorial message.

RCT

Mothers of children sampled from 5 low-income areas of Karachi

366 mother-infant pairs (179 in intervention, 178 in control group finally snslysed)

Increase in DPT3/Hep B coverage of 39% in intervention group (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.06–1.81)

27% (312) of sampled mothers declined to participate.

Anjum, 2004 [86]

Pakistan

(Karachi)

Education

Education messages provided to mothers by medical students

Randomized, controlled before and after

People living in Sikanderabad squatter settlement in Karachi.

317 households (110 intervention 207 controls)

Follow-up 4 years post intervention found significant increase in full imms intervention area (46.5% bf, 75% aft, p < 0.005) and no sig difference in control area. However, no test for interaction performed, compromising the statistical results.

The results are limited by poor study design. Although uptake of imms services significantly increased in both intervention and control households the groups were poorly matched with very divergent baseline service use, preventing firm conclusions being drawn about intervention effectiveness.

Shei, 2014 [93]

Brazil

(Salvador)

Incentives

Conditional cash transfer (Bolsa Familia) to people on low-incomes.

Nested cross-sectional survey within prospective cohort

Bolsa Familia recipients in a slum area of 14,000 people.

1266 children from 3000 randomly sampled households (841 beneficiaries, 425 controls)

Recipient children under 7 years 2.8 times more likely to attend services for vaccination (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4–5.4, P = 0.002).

Also increased odds of attending for growth monitoring (OR 3.1, P < 0.001) and health checks (OR = 1.6, p = 0.061). No impact on children older than 7.

Chandir, 2010 [82]

Pakistan

(Karachi)

Incentives

Food/medicine coupon incentives worth US$2 for follow-up DTP vaccinations.

Quasi-experimental with non-simultaneous controls

11 sub-districts, including middle and very-low income households.

2561 intervention, 2051 controls.

Completion of DTP 3 vaccinations higher in intervention group (Adjusted RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.95–2.48, p < 0.001)

Significant loss in the control cohort, only 847 (41% enrolled) entering final analysis.

Multi-C multi-component intervention, Bf before, Aft after, Imms/Immsd immunize/immunized, BCG Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine, DPT1 first Diphtheria, Pertussis & Tetanus vaccine, DPT3 third Diphtheria, Pertussis & Tetanus vaccine MCV meningococcal group C vaccine, TT1/2 first/s tetanus toxoid vaccine, GMP Growth Monitoring Plus programe, Hep B Hepatitis B vaccination, OR Odds Ratio, RR Risk ratio, 95% CI 95% Confidence Interval

We have divided them into five categories: multi-component interventions (n = 8); outreach programs (n = 4); reminder/recall systems (n = 4); education (n = 2); and those considering incentives (n = 2)

Multi-component interventions

We found evidence of effectiveness for interventions involving multiple components designed to meet the specific needs of a slum-dwelling community, especially if they have been designed and delivered with community involvement.

Two related studies reported on an intervention conducted in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The first is a non-controlled before-and-after evaluation of the intervention comprising four components: extended services hours; provider training; a screening tool; and a community support group [88]. Analysis of 529 children before and 526 after the intervention showed increased coverage over 12 months, with complete immunization rising from 43% to 99%. The second study calculated the cost of the programme at $20.95 per fully immunized child [87]. A similar programme in low-income areas of Patna, India, involving enhanced service delivery (outreach; additional nursing staff; task-shifting; geographic monitoring; community mobilization; supervision and communication components) was evaluated using before-and-after analysis of routinely collected data, and showed increases in immunization uptake e.g. DTP3 increased from 21% to 49%, MCV from 23% to 51% [81]. Another study evaluated the Urban Health Programme (combining demand and supply side interventions with increased clinic accessibility and community involvement) in Indore, India, which showed an increase in complete immunization among infants from 32% to 72% [77].

Two studies considered typhoid vaccination specifically. A cluster RCT involving 21,059 children was conducted in squatter communities in Karachi, Pakistan, to evaluate a campaign to increase typhoid vaccine coverage (involving information provision; community involvement; increased services; and staff training), which achieved 74% coverage in the target population, with maintenance of cold-chain [85]. A study in New Delhi, India, undertook economic analyses of different vaccination campaigns against typhoid and concluded that a targeted program for pre-school children was most cost-effective (US$14 per case averted), when compared to a school campaign (US$41) or general mass campaign (US$50) [96].

A large study (n = 161,695 children) in urban Nairobi and Nyanza provinces focusing on populations living in low-income, high-density environments demonstrated how the use of community volunteers calling door-to-door and providing standardized information using mobile phone technology can contribute to achieving high coverage (92%) during a planned mass MCV campaign [92].

A study conducted in Ulaanbaatar City, Mongolia, reports a before-and-after analysis following the implementation of the ‘Reaching Every District’ (RED) strategy by the ministry of health in an urban poor community, which reached an additional 477 children at risk of under-immunization, 15% of the total eligible population in the entire district, and also improved organizational structures and staff motivation [95].

Outreach programmes

Two related studies reported on the Growth Monitoring Program Plus programme, which involved providing monthly outreach services implemented in peri-urban areas of Lusaka, Zambia [74, 90]. Comparing early implementation sites with late implementers, immunization coverage was shown to significantly increase in both areas, from 52.6% to 68.8% (early) and 43.1% to 56.7% (late), even after controlling for socio-economic characteristics.

A study on an outreach services provided in Aligarh City, India, as part of a campaign reported success in immunizing over 2500 children in a low-income district and improving overall complete immunization coverage, demonstrating both feasibility and acceptability [78]. Another study in India provided descriptive evidence for the feasibility of providing vaccinations through a mobile health clinic in slum communities in Delhi, at the cost of RS66.14 per vaccine delivered (US$0.10) [80].

Reminder/recall

Three studies have shown varying levels of success in the use of text message (SMS) systems. In Bangladesh, the use of SMS reminder system in both urban street dwellers and a rural ‘hard-to-reach’ population was evaluated [89]. The results showed an increase in coverage in both populations, with an adjusted odds ratio of complete immunization of 3.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4–6.4) among the urban children. In Pakistan, an SMS system was successfully used to monitor provision of polio immunization by asking urban community members to report whether their children had been immunized by vaccinators [83]. A proof-of-concept study in an urban poor community in Guatemala City showed that an SMS system to remind mothers to receive pentavalent vaccine was feasible and acceptable, but found no difference in vaccine uptake [94].

A study in a slum community in Uganda showed that children born at a health facility, or whose mother was unwell during the pregnancy were more likely to have an immunization reminder card, and that these children were 10 times more likely to be up to date for all immunizations when compared to children without cards [91].

Education

Two studies considered the effect of an intervention focussing on education or information provision to parents in Pakistan. An RCT conducted in Karachi involved community health workers delivering pictorial messages to encourage immunization [84]. The intervention resulted in a 39% increase (OR 1.39, 95% CI: 1.06–1.81) of DTP3/Hepatitis B completion, although 27% of sampled women declined to take part. A randomized controlled before-and-after study of the provision of education sessions by medical students to mothers in a squatter settlement found an increase in complete immunization in the intervention group [86]. However, health centre utilisation for vaccination in intervention and control groups was significantly different at baseline (30% vs 13% respectively), suggesting participants were poorly matched. Additionally, this study was excluded from a related Cochrane Review due to its poor study design [26], and thus provides only weak evidence for this intervention.

Incentives

Two studies considered the effect of incentives on increasing vaccination uptake. A study of the Bolsa Familia program of conditional cash transfers in slums in Salvador City, Brazil, found that recipient families had higher use of health clinics and increased odds of vaccination uptake (OR 2.8; 95% CI: 1.4–5.2) [93]. A study conducted in Pakistan involving nearly 4000 children investigated the effect of providing a coupon redeemable for food or medicine (worth US$2) to incentivize attendance amongst low-income mothers in Karachi at follow-up immunization appointments [82]. The results showed increase (OR 2.2, 95% CI: 1.95–2.48) in timely completion of the DTP immunization series

Discussion

A wide range of socio-economic and behavioural factors have been associated with immunization status in different slum and urban poor contexts. While some of this diversity may result from differences in study methods, much may also be from true differences in the factors in the underlying populations. One included study from Pakistan applied the same methods in multiple settings simultaneously and reached the conclusion that ‘one size does not fit all’, which is supported by the evidence in this review [60].

Further qualitative work is required to better understand the interlinking socioeconomic and demographic factors that influence immunisation coverage inequalities identified through analysis of surveys or population level data sources. The application of intersectionality theory, a method of systematically considering the multiple social labels individuals hold (e.g. ethnic group, gender, social class, migration status), may also provide additional useful detail in slum populations [97].

Improving immunization coverage

The evidence presented here demonstrates the relatively small number of interventional studies that have been conducted in slum populations. In addition, several of the studies have significant methodological flaws, requiring caution in the interpretation of the results. However, when comparing the evidence base identified here with the wider literature, it is notable that no interventions consider the importance of providing services to new migrants from rural areas in slum communities and that community involvement may be especially useful when designing interventions in slum areas.

A Cochrane review of interventions to improve coverage of childhood immunisation in low and middle income countries in all populations was published in 2014 also found a limited evidence base [26]. Of the studies described here, only one evaluating a maternal education programme was also included in the Cochrane review [84]. However, a comparison of the effectiveness for the type of interventions identified in this paper and in the Cochrane review are presented in Table 4.
Table 4

A comparison of results for evidence of effectiveness of interventions to increase vaccination coverage in LMICs from a Cochrane review, [26] and in slum populations identified in this paper

Intervention type

Strength of evidence of benefit

Cochrane Review (general populations)

Slum populations

Education

Moderate

Some evidence of potential benefit

Education and reminder cards

Low

Not tested

Household financial incentive

No effect

Some evidence of potential benefit

Outreach and financial incentives

Low

Not tested

Home visits

Low

Evidence of benefit, where distance is significant.

Integrating immunisation with other health services

Low

Not tested

Text messaging

Not tested

Some evidence of potential benefit

Community involvement

Not tested

Important factor in effective studies.

Multi-component interventions that tackle multiple factors that can contribute to low coverage have some evidence for effectiveness [77, 81, 85, 88, 92, 95]. An important component was community involvement, which enables the individual context of a slum to be considered, although this was not identified separately in the Cochrane review. This should include consideration of minority ethnic groups, who may suffer from lower coverage [59, 67]. This matches similar research conducted in deprived urban communities in high-income countries [98].

The outreach programs identified in the literature focused specifically on reducing physical distance between communities and health services have evidence of effectiveness [74, 78, 80, 90]. This finding matches that of a recent systematic review looking at improving immunization in LMIC urban areas generally, which concluded that outreach visits worked well in densely populated areas [99]. However, overall the authors identified fewer papers than are included in this study despite having a broader topic and longer time-frame. Outreach may be particularly relevant for slum communities, where there may be a lower density of health facilities, and should be a focus of further research.

No interventions were identified that reduced the social distance that some slum residents may experience when accessing health services. Specifically, no interventions were identified that provided services to migrants from rural areas, despite that migration was identified as having a universally negative effect on immunization coverage. Slums are often the first entry point of new migrants to an urban area [23], and the process of migration leads to an understandable disruption in parents’ ability to access health services, leading to lower coverage [53, 71].

Reminder/recall systems have good evidence for effectiveness in high-income countries and are considered as a core component of any immunization programme [100]. However, the provision of reminder/recall systems in LMICs is challenging, especially in slums, due to informal road systems, lack of addresses and limited access to electronic communications. However, of the three studies presented here, two show that SMS reminders can be effective in a slum context, [83, 89] and the other showed feasibility as part of a pilot RCT, although found no difference in coverage [94].

Of the two studies evaluating education programmes identified here, one showed some evidence of effectiveness [84], but the other was compromised by methodological limitations [86]. However, community-based education programmes have evidence for effectiveness in increasing immunization uptake in LMICs generally and warrant further investigation in slum contexts [26]. The use of incentives is not supported by evidence from a recent Cochrane review of interventions to improve immunization in LMICs generally, unless incentives are combined with outreach [26]. However, both studies identified here had positive effects that also warrant further investigation [82, 93].

Limitations

The quality of the included studies was only poor to medium, with no high quality randomised trials, making assessment for risk of bias challenging. We included studies conducted in slums alongside other urban poor communities, which may not be commensurate. Few studies reported negative results, suggesting publication bias overall. Several studies reported in Chinese were excluded. No evidence was identified for many countries with significant slum-dwelling populations, such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Sudan, Mozambique and Madagascar.

Conclusions

Different factors affect immunization coverage in different urban poor and slum contexts. Immunization services should be designed and provided to slum-dwelling communities in consultation with the people living there, considering the local context and avoiding constructing barriers to access, such as geographic and social distance, cost and timing. Interventions should be designed and tested to increase immunization in new migrants from rural areas.

Abbreviations

CAR: 

Central African Republic

DRC: 

Democratic Republic of Congo

DTP3: 

Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis vaccine, 3rd dose

LMIC: 

Low and Middle Income Countries

MCV: 

Measles Containing Vaccine

RCT: 

Randomized Controlled Trial

SE: 

Socio-economic

SMS: 

Short Message Service, text message

VPD: 

Vaccine Preventable Disease

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

TCB was funded to undertake this work through a grant from the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. The funding body had no role in the design of the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation of production of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

TCB conceived the study with RD, and SMJ advised on the methods. TCB undertook the searches and titles for screening. TCB and GM and RD agreed final inclusions and undertook data extraction. TCB, GM, RD and SMJ contributed to write-up and editing of the final paper. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

No ethical approval required, as this is a review of secondary data sources.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Health Protection Research Unit in Immunisation, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
(2)
Programme Division, Health Section, UNICEF Headquarters, 3 United Nations Plaza

References

  1. UN Habitat. World Cities Report 2016. Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. New York: Pub. United Nations; 2016.Google Scholar
  2. United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects: 2014 Revision. New York: Pub. United Nations; 2014.Google Scholar
  3. Ezeh A, Oyebode O, Satterthwaite D, Chen Y, Ndugwa R, Sartori J, et al. The health of people who live in slums 1 - the history, geography, and sociology of slums and the health problems of people who live in slums. Lancet. 2016;6736(16):1–12.Google Scholar
  4. Habitat III Conference. Quito Declaration on Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements for All. New York: Pub. United Nations; 2016.Google Scholar
  5. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World. 2016. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/. Accessed 6th Sept 2016.
  6. Hinman AR. Immunization equity. Vaccine. 2015;33:D72–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Sharma V, Singh A, Sharma V. Provider’s and user’s perspective about immunization coverage among migratory and non-migratory population in slums and construction sites of Chandigarh. J Urban Health. 2015;92(2):304–12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Fatiregun AA, Adebowale AS, Ayoka RO, Fagbamigbe AF. Assessing full immunisation coverage using lot quality assurance sampling in urban and rural districts of southwest Nigeria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2013;107(11):731–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kulkarni SV, Chavan MK. A study to assess the immunization coverage in an urban slum of Mumbai by lot quality technique. Int J Med Public Health. 2013;3:21–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Soura AB, Mberu B, Elungata P, Lankoande B, Millogo R, Beguy D, et al. Understanding inequities in child vaccination rates among the urban poor: Evidence from Nairobi and Ouagadougou health and demographic surveillance systems. J Urban Health. 2015;92(1):39–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Loening WE, Coovadia HM. Age-specific occurrence rates of measles in urban, peri-urban, and rural environments: Implications for time of vaccination. Lancet. 1983;2(8345):324–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Sharma MK, Bhatia V, Swami HM. Outbreak of measles amongst vaccinated children in a slum of Chandigarh. Indian J Med Sci. 2004;58(2):47–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Saha I, Haldar D, Paul B, Shrivastava P, Das DK, Pal M, et al. An epidemiological investigation of mumps outbreak in a slum of Kolkata. J Commun Dis. 2012;44(1):29–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lodha R, Dash NR, Kapil A, Kabra SK. Diphtheria in urban slums in north India. Lancet. 2000;355(9199):204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Rahman SR, Ahmed MF, Islam MA, Rahman MM. Effect of risk factors on the prevalence of influenza infections among children of slums of Dhaka city. Spring. 2016;5Google Scholar
  16. Breiman RF, Cosmas L, Njuguna H, Audi A, Olack B, Ochieng JB, et al. Population-based incidence of typhoid fever in an urban informal settlement and a rural area in Kenya: Implications for typhoid vaccine use in Africa. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29119.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Sur D, von Seidlein L, Manna B, Dutta S, Deb AK, Sarkar BL, et al. The malaria and typhoid fever burden in the slums of Kolkata, India: Data from a prospective community-based study. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2006;100(8):725–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Brooks WA, Hossain A, Goswami D, Nahar K, Alam K, Ahmed N, et al. Bacteremic typhoid fever in children in an urban slumBangladesh. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(2):326–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Bahl R, Sinha A, Poulos C, Whittington D, Sazawal S, Kumar R, et al. Costs of illness due to typhoid fever in an Indian urban slum community: Implications for vaccination policy. J Health Popul Nutr. 2004;22(3):304–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Howie SRC, Schellenberg J, Chimah O, Ideh RC, Ebruke BE, Oluwalana C, et al. Childhood pneumonia and crowding, bed-sharing and nutrition: A case-control study from the Gambia. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2016;20(10):1405–15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Aaby P. Is susceptibility to severe infection in low-income countries inherited or acquired? J Intern Med. 2007;261(2):112–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. UN Habitat. The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003. New York: Pub. United Nations; 2003.Google Scholar
  23. Roy D, Lees MH, Palavalli B, Pfeffer K, Sloot MAP. The emergence of slums: A contemporary view on simulation models. Environ Model Softw. 2014;59(2014):76–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;21(339):b2535.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. World Bank. Low & middle income | Data. 2016. http://data.worldbank.org/income-level/low-and-middle-income?view=chart. Accessed 27th July 2016.
  26. Oyo-Ita A, Wiysonge CS, Oringanje C, Nwachukwu CE, Oduwole O, Meremikwu MM, et al. Interventions for improving coverage of childhood immunisation in low- and middle-income countries (Review). Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2016;(7):CD008145.Google Scholar
  27. Sridhar S, Maleq N, Guillermet E, Colombini A, Gessner BD. A systematic literature review of missed opportunities for immunization in low- and middle-income countries. Vaccine. 2014;32(51):6870–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fotso J-C, Ezeh AC, Madise NJ, Ciera J. Progress towards the child mortality millennium development goal in urban sub-Saharan Africa: The dynamics of population growth, immunization, and access to clean water. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:218.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Agarwal S, Bhanot A, Goindi G. Understanding and addressing childhood immunization coverage in urban slums. Indian Pediatr. 2005;42(7):653–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mathew JL. Inequity in childhood immunization in India: A systematic review. Indian Pediatr. 2012;49(3):203–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Peng G, Liang S, Carlton EJ, QingWu J, Wu JY, Lei W, et al. Urbanisation and health in China. Lancet. 2012;379(9818):843–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Awoh AB, Plugge E. Immunisation coverage in rural-urban migrant children in low and middle-income countries (LMICs): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiology & Community Health. 2016;70:305–11.Google Scholar
  33. Levin A, Kaddar M. Role of the private sector in the provision of immunization services in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy Plan. 2011;26(suppl 1):i4–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiysonge CS, Uthman OA, Ndumbe PM, Hussey GD. Individual and contextual factors associated with low childhood immunisation coverage in sub-Saharan Africa: A multilevel analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37905.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Rainey JJ, Watkins M, Ryman TK, Sandhu P, Bo A, Banerjee K, et al. Reasons related to non-vaccination and under-vaccination of children in low and middle income countries: Findings from a systematic review of the published literature, 1999-2009. Vaccine. 2011;29(46):8215–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lassi ZS, Bhutta ZA. Community-based intervention packages for reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality and improving neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;3:CD007754.Google Scholar
  37. Maketa V, Vuna M, Baloji S, Lubanza S, Hendrickx D, Inocencio da Luz RA, et al. Perceptions of health, health care and community-oriented health interventions in poor urban communities of Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e84314.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Agarwal S. The state of urban health in India; comparing the poorest quartile to the rest of the urban population in selected states and cities. Environ Urban. 2011;23(1):13–28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Kadarkar KS, Velhal GD. Lots quality coverage survey technique for assessment of determinants of immunization coverage in urban slum of Mumbai. Natl J Community Med. 2016;7:165–70.Google Scholar
  40. Awasthi A, Pandey C, Singh U, Kumar S, Singh T. Maternal determinants of immunization status of children aged 12-23 months in urban slums of Varanasi, India. Clin Epidemiol Glob Heal. 2015;3(3):110–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Khan Q, Sinha T, Shrivastatva P, Brahmapurkar K, Brahmapurkar V. Assessment of immunization status among children aged 12-23 months, at an urban slum area of Jagdalpur city, Bastar. Healthline. 2015;6:55–60.Google Scholar
  42. Kulkarni P, Hamid HSS, Shah M. Immunisation coverage status and reasons for underimmunisation in urban slums of Hyderabad city, Telangana state Indian. J Basic Appl Med Res. 2014;3:152–7.Google Scholar
  43. Patel P, Desai K, Modi B, Bansal RK. Urban slums are new and important areas for inequalities in maternal and newborn health in many areas. Turk Silahl Kuvvetleri, Koruyucu Hekimlik Bulteni. 2014;13:217–24.Google Scholar
  44. Agarwal N, Sharma RP, Chandra S, Varma P, Midha T, Nigam S. Immunization status and childhood morbidities as determinants of PEM among under-five children in slums of Kanpur, Indian. J Community Health. 2014;26:396–400.Google Scholar
  45. Trivedi R, Singh S, Adhikari P, Jatav DP. Coverage evaluation of primary immunization and the associated determinants in an urban slum of Rewa, Indian. J Community Health. 2014;26:37–40.Google Scholar
  46. Arokiasamy P, Jain K, Goli S, Pradhan J. Health inequalities among urban children in India: A comparative assessment of empowered action group (EAG) and south Indian states. J Biosoc Sci. 2012;45(2):167–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Angadi MM, Jose AP, Udgiri R, Masali KA, Sorganvi V. A study of knowledge, attitude and practices on immunization of children in urban slums of Bijapur city, Karnataka, India. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(12):2803–6.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Prakash R, Kumar A. Urban poverty and utilization of maternal and child health care services in India. J Biosoc Sci. 2013;45(4):433–49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wadgave HV, Pore PD. Missed opportunities of immunization in under-fives in adopted area of urban health Centre. Ann Trop Med Public Health. 2012;5:436–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Sachdeva S, Datta U. Hepatitis B immunization coverage evaluation amongst slum children, Indian. J Public Health Res Dev. 2012;3:191–4.Google Scholar
  51. Ghei K, Agarwal S, Subramanyam MA, Subramanian SV. Association between child immunization and availability of health infrastructure in slums in India. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(3):243–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Jain T, Jai Veer S, Manjul B, Sunil Kumar G, Harivansh G, Shailendra Kumar B, et al. A cross sectional study on the coverage of immunization in the slums of western Uttar Pradesh, India. J Clin Diagn Res. 2010;4:3480–3.Google Scholar
  53. Kusuma YS, Kumari R, Pandav CS, Gupta SK. Migration and immunization: Determinants of childhood immunization uptake among socioeconomically disadvantaged migrants in Delhi, India. Trop Med Int Health. 2010;15(11):1326–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Nath B, Singh JV, Awasthi S, Bhushan V, Kumar V, Singh SK, et al. A study on determinants of immunization coverage among 12-23 months old children in urban slums of Lucknow district, India. Indian J Med Sci. 2007;61(11):598–606.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Mathew JL, Babbar H, Yadav S. Reasons for non-immunization of children in an urban, low income group in North India. Trop Dr. 2002;32(3):135–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Kar M, Reddaiah VP, Kant S. Primary immunization status of children in slum areas of South Delhi - the Challange of Reaching the urban poor. Indian J Community Med. 2001;26(3):151.Google Scholar
  57. Desai V, Kapadia S, Kumar P, Nirupam S. Study of measles incidence and vaccination coverage in slums of surat city. Indian J Community Med. 2003;28(1):10–4.Google Scholar
  58. Nath B, Singh JV, Awasthi S, Bhushan V, Singh SK, Kumar V. Client satisfaction with immunization services in urban slums of Lucknow district. Indian J Pediatr. 2009;76(5):479–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Siddiqui NT, Owais A, Agha A, Karim MS, Zaidi AKM. Ethnic disparities in routine immunization coverage: A reason for persistent poliovirus circulation in Karachi, Pakistan? Asia Pac J Public Health. 2014;26(1):67–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Cockcroft A, Andersson N, Omer K, Ansari NM, Khan A, Chaudhry UU, et al. One size does not fit all: Local determinants of measles vaccination in four districts of Pakistan. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2009;9(suppl 1):S4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Adil M, Zubair M, Alam A, Khan S, Ishtiaque Z, Quereshi A. Knowledge of mothers about children’s immunization status in the urban areas of Islamabad. Rawal Medical J. 2009;34:33–5.Google Scholar
  62. Joulaei H, Bhuiyan AR, Sayadi M, Morady F, Afsar Kazerooni P, et al. Slums’ access to and coverage of primary health care services: A cross-sectional study in shiraz, a metropolis in southern iran. Iran J Med Sci. 2014;39(2 suppl):184–90.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Sun M, Ma R, Zeng Y, Luo F, Zhang J, Hou W. Immunization status and risk factors of migrant children in densely populated areas of Beijing, China. Vaccine. 2010;28:1264–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Egondi T, Oyolola M, Mutua MK, Elung’ata P. Determinants of immunization inequality among urban poor children: Evidence from Nairobi’s informal settlements. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14(1):24.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Maina LC, Karanja S, Kombich J. Immunization coverage and its determinants among children aged 12-23 months in a peri-urban area of Kenya. Pan Afr Med J. 2013;14:3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Mutua MK, Kimani-Murage E, Ettarh RR. Childhood vaccination in informal urban settlements in Nairobi, Kenya: Who gets vaccinated? BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Ettarh RR, Mutua MK, Kyobutungi C. Ethnicity and delay in measles vaccination in a Nairobi slum. Trop Med Health. 2012;40(2):59–62.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Borus PK. Missed opportunities and inappropriately given vaccines reduce immunisation coverage in facilities that serve slum areas of Nairobi. East Afr Med J. 2004;81(3):124–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Sadoh AE, Sadoh WE, Uduebor J, Ekpebe P, Iguodala O. Factors contributing to delay in commencement of immunisation in Nigerian infants. Tanzan J Health Res. 2013;15(3):186–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Onwujekwe O, Hanson K, Uzochukwu B. Are the poor differentially benefiting from provision of priority public health services? A benefit incidence analysis in Nigeria. Int J Equity Health. 2012;11(1):70.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Antai D. Migration and child immunization in Nigeria: Individual- and community-level contexts. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:116.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Mohamud AN, Feleke A, Worku W, Kifle M, Sharma HR. Immunization coverage of 12-23 months old children and associated factors in Jigjiga District, Somali National Regional State, Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:865.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Bobossi-Serengbe G, Fioboy R, Ndoyo J. Missed opportunities for immunization in children of 0 to 11 months in Bangui. J Pediatr Pueric. 2014;27:289–93.Google Scholar
  74. Igarashi K, Sasaki S, Fujino Y, Tanabe N, Muleya CM, Tambatamba B, et al. The impact of an immunization programme administered through the growth monitoring programme Plus as an alternative way of implementing integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses in urban-slum areas of Lusaka, Zambia. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2010;104(9):577–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Konstantyner T, de AC TJA, Rodrigues LC. Risk factors for incomplete vaccination in children less than 18 months of age attending the nurseries of day-care centres in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Vaccine. 2011;29(50):9298–302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Barata RBR, MCSdeA R, de Moraes JC, Flannery B, Group VCS 2007. Socioeconomic inequalities and vaccination coverage: Results of an immunisation coverage survey in 27 Brazilian capitals, 2007-2008. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(10):934–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Agarwal S, Satyavada A, Patra P, Kumar R. Strengthening functional community-provider linkages: Lessons from the Indore urban health programme. Glob Public Health. 2008;3(3):308–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Ansari M, Khan Z. Routine immunization coverage in underserved children of Aligarh (India): An effort with UNICEF. J Child Health Care. 2010;14(2):142–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Botham SJ, Poulos RG, McFarland KJ, Ferson MJ. Getting it right--the Australian childhood immunisation register and immunisation rates in south-eastern Sydney. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2004;28(1):68–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Prabhakaran A, Krishnan A, Nongkynrih B, Goswami A, Pandav CS. Cost of ambulatory care by mobile health clinic run by a medical College in India for the year 2008-09. Indian J Public Health. 2014;58(2):100–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Pradhan N, Ryman TK, Varkey S, Ranjan A, Gupta SK, Krishna G, et al. Expanding and improving urban outreach immunization in Patna, India. Trop Med Int Health. 2012;17(3):292–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Chandir S, Khan AJ, Hussain H, Usman HR, Khowaja S, Halsey NA, et al. Effect of food coupon incentives on timely completion of DTP immunization series in children from a low-income area in Karachi, Pakistan: A longitudinal intervention study. Vaccine. 2010;28(19):3473–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Kazi AM, Murtaza A, Khoja S, Zaidi AK, Ali SA. Monitoring polio supplementary immunization activities using an automated short text messaging system in Karachi, Pakistan. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(3):220–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Owais A, Hanif B, Siddiqui AR, Agha A, Zaidi AKM. Does improving maternal knowledge of vaccines impact infant immunization rates? A community-based randomized-controlled trial in Karachi, Pakistan. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:239.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  85. Khan MI, Ochiai RL, Hamza H Bin, Sahito SM, Habib MA, Soofi SB, et al. Lessons and implications from a mass immunization campaign in squatter settlements of Karachi, Pakistan: An experience from a cluster-randomized double-blinded vaccine trial [NCT00125047]. Trials. 2006;7(17):1–10.Google Scholar
  86. Anjum Q, Omair A, Inam SNB, Ahmed Y, Usman Y, Shaikh S, et al. Improving vaccination status of children under five through health education. J Pak Med Assoc. 2004;54(12):610–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Hayford K, Uddin MJ, Koehlmoos TP, Bishai DM. Cost and sustainability of a successful package of interventions to improve vaccination coverage for children in urban slums of Bangladesh. Vaccine. 2014;32(20):2294–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Uddin MJ, Larson CP, Oliveras E, Khan AI, Quaiyum MA, Saha NC, et al. Child immunization coverage in urban slums of Bangladesh: Impact of an intervention package. Health Policy Plan. 2010;25(1):50–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Uddin MJ, Shamsuzzaman M, Horng L, Labrique A, Vasudevan L, Zeller K, et al. Use of mobile phones for improving vaccination coverage among children living in rural hard-to-reach areas and urban streets of Bangladesh. Vaccine. 2016;34:276–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Sasaki S, Igarashi K, Fujino Y, Comber AJ, Brunsdon C, Muleya CM, et al. The impact of community-based outreach immunisation services on immunisation coverage with GIS network accessibility analysis in peri-urban areas, Zambia. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65(12):1171–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Mukanga DO, Kiguli S. Factors affecting the retention and use of child health cards in a slum community in Kampala, Uganda, 2005. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10(6):545–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Mbabazi WB, Tabu CW, Chemirmir C, Kisia J, Ali N, Corkum MG, et al. Innovations in communication technologies for measles supplemental immunization activities: Lessons from Kenya measles vaccination campaign, November 2012. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(5):638–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Shei A, Costa F, Reis MG, Ko AI. The impact of Brazil’s Bolsa Familia conditional cash transfer program on children’s health care utilization and health outcomes. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2014;14(1):10.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Domek GJ, Contreras-Roldan IL, O’Leary ST, Bull S, Furniss A, Kempe A, et al. SMS text message reminders to improve infant vaccination coverage in Guatemala: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Vaccine. 2016;34:2437–43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  95. Lhamsuren K, Choijiljav T, Budbazar E, Vanchinkhuu S, Blanc DC, Grundy J, et al. Taking action on the social determinants of health: Improving health access for the urban poor in Mongolia. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2012;11:1–10.Google Scholar
  96. Poulos C, Bahl R, Whittington D, Bhan MK, Clemens JD, Acosta CJ. A cost-benefit analysis of typhoid fever immunization programmes in an Indian urban slum community. J Health Popul Nutr. 2004;22(3):311–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Joe W. Intersectional inequalities in immunization in India, 1992-93 to 2005-06: A progress assessment. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(4):407–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Crocker-Buque T, Edelstein M, Mounier-Jack S. Interventions to reduce inequalities in vaccine uptake in children and adolescents aged <19 years: A systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71(1):87–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Nelson KN, Wallace AS, Sodha SV, Daniels D, Dietz V. Assessing strategies for increasing urban routine immunization coverage of childhood vaccines in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature. Vaccine. 2016;34(46):5495–503.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Harvey H, Reissland N, Mason J. Parental reminder, recall and educational interventions to improve early childhood immunisation uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine. 2015;33(25):2862–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Damor RD, Pithadia PR, Lodhiya KK, Mehta JP, Yadav SB. A study on assessment of nutritional and immunization status of under-five children in urban slums of Jamnagar city, Gujarat. Healthline. 2013;4:35–9.Google Scholar
  102. Gupta SK, Nandeshwar S. Status of maternal and child health and services utilization patterns in the urban slums of Bhopal, India. Natl J Community Med. 2012;3:330–2.Google Scholar
  103. Sharma R, Desai VK, Kavishvar A. Assessment of immunization status in the slums of Surat by 15 clusters multi indicators cluster survey technique. Indian J Community Med. 2009;34(2):152–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  104. WHO UNICEF. Microplanning for immunization service delivery using the Reaching Every District (RED) strategy. New York: Pub. WHO; 2009.Google Scholar
  105. WHO. Global Health Observatory Data: Urban health. 2016. http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/en/. Accessed 6 Sept 2016.

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017