Facilitators and barriers for use of rotavirus vaccine amongst various stakeholders and its implications for Indian context – A systematic review

Apte, Aditi; Roy, Sudipto; Bavdekar, Ashish; Juvekar, Sanjay; Hirve, Siddhivinayak

doi:10.1080/21645515.2018.1489190

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We thematically analyzed and categorized text fragments from the 37 reviews that discussed methodological and conceptual aspects of their barriers and facilitators approach. This subsample was generally of higher methodological quality compared to the full sample of reviews and only included one review with a low transparency rating 31 . The full transparency ratings of the subsample can be found in Data S6.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This subsample was generally of higher methodological quality compared to the full sample of reviews and only included one review with a low transparency rating. 31 The full transparency ratings of the subsample can be found in Data S6. Two overall categories of themes emerged in the analysis: (a) Methodological and practical issues in conducting barriers and facilitators reviews, and (b) definitional and conceptual issues related to barriers and facilitators.…”

Section: Reviewer Reflections On Analyzing Barriers and Facilitatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A common methodological challenge raised in barriers and facilitators reviews is the struggle to determine the relative importance of the identified factors. Many of the included reviews reported the inability to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis as a limitation to the synthesis (eg, References 28,31,48,[65][66][67][68], despite the fact that they posed questions that were qualitative in nature. Notably, most included studies by the reviews were qualitative and a third of the SRs (31%) only included qualitative studies; however, many review papers adopted a quantitatively oriented language and either explicitly stated or implied that the most frequently reported factors were, in fact, the most important.…”

Section: Synthesizing "Barriers" and "Facilitators"mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Barriers and facilitators systematic reviews in health: A methodological review and recommendations for reviewers

Bach-Mortensen

Verboom

2020

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Systematic reviews cataloguing the barriers to and facilitators of various outcomes are increasingly popular, despite criticisms of this type of review on philosophical, methodological, and practical grounds. The aims of this review are to appraise, analyze, and discuss the reporting and synthesis practices used in recently published barriers and facilitators reviews in health services research. Methods: All English-language peer-reviewed systematic reviews that synthesized research on barriers and facilitators in a health services context were eligible for inclusion. We searched 11 databases over a 13-month period (1 November 2017-30 November 2018) using an exhaustive list of search terms for "barrier(s)," "facilitator(s)," and "systematic review." Results: One hundred reviews were included. We found a high degree of variation in the synthesis practices used in these reviews, with the majority employing aggregative (rather than interpretive) approaches. The findings echo common critiques of this review type, including concerns about the reduction of complex phenomena to simplified, discrete factors. Although several reviews highlighted the "complexity" of barriers and facilitators, this was usually not analyzed systematically. Analysis of the subsample of reviews that explicitly discussed the barriers and facilitators approach revealed some common issues. These tended to be either conceptual/definitional (eg, ideas about interrelationships and overlap between factors) and methodological/practical (eg, challenges related to aggregating heterogeneous research). Conclusion: Barriers and facilitators reviews should (a) clearly operationally define "barrier" and "facilitator," (b) explicitly describe how factors are extracted and subsequently synthesized, and (c) provide critical reflection on the contextual variability and reliability of identified factors.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviewer Reflections On Analyzing Barriers and Facilitatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Synthesizing "Barriers" and "Facilitators"mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Barriers and facilitators systematic reviews in health: A methodological review and recommendations for reviewers

Bach-Mortensen

Verboom

2020

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…VaduHDSS has contributed to national programs on immunization, tubectomy, vasectomy, tuberculosis control, childhood disability identification program and development of community health volunteer schemes. Examples of some study findings which have made their way to implementation by the public health system include Sprinkles micronutrient powder [13,14] and iron fortified wheat flour [15] as well as vaccine studies on Rota virus vaccine [16-21]. Studies conducted in VaduHDSS, in addition to providing evidence to government, have created significant scientific literature as outcome of its studies [22].…”

Section: How Has Vaduhdss Data Been Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Profile: Vadu Health and Demographic Surveillance System Pune, India

Patil¹,

Roy²,

Ingole³

et al. 2019

Journal of Global Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Many of the included reviews reported the inability to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis as a limitation to the synthesis (e.g. [34,51,61,[70][71][72][73]), despite the fact that they posed questions that were qualitative in nature. Notably, most included research by the reviews was qualitative and a third of the SRs (31%) only sought qualitative studies; however, many review papers adopted a quantitatively oriented language suggesting that the most frequently reported factors were, in fact, the most important.…”

Section: Synthesising 'Barriers' and 'Facilitators'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting and synthesis practices in barriers and facilitators reviews: a methodological systematic review

Bach-Mortensen

Verboom

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews published in high-ranking journals set out to identify and synthesise research on ‘barriers’ to and ‘facilitators’ of the achievement of various outcomes. Yet, this type of review has been criticised for relying on aggregative synthesis approaches (such as ‘vote counting’), and for generating overly simplistic representations of complex social phenomena. While proponents have argued that barriers and facilitators reviews have both explanatory value and the potential to support policy and practice, critics have recommended retiring this genre of review altogether. No review has systematically examined the synthesis practices used in barriers and facilitators reviews, and consequently the factual basis of arguments both for and against these reviews is unclear. We therefore sought to describe and appraise the reporting and synthesis practices used in recently published health-related barriers and facilitators reviews. Methods: We conducted a methodological systematic review of reviews in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A protocol for this review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD4201811236). Results: One hundred reviews published over a thirteen-month period were identified. The findings indicate that (1) barriers and facilitators reviews are frequently published, (2) there is a high degree of variation in the synthesis and categorisation practices applied in these reviews, and (3) most reviews neither critically engage with, nor provide a rationale for using, the concepts of barrier and facilitator. While in most cases the barriers and facilitators approach was used without justification or critical discussion by review authors, we identified several common issues across the minority of reviews that included explicit discussion of the approach. These issues tended to be either conceptual/definitional (e.g. ideas about the interrelationships and overlap between factors) or methodological/practical (e.g. challenges related to the aggregation of heterogeneous research). Conclusion: This review provides a systematic snapshot of the synthesis and reporting practices used in barriers and facilitators reviews. Going forward, we suggest that such reviews would benefit from (1) clearly defining their constructs of analysis, (2) explicitly describing how factors are extracted and subsequently synthesised, and (3) providing critical reflection on the contextual variability and reliability of identified factors.

show abstract

Facilitators and barriers for use of rotavirus vaccine amongst various stakeholders and its implications for Indian context – A systematic review

Abstract: Improved awareness regarding the rotavirus vaccination amongst public and scientific community and strengthening of public health system for better and timely immunisation coverage are important factors to maximize uptake of rotavirus vaccine in India.

Cited by 13 publications

References 39 publications

Barriers and facilitators systematic reviews in health: A methodological review and recommendations for reviewers

Barriers and facilitators systematic reviews in health: A methodological review and recommendations for reviewers

Profile: Vadu Health and Demographic Surveillance System Pune, India

Reporting and synthesis practices in barriers and facilitators reviews: a methodological systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About