Impact Evaluation of a Community Engagement Intervention for Improving Childhood Immunization Coverage in Rural Assam, India: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Main Article Content

Arpita Ghosh Santanu Pramanik Anirban Goswami Samina Parveen Jahnabi Hazarika Tiken Das Laurent Billot Sandra Albert

Abstract

Background: For childhood immunization, community engagement interventions can potentially address demand-side barriers to achieving immunization coverage targets, while also mobilizing the community to advocate for better service delivery. However, high-quality evidence that can causally relate such interventions to increased immunization coverage is scarce. We evaluated the impact of a community engagement intervention on childhood immunization coverage in rural India. Methods and findings: The community engagement intervention, referred to by the acronym SALT (Stimulate, Appreciate, Learn, Transfer), is a complex intervention involving an iterative process of multiple steps and continued engagement with the community. To evaluate the SALT intervention, we conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in 196 villages spread across 3 districts in rural Assam, a state in the northeast region of India. The villages in the intervention group (n=97) received the SALT intervention for about one year along with routine immunization services and the villages in the control group (n=99) received only routine immunization services. The primary evaluation outcomes were full immunization, defined as one dose of Bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine, three doses of oral polio vaccine, three doses of diphtheria- pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccine or Pentavalent vaccine and one dose of measles vaccine, in children 12- 23 months old, and three doses of DPT or Pentavalent vaccine in 6- 23 months old children. To gather information on evaluation outcomes, we conducted cross- sectional household surveys at baseline and after 22 months at endline, in the 196 villages. We interviewed mothers with a 6-23 months old child in a random sample of households in eachvillage. In our analyses, we followed the intention-to-treat principle and used mixed-effects models to account for clustering. At endline, a total of 2,907 mothers were interviewed resulting in a median number of 15 (interquartile range (IQR)= 0) 6-23 months old children and 10 (IQR=2) 12-23 months old children from each village in both the intervention and the control groups. There was no difference between the two groups in the proportion of 12-23 months old children receiving full immunization (OR=0.98, 95% CI: 0.71 – 1.36) or in the proportion of children receiving three or more doses of DPT or Pentavalent among 6-23 months old children (OR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.76 – 1.35). Conclusions: The intervention was not found to be effective in increasing childhood immunization coverage in our study. After baseline survey, we noted that the vaccination coverage in the three districts was substantially higher than previously reported in national surveys which were used in designing the trial. The higher coverage rates were most likely due to widespread implementation of a supplementary immunization programme led by the Government of India prior to this study. We do not know whether selecting study sites with a lower vaccination coverage rate at baseline or having a more targeted approach in implementing the intervention would have resulted in a positive impact.

Article Details

How to Cite
GHOSH, Arpita et al. Impact Evaluation of a Community Engagement Intervention for Improving Childhood Immunization Coverage in Rural Assam, India: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 9, sep. 2025. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/6895>. Date accessed: 05 dec. 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i9.6895.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. WHO. Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020. 2013. 9241504986.
2. IIPS. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) India 2015-16. India Fact Sheets. 2017.
3. Vashishtha VM. Status of immunization and need for intensification of routine immunization in India. Indian pediatrics. 2012;49(5):357-361.
4. UNICEF India. Coverage Evaluation Survey (CES), 2009: All India report. 2010:Accessed on Oct 10, 2013 at http://www.unicef.org/india/1_-_CES_2009_All_India_Report.pdf.
5. Pramanik S, Muthusamy N, Gera R, Laxminarayan R. Vaccination coverage in India: A small area estimation approach. Vaccine. 2015;33(14):1731-1738.
6. Favin M, Steinglass R, Fields R, Banerjee K, Sawhney M. Why children are not vaccinated: a review of the grey literature. International health. 2012;4(4):229-238.
7. Rainey JJ, Watkins M, Ryman TK, Sandhu P, Bo A, Banerjee K. 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):8215-8221.
8. Ghosh A, Laxminarayan R. Demand-and supply-side determinants of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus nonvaccination and dropout in rural India. Vaccine. 2017;
9. MoHFW. Four years of NRHM (2005-2009)- Making a Difference Everywhere. 2009.
10. MoHFW. Mission Indradhanush Operational_Guidelines. 2015.
11. Oyo‐Ita A, Nwachukwu CE, Oringanje C, Meremikwu MM. Cochrane Review: Interventions for improving coverage of child immunization in low‐and middle‐income countries. Evidence‐Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal. 2012;7(3):959-1012.
12. Johri M, Pérez MC, Arsenault C, et al. Strategies to increase the demand for childhood vaccination in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2015;93(5):339-346.
13. Hahn S, Puffer S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J. Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2005;5(1):10.
14. Jain M, Taneja G, Amin R, Steinglass R, Favin M. Engaging communities with a simple tool to help increase immunization coverage. Global Health: Science and Practice. 2015;3(1):117-125.
15. Sabarwal S, Bhatia R, Dhody B, Perumal S, White H, Puri J. Breaking through stagnation: testing innovative approaches to engaging communities in increasing immunisation coverage A scoping study. 2015;
16. Saeterdal I, Lewin S, Austvoll‐Dahlgren A, Glenton C, Munabi‐Babigumira S. Interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate about early childhood vaccination. The Cochrane Library. 2014;
17. Oyo‐Ita A, Wiysonge CS, Oringanje C, Nwachukwu CE, Oduwole O, Meremikwu MM. Interventions for improving coverage of childhood immunisation in low‐and middle‐income countries. The Cochrane Library. 2016;
18. Owais A, Hanif B, Siddiqui AR, Agha A, Zaidi AK. Does improving maternal knowledge of vaccines impact infant immunization rates? A community-based randomized-controlled trial in Karachi, Pakistan. BMC public health. 2011;11(1):239.
19. WHO, UNICEF. Report on the Review of ACP and COMATAA re HIV/AIDS in Papua New Guinea. Available at http://www.communitylifecompetence.org/uploads/File/evaluations/Evaluation%20PNG.pdf. 2009.
20. Teerawattananon Y, Yamabhai I, Leelahavarong P. Using capability index to determine a value for money of the AIDS Competence Process in Thailand. Research Report, Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Thailand. 2011. http://aidscompetence. ning. com/forum/attachment/download; 2011:
21. Legastelois J, Forth P. The ‘Competence approach’ in the battle against malaria in Togo and The Gambia. 2009.
22. Bricq E, Vololomanitra B, Jean-Baby F, Raymond H, Paul K, Jean-Louis L. Community-based intervention increases vaccine rates: A study of polio vaccination in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Unpublished Manuscript. 2015;
23. Pandey P, Sehgal AR, Riboud M, Levine D, Goyal M. Informing resource-poor populations and the delivery of entitled health and social services in rural India: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2007;298(16):1867-1875.
24. Andersson N, Cockcroft A, Ansari NM, et al. Evidence-based discussion increases childhood vaccination uptake: a randomised cluster controlled trial of knowledge translation in Pakistan. BMC International Health Human Rights. 2009;9(S1):S8.
25. Habib MA, Soofi S, Cousens S, et al. Community engagement and integrated health and polio immunisation campaigns in conflict-affected areas of Pakistan: a cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Global Health. 2017;5(6):e593-e603.
26. Pramanik S, Ghosh A, Nanda RB, de Rouw M, Forth P, Albert S. Impact evaluation of a community engagement intervention in improving childhood immunization coverage: a cluster randomized controlled trial in Assam, India. BMC public health. 2018;18(1):534.
27. McRae AD, Weijer C, Binik A, et al. When is informed consent required in cluster randomized trials in health research? Trials. 2011;12(1):202.
28. Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14(1):15.
29. Ukoumunne OC, Thompson SGJSim. Analysis of cluster randomized trials with repeated cross‐sectional binary measurements. 2001;20(3):417-433.
30. Austin PCJTijob. A comparison of the statistical power of different methods for the analysis of repeated cross-sectional cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes. 2010;6(1)
31. O’Mara-Eves A, Brunton G, Oliver S, Kavanagh J, Jamal F, Thomas J. The effectiveness of community engagement in public health interventions for disadvantaged groups: a meta-analysis. BMC public health. 2015;15(1):129.
32. Schoeppe J, Cheadle A, Melton M, et al. The Immunity Community: a community engagement strategy for reducing vaccine hesitancy. Health promotion practice. 2017;18(5):654-661.
33. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias). Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(4):407-415.
34. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. International journal of surgery. 2012;10(1):28-55.
35. Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2019:205-228.
36. di Ruffano LF, Dinnes J, Sitch AJ, Hyde C, Deeks JJ. Test-treatment RCTs are susceptible to bias: a review of the methodological quality of randomized trials that evaluate diagnostic tests. BMC medical research methodology. 2017;17(1):35.
37. Victorian Auditor-General. Public Participation in Government Decision-Making. 2017.
38. Pramanik S, Agrahari, K, Srivastava, A., Varanasi, V., Setia, M., Laxminarayan, R. Integrated Child Health and Immunization Survey- Rounds 1 & 2. 2016. 1530-1567.