Article

Achieving polio eradication: A review of health communication evidence and lessons learned in India and Pakistan

School of Media Arts and Studies, Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States of America.
Bulletin of the World Health Organisation (Impact Factor: 5.11). 09/2009; 87(8):624-30. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.08.060863
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Since 1988, the world has come very close to eradicating polio through the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, in which communication interventions have played a consistently central role. Mass media and information dissemination approaches used in immunization efforts worldwide have contributed to this success. However, reaching the hardest-to-reach, the poorest, the most marginalized and those without access to health services has been challenging. In the last push to eradicate polio, Polio Eradication Initiative communication strategies have become increasingly research-driven and innovative, particularly through the introduction of sustained interpersonal communication and social mobilization approaches to reach unreached populations. This review examines polio communication efforts in India and Pakistan between the years 2000 and 2007. It shows how epidemiological, social and behavioural data guide communication strategies that have contributed to increased levels of polio immunity, particularly among underserved and hard-to-reach populations. It illustrates how evidence-based and planned communication strategies - such as sustained media campaigns, intensive community and social mobilization, interpersonal communication and political and national advocacy combined - have contributed to reducing polio incidence in these countries. Findings show that communication strategies have contributed on several levels by: mobilizing social networks and leaders; creating political will; increasing knowledge; ensuring individual and community-level demand; overcoming gender barriers and resistance to vaccination; and reaching out to the poorest and marginalized populations. The review concludes with observations about the added value of communication strategies in polio eradication efforts and implications for global and local public health communication interventions.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Ketan Chitnis, Dec 15, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
107 Views
  • Source
    • "The importance of listening to and engaging publics in the design and implementation of immunization policies and programmes has been well established (Waisbord 2004; Cooper et al. 2008; Obregon 2009; Larson et al. 2010; Larson et al. 2011). There are a number of examples of the costs (financial and social) of not involving publics early, the most acute being the boycott of polio vaccination in five states in Northern Nigeria in 2003 (Yahya 2007). "
    Health Policy and Planning 05/2012; 27 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii77-9. DOI:10.1093/heapol/czs038 · 3.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Decade of Vaccines Collaboration (DoVC) Research and Development (R&D) Working Group identified implementation research as an important step toward achieving high vaccine coverage and the uptake of desirable new vaccines. The R&D Working Group noted that implementation research is highly complex and requires participation of stakeholders from diverse backgrounds to ensure effective planning, execution, interpretation, and adoption of research outcomes. Unlike other scientific disciplines, implementation research is highly contextual and depends on social, cultural, geographic, and economic factors to make the findings useful for local, national, and regional applications. This paper presents the broad framework for implementation research in support of immunization and sets out a series of research questions developed through a Delphi process (during a DoVC-supported workshop in Sitges, Spain) and a literature review.
    Vaccine 04/2013; 31:B129–B136. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.01.058 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 09/2009; 87(9):648. DOI:10.2471/BLT.09.070680 · 5.11 Impact Factor
Show more