Community engagement for vaccine delivery in low- and middle-income countries and humanitarian settings

A scoping umbrella review

Bibliographic Data

ID19593015
AuthorsJonathan A Polonsky (0000-0002-8634-4255, University of Geneva), Rose Burns (0000-0002-4135-2403, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine), Alex Odlum (0000-0002-9281-9835, University of Geneva), Yashua Alkali Hamza (0000-0001-6637-1910), Yashua Hamza, Yohannes Mulugeta Demmu (0000-0002-3185-8240, Haramaya University), Yohannes Mulugeta (0000-0002-2199-7626), Sharon Abramowitz (0000-0003-3671-8842, Georgetown University), L Enria (0000-0002-6336-6531, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine), Karl Blanchet (0000-0003-0498-8020, University of Geneva)
EditorsSyed Shahid Abbas
Year2026
Volume6
Issue4
Pagese0006307
Publication date2026-04-24
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePLOS Global Public Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2767-3375 • E-ISSN: 2767-3375
PublisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1371/journal.pgph.0006307
PMID42030229
OpenAlexW4408838770
LanguageEN
References cited47

Vaccination is a critical public health intervention in humanitarian and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, where populations face heightened risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Community Engagement (CE) offers a pathway to address challenges related to local ownership, trust, and acceptance, yet its effectiveness in these contexts remain underexplored. We conducted an umbrella scoping review of published reviews to synthesise evidence on the role of CE in vaccination delivery in humanitarian and LMIC contexts. Reviews were identified through searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar, screened in Covidence, and appraised using the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) criteria. Data were mapped against the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) CE Impact Framework. Of 303 deduplicated studies, 39 met inclusion criteria. Most focused on routine childhood vaccines. CE activities were widespread, typically involving community participation, two-way communication, capacity strengthening, and feedback mechanisms. CE interventions were consistently associated with improved vaccine uptake, reduced hesitancy, and enhanced trust. Effective strategies included co-management of campaigns, engagement of religious and community leaders, culturally tailored communication, and school- or home-based delivery supported by trusted local figures. Multi-component interventions combining education, outreach, and digital tools were particularly effective. However, considerable variability existed in how CE was defined and operationalised across studies. CE should be recognised as a core pillar of vaccination strategy rather than an optional addition. It builds trust, fosters ownership, and addressed sociocultural barriers to access. Tailored, multi-component approaches leveraging trusted community figures are especially promising. Definitional ambiguity and inconsistent evaluation frameworks currently limit understanding of what works, for whom, and in what context. Future research should prioritise standardising CE definitions, developing context-sensitive theories of change, and strengthening methods for evaluating CE’s contribution to vaccine coverage and equity

Business · Community engagement · Developing country · Economic growth · Economics · Global health · Humanitarian aid · Inclusion (mineral) · Intervention (counseling) · Low and middle income countries · Political science · Psychological intervention · Public engagement · Public health · Public relations · Community Health and Development · COVID-19 epidemiological studies · Global Maternal and Child Health · Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy · Viral Infections and Outbreaks Research

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access