SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

Incentives in immunisation campaigns in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review mapping evidence on effectiveness and unintended consequences

Saunders, MJ; Pereboom, M; Alvarez, JL; Sherlock, M; Gadroen, K (2025) Incentives in immunisation campaigns in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review mapping evidence on effectiveness and unintended consequences. BMJ Global Health, 10 (6). e019662. ISSN 2059-7908 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2025-019662
SGUL Authors: Saunders, Matthew James

[img] PDF Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

Download (452kB)
[img] PDF (Supplementary PDF) Supporting information
Download (67kB)

Abstract

Introduction Various incentive programmes are being used to improve immunisation uptake, despite limited understanding of their effectiveness and potential unintended consequences. We conducted a scoping review to map and synthesise evidence on their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), compare experiences across regions and incentive types, and identify unintended consequences and implementation challenges. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE and grey literature for studies published between 2000 and 2024 investigating incentives in immunisation campaigns in LMIC. We included quantitative and qualitative studies investigating monetary or non-monetary incentives provided conditionally or unconditionally on immunisation uptake. Data were synthesised narratively to summarise evidence on effectiveness, perceptions and attitudes and unintended consequences. Results We included 40 studies from 19 countries (20 from Africa, 13 from Asia and seven from Latin America). Of these, 31 evaluated effectiveness through randomised trials (n=17) or quasi-experimental designs (n=14). Most evaluated monetary incentives for childhood immunisations, particularly conditional cash transfers, while some examined non-monetary incentives including food, mobile phone credit and symbolic rewards. While effect sizes varied substantially across different interventions and contexts, most studies demonstrated modest positive short-term effects on immunisation uptake, and no studies showed decreased uptake. However, several revealed unintended consequences, including reduced intrinsic motivation manifesting as lower immunisation uptake when incentives were withdrawn, creation of payment expectations and implementation challenges affecting acceptability. Several studies highlighted how incentive programmes could undermine community volunteerism and trust in both immunisation and health services, particularly when poorly implemented or withdrawn. Conclusions While incentives can improve short-term immunisation uptake in LMIC, their effects vary by context, and they can have negative unintended consequences which need to be taken into consideration in programme design. Future programmes should be co-designed with communities, consider locally acceptable non-monetary alternatives, incorporate strategies to maintain intrinsic motivation and ensure sustainable implementation within existing health systems.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Infection and Immunity Research Institute (INII)
Journal or Publication Title: BMJ Global Health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Language: en
Publisher License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0
Projects:
Project IDFunderFunder ID
CL-2023-16-002National Institute for Health and Care Researchhttps://doi.org/10.13039/501100000272
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/117679
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2025-019662

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item