Use of lay vaccinators in animal vaccination programmes: a scoping review

Duamor, C. T., Hampson, K. , Lankester, F., Sambo, M., Kreppel, K., Wyke, S. and Cleaveland, S. (2021) Use of lay vaccinators in animal vaccination programmes: a scoping review. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 15(8), e0009691. (doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009691) (PMID:34375325) (PMCID:PMC8378730)

[img] Text
249157.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication.

1MB

Abstract

Background: The human resource gap in veterinary sectors, particularly in low-income countries, imposes limitations on the delivery of animal healthcare in hard-to-reach populations. Lay animal health workers have been deployed in these settings to fill the gap though there are mixed views about the benefits of doing this and whether they can deliver services safely. We mapped evidence on the nature and extent of roles assigned to lay animal vaccinators, and identified lessons useful for their future deployment. Methodology/Principal findings: Following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, we searched seven bibliographic databases for articles published between 1980 and 2021, with the search terms lay OR community-based OR volunteer AND "animal health worker" OR vaccinator*, and applied an a priori exclusion criteria to select studies. From 30 identified studies, lay vaccinators were used by non-government developmental (n = 12, 40%), research (n = 10, 33%) and government (n = 5, 17%) programmes to vaccinate domestic animals. The main reason for using lay vaccinators was to provide access to animal vaccination in the absence of professional veterinarians (n = 12, 40%). Reported positive outcomes of programmes included increased flock and herd sizes and farmer knowledge of best practice (n = 13, 43%); decreased disease transmission, outbreaks and mortality (n = 11, 37%); higher vaccination coverage (10, 33%); non-inferior seroconversion and birth rates among vaccinated herds (n = 3, 10%). The most frequently reported facilitating factor of lay vaccinator programmes was community participation (n = 14, 47%), whilst opposition from professional veterinarians (n = 8, 27%), stakeholders seeking financial gains to detriment of programmes goals (n = 8, 27%) and programming issues (n = 8, 27%) were the most frequently reported barriers. No study reported on cost-effectiveness and we found no record from a low and middle-income country of lay vaccinator programmes being integrated into national veterinary services. Conclusion: Although the majority of included studies reported more benefits and positive perceptions of lay vaccinator programmes than problems and challenges, regularization will ensure the programmes can be designed and implemented to meet the needs of all stakeholders.

Item Type:Articles
Additional Information:This study was supported by the following funds. CTD, SC, KK: Funding for postgraduate study (CTD) and preparation of the article was received from the DELTAS Africa Initiative [Afrique One-ASPIRE /DEL-15-008]. Afrique One-ASPIRE is funded by a consortium of donors, including the African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development Planning and Coordinating (NEPAD) Agency, the Wellcome Trust [107753/A/15/Z] and the UK government. CTD received monthly stipend from ASPIRE. FL, SC, KH, SW: Collaborative work for this review was funded through the National Institutes of Health [R01AI141712] and MSD Animal Health. This review was conducted as a recommendation from a meeting funded by the University of Glasgow Small Grants Fund, supported by an allocation of GCRF funding administered by the Scottish Funding Council. K.H. was funded by the Wellcome Trust [207569/Z/17/Z].
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Wyke, Professor Sally and Duamor, Mr Christian and Lankester, Dr Felix and Hampson, Professor Katie and Sambo, Maganga and Kreppel, Dr Katharina and Cleaveland, Professor Sarah
Creator Roles:
Duamor, C.Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
Hampson, K.Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing
Lankester, F.Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review and editing
Sambo, M.Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – review and editing
Kreppel, K.Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Writing – review and editing
Wyke, S.Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review and editing
Cleaveland, S.Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing
Authors: Duamor, C. T., Hampson, K., Lankester, F., Sambo, M., Kreppel, K., Wyke, S., and Cleaveland, S.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences
College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Biodiversity Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > General Practice and Primary Care
Journal Name:PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Publisher:Public Library of Science
ISSN:1935-2727
ISSN (Online):1935-2735
Published Online:10 August 2021
Copyright Holders:This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC0 Public Domain Dedication
First Published:First published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 15(8):e0009691
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record

Project CodeAward NoProject NamePrincipal InvestigatorFunder's NameFunder RefLead Dept
301620The Science of Rabies EliminationKatie HampsonWellcome Trust (WELLCOTR)207569/Z/17/ZInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
173142African Science Partnership for Intervention Research Excellence (Afrique One-ASPIRE)Daniel HaydonWellcome Trust (WELLCOTR)107753/B/15/ZInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine