Browsing by Author "Kagina, Benjamin M."

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Guidelines for the vaccination of HIV-infected adolescents and adults in South Africa
    (Medpharm Publications, 2018) Dlamini, Sipho K.; Madhi, Shabir A.; Muloiwa, Rudzani; Von Gottberg, Anne; Moosa, Mahomed-Yunus S.; Meiring, Susan T.; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Hefer, Eric; Mulaudzi, Muhangwi B.; Nuttall, James; Moorhouse, Michelle; Kagina, Benjamin M.
    No abstract available.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Knowledge, attitudes and practices on adolescent vaccination among parents, teachers and adolescents in Africa : a systematic review protocol
    (BioMed Central, 2014-09) Abdullahi, Leila H.; Kagina, Benjamin M.; Cassidy, Tali; Adebayo, Esther F.; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Hussey, Gregory D.
    Background Vaccines are the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions available to avert vaccine-preventable diseases and deaths. Despite progress in the field of adolescent health, many young people in Africa still get sick and die from vaccine-preventable diseases due to lack of vaccination. Parents, adolescents and teachers are key players with regard to implementation of adolescent vaccination policies. Therefore, understanding their knowledge, attitudes and practices towards adolescent vaccination may provide clues on what can be done to improve vaccine uptake among adolescents. The aim of this study is to conduct a qualitative and quantitative systematic review on knowledge, attitudes and practices on adolescent vaccination among parents, teachers and adolescents in Africa. Methods We will include both quantitative and qualitative primary studies. Eligible quantitative studies include both intervention and observational studies. Qualitative studies to be included are focus group discussions, direct observations, in-depth interviews and case ethnographic studies. We will search PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, WHOLIS, Africa Wide and CINAHL for eligible studies with no time and language limits. We will also check reference lists of included studies for other eligible reports. Two authors will independently screen the search output, select studies and extract data, resolving discrepancies by consensus and discussion. We will analyse qualitative data using thematic analysis where applicable, and quantitative studies findings will be presented in a narrative synthesis form based on the outcomes. Discussion The findings from this systematic review will guide the identification of gaps on knowledge, attitudes and practices among the key role players on adolescent vaccination. We anticipate that our findings will guide the development of adolescent-focused vaccination policy in Africa, which is virtually non-existent at present. Systematic review registration This review is registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42014010395.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Safety of licensed vaccines in HIV-infected persons : a systematic review protocol
    (BioMed Central, 2014-09) Kagina, Benjamin M.; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Lesosky, Maia; Madhi, Shabir A.; Hussey, Gregory D.
    Background Safety of vaccines remains a cornerstone of building public trust on the use of these cost-effective and life-saving public health interventions. In some settings, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, there is a high prevalence of HIV infection and a high burden of vaccine-preventable diseases. There is evidence suggesting that the immunity induced by some commonly used vaccines is not durable in HIV-infected persons, and therefore, repeated vaccination may be considered to ensure optimal vaccine-induced immunity in this population. However, some vaccines, particularly the live vaccines, may be unsafe in HIV-infected persons. There is lack of evidence on the safety profile of commonly used vaccines among HIV-infected persons. We are therefore conducting a systematic review to assess the safety profile of routine vaccines administered to HIV-infected persons. Methods/Design We will select studies conducted in any setting where licensed and effective vaccines were administered to HIV-infected persons. We will search for eligible studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, Africa-Wide, PDQ-Evidence and CINAHL as well as reference lists of relevant publications. We will screen search outputs, select studies and extract data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by discussion and consensus. Discussion Globally, immunisation is a major public health strategy to mitigate morbidity and mortality caused by various infectious disease-causing agents. In general, there are efforts to increase vaccination coverage worldwide, and for these efforts to be successful, safety of the vaccines is paramount, even among people living with HIV, who in some situations may require repeated vaccination. Results from this systematic review will be discussed in the context of the safety of routine vaccines among HIV-infected persons. From the safety perspective, we will also discuss whether repeat vaccination strategies may be feasible among HIV-infected persons. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014009794.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Screening strategies for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus : a systematic review protocol
    (BMC (part of Springer Nature), 2020-07-13) Mearns, Helen; Otiku, Paul K.; Shelton, Mary; Kredo, Tamara; Kagina, Benjamin M.; Schmidt, Bey-Marrie
    Background: There is limited evidence on whether screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus affects health outcomes. A recent systematic review of randomised clinical trials found only one trial that met their inclusion criteria; therefore, current guidelines for screening interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus are based on expert opinions and best practice rather than synthesised evidence. This systematic review seeks to collate evidence from nonrandomised studies to investigate the effect of screening for adults with type 2 diabetes on outcomes including diabetes-related morbidity, mortality (all-cause and diabetes-related) and harms. Methods: This systematic review will follow Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) guidelines for the synthesis of non-randomised studies. We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier and Health Source Nursing Academic (from inception onwards). We will include non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time-series studies, repeated measures studies and concurrently controlled prospective cohort studies. The primary outcome will be diabetes-related morbidity (microvascular complications of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy or neuropathy or macrovascular complications of non-fatal myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease or non-fatal stroke). The secondary outcomes will be mortality (allcause and diabetes-related) and harms of screening strategies to patients (including psychological harms or adverse events following treatments) or to health care system (including resource allocation for false-positives or overdiagnosis). Two reviewers will independently screen all citations and full-text articles. Data will be abstracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The risk of bias of individual studies will be appraised using the ROBINS-I tool. GRADE will be used to determine the quality of the scientific evidence. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis where appropriate. If necessary, analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g. age, sex, socio-economic status, rural versus urban or low-middle income versus high-income country). We will disseminate the findings via publications and through relevant networks. Discussion: The protocol outlines the methods for systematically reviewing and synthesising evidence of screening strategies for type 2 diabetes mellitus and their effect on health outcomes associated with the disease. The potential impact of this systematic review is improved evidence-informed decision-making for policies and practice for screening of type-2 diabetes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The use of supplementary immunisation activities to improve uptake of current and future vaccines in low-income and middle-income countries : a systematic review protocol
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2014-01) Kagina, Benjamin M.; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Machingaidze, Shingai; Abdullahi, Leila H.; Adebayo, Esther; Uthman, Olalekan A.; Hussey, Gregory D.
    ENGLISH SUMMARY : Introduction: Immunisation coverage data in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) suggest that more strategies need to be implemented to achieve and sustain optimal vaccine uptake. Among possible strategies to improve immunisation coverage are supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs). We are therefore interested in conducting a systematic review to assess whether SIAs complement routine immunisation programmes to improve vaccination coverage and prevent disease outbreaks. Methods: Our systematic review will focus on studies conducted in LMICs. With the help of an information specialist, we will search for eligible studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Africa-Wide, Cochrane Library, WHOLIS, CINAHL, PDQ-Evidence as well as reference lists of relevant publications. Additionally, we will contact relevant organisations such as WHO and GAVI. Two authors will independently extract data from eligible studies and independently assess risk of bias by assessing the adequacy of study characteristics. The primary meta-analysis will use random effects models due to expected interstudies heterogeneity. Dichotomous data will be analysed using relative risk and continuous data using weighted mean differences (or standardised mean differences), both with 95% CIs. Discussion: The findings from this systematic review will be discussed in the context of strengthening routine childhood immunisation services, routine adolescent immunisation services and introduction of future vaccines against tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. Study strengths: Unbiased selection of many studies conducted in different settings. This will strengthen the validity of the review results. Study limitations: Heterogeneity of the study settings of the low-income, lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries as well as heterogeneity in study designs.