The Communication Initiative
Development action with informed and engaged societies
The Communication Initiative
After nearly 28 years, The Communication Initiative (The CI) Global is entering a new chapter. Following a period of transition, the global website has been transferred to the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in South Africa, where it will be administered by the Social and Behaviour Change Communication Division. Wits' commitment to social change and justice makes it a trusted steward for The CI's legacy and future.
 
Co-founder Victoria Martin is pleased to see this work continue under Wits' leadership. Victoria knows that co-founder Warren Feek (1953–2024) would have felt deep pride in The CI Global's Africa-led direction.
 
We honour the team and partners who sustained The CI for decades. Meanwhile, La Iniciativa de Comunicación (CILA) continues independently at cila.comminitcila.com and is linked with The CI Global site.
Time to read
less than
1 minute
Print
a- a+
Published 3 years ago
Last updated 3 years ago
Read so far

Camps and Full Immunisation Increase - 39% vs. 6%

0 comments
Strategy researched
 
Intervention A: regular availability of immunization services, mobile immunization team, monthly immunization camps; Intervention B: adds 1 kg of raw lentils per immunization and a set of thalis on completion
 
Impact achieved
 
 
Country of study
 
India
 
Research methodology
 
Cluster RCT
 
Journal
 
British Medical Journal; 2010
 
Journal paper title and link
 
Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives
 
Excerpt from Abstract
 
"Among children aged 1-3 in the end point survey, rates of full immunisation were 39% (148/382, 95% confidence interval 30% to 47%) for intervention B villages (reliable immunisation with incentives), 18% (68/379, 11% to 23%) for intervention A villages (reliable immunisation without incentives), and 6% (50/860, 3% to 9%) for control villages. The relative risk of complete immunisation for intervention B versus control was 6.7 (4.5 to 8.8) and for intervention B versus intervention A was 2.2 (1.5 to 2.8). Children in areas neighbouring intervention B villages were also more likely to be fully immunised than those from areas neighbouring intervention A villages (1.9, 1.1 to 2.8)."
 
Summary at this link