Author
Listed:
- Chinwe Iwu-Jaja
- Chidozie Declan Iwu
- Anelisa Jaca
- Charles Shey Wiysonge
Abstract
Vaccines represent a critical strategy for combating antimicrobial resistance (AMR), yet methodological approaches for assessing their impact remain heterogeneous, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where both infectious disease and resistance burdens are highest. This scoping review systematically mapped the methodological approaches, data sources, and outcome measures used to evaluate vaccine impacts on AMR in LMICs. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL for studies examining vaccine-AMR relationships in LMICs. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data on study designs, data sources, outcome measures, and limitations. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Sixty-two studies met inclusion criteria, including 58 primary studies and 4 reviews. Among primary studies, 45 were observational (72.6%), 11 were modelling studies (17.7%), 2 randomized trials (3.2%), and 4 systematic reviews (6.5%). Evidence concentrated heavily on pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, with minimal research on other WHO priority pathogens. Data sources included surveillance networks, carriage surveys, national reference laboratories, and administrative immunization records. Primary outcome measures included resistance prevalence (n = 58), serotype replacement (n = 18) and antimicrobial use data (n = 23) such as antibiotic prescriptions or defined daily doses. Common limitations included surveillance biases, incomplete vaccination records, single-site generalizability constraints, and limited linkage between microbiological and clinical outcomes. Substantial methodological heterogeneity characterizes vaccine-AMR research in LMICs, with systematic gaps in antimicrobial use data and evidence beyond pneumococcal vaccines. Strengthening digital health infrastructure, integrating antimicrobial use measurements into existing surveys, embedding resistance endpoints in vaccine trials, and standardizing outcome definitions across studies are essential to generate policy-relevant evidence for immunization programs in high-burden settings.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0006106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.