Search

The sixth online Teach to Reach Connect event organized by the Geneva Learning Foundation (Podcast | Telegram | YouTube | Twitter) in June 2022 provided a platform for members of the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030), and others with an interest in immunization, to share experience and network internationally. The event included group experience-sharing sessions on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, organized in partnership with UNICEF, and on gender-related issues in immunization, organized jointly with the Women who Deliver Vaccines community of practice. The sessions provided an opportunity for practitioners to highlight their specific local immunization challenges and how they had set about addressing them, in both group and private, one-to-one sharing of experience with peers. Uniquely, Teach to Reach events prioritize the contributions of those working within national immunization programmes, who share their experience for the benefit of others and receive feedback from global experts who serve as facilitators (as a “guide on the side” rather than a “sage on the stage”). Teach to Reach Connect 6 therefore represented an example of “consultative engagement” in which a key global partner – UNICEF – listened and learned rather than disseminated information. Teach to Reach Connect 6 heard multiple examples of how healthcare workers in a variety of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) – anglophone and francophone – are addressing challenges identified by both local and global practitioners as key – COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, gender and other social barriers to immunization, and reaching zero-dose and under-immunized communities – and how they are engaging with local communities. Key insights Experiences shared during the event and through feedback (received from more than 1500 participants from 72 countries) highlighted some of the strategies being adopted to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. These included respectful listening and correction of misperceptions, being honest about mild side effects and how to manage them, and showing evidence of being vaccinated or carrying out public vaccinations. Tackling hesitancy among healthcare workers, using similar strategies was also seen to be important. The need to consider specific populations, including pregnant women and people living with HIV, was also raised. The gender barriers discussed focused on the role of men in regulating women’s access to immunization services in some contexts and the importance of involving men in community engagement activities. Conversely, women’s groups and women’s social networks provide opportunities to disseminate positive messaging about immunization. The importance of equitable treatment of women within immunization programmes was also highlighted. In the area of zero-dose and under-immunized population, practitioners emphasized the importance of identifying poorer-performing areas and undertaking situational analyses to truly understand reasons for under-immunization, rather than relying on assumptions, and to use this understanding to shape response plans. The need for coordinated, multifaceted responses was also highlighted. Community engagement was seen as critical to immunization programmes, for example to understand and address social barriers. As well as communication about the benefits of immunities, communities can also be involved in the planning of services. Implications Notably, few contributions focused on entirely novel approaches or use of new technologies. Rather, they typically described the real-world application of strategies that would already be considered good practice. The implementation of recognized good practices across different levels of immunization programmes is an important bottleneck in the development of higher performing immunization programmes. Within a growing ecosystem of digital learning opportunities offered by global partners, TGLF’s array of peer learning opportunities, including Teach to Reach Connect 6, may therefore represent a novel approach by which immunization workers can be exposed to effective real-world practices, grounded in overcoming common operational challenges, and draw inspiration from the use of such practices by their peers, while at the same time benefiting from the global perspective provided by expert facilitators contributing to the learning programme. Many of the contributions included a comment on how participation in TGLF activities had influenced their activities. In several cases, situational analyses had provided important insights to shape interventions. The value of “responsive feedback”, adapting plans in light of experience, was also referenced. Although some evidence was provided that participation in the peer learning programme has led to improvements in participants’ capabilities, and immunization programme performance, further work is needed to provide more rigorous evidence of positive impacts and the routes through which these positive impacts are achieved. This Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) case study is part of theIA2030Movement’sKnowledge-to-Action Hub.Learn more about the Hub…Learn more about the Movement&hellip

This Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) Listening and Learning Report is part of theIA2030Movement’sKnowledge-to-Action Hub.Learn more about the Hub…Learn more about the Movement… Background In Year 1 of its “Movement for IA2030” peer learning programme, the Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) organized a digitally enabled series of activities for immunization and other health professionals from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Working with Bridges to Development (Bridges), we explored novel models of “consultative engagement”, the dialogue between international and national stakeholders that is a core element of the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) Framework for Action. The project was likely the principal IA2030 consultative engagement activity carried out in 2021/2022. It supported practical action and collaboration by health professionals delivering and managing immunization services at different levels of health systems – from facility to national – and in different sectors. Highlights of peer learning and engagement activities In March 2022, 6185 practitioners from 99 countries joined the programme, with 1021 progressing to implementation of peer-reviewed local action plans by June 2022 (Annex 1). More than half of participants work for ministries of health at district or facility level. More than half a million quantitative and qualitative data points generated by programme participants helped shed light on priority challenges and opportunities. Additional discussion events, lectures and online surveys were developed in collaboration with IA2030 Working Groups and UNICEF, covering topics such as “zero-dose” challenges (reaching those not receiving any vaccines), gender barriers and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Quarterly “Teach to Reach” events created a space for engagement with thousands of national and sub-national immunization staff – rising from 2,604 registrants in March 2021 to 12,389 in June 2022 – and international stakeholders, including representatives from UNICEF, USAID MOMENTUM, the Gavi Zero Dose Community of Practice, and several IA2030 Working Groups, listening and contributing. By June 2022, more than 8000 country-based practitioners were actively participating and identifying as members of a “Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030”, expressing a moral and professional commitment to achieving the goals of IA2030, through implementation of action plans aligned with their countries’ immunization strategies. Three “Listening and Learning Reports”, six thematic and eight “first-person” case studies were published during the project (Annex 2). What did we learn from consultative engagement? This iterative learning and action led by local practitioners provided a unique window through which international stakeholders could better understand what is happening on the ground within countries, in particular giving a voice to those working below the national level. The engagement activities have revealed a highly motivated group of thousands of professionals trying to work within local constraints to organize comprehensive, user-friendly services, working closely with local communities. Participants have shown a great willingness to share experiences and learn from others, and consistently highlight the benefits they feel they gain from their connections to peers facing similar challenges and from the guidance offered by international experts. The experience also suggests that there are no “magic bullets” – overlooked and potentially transformative technical solutions to immunization challenges. Progress more likely comes from the systematic application and adaptation of existing good practice, tailored to local contexts and communities. This suggests that there are significant opportunities to: Empower health professionals and drive improvement from the ground up by connecting them to their peers and linking them to global guidance. Harness the knowledge, experience and intrinsic motivation of these tens of thousands of professionals to drive improvements in immunization coverage and wider primary healthcare services in LMICs.

This report is part of series aiming to capture the perspectives of a diverse group of health practitioners working to deliver or manage immunization services in low- and middle-income countries.Contributing to consultative engagement between international and local levels, each report offers a unique opportunity to discover unfiltered experiences and insights from thousands of people whose daily lives revolve around delivering immunization services. Background In their applications to join the Geneva Learning Foundation’s (TGLF’s) peer learning platform on the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) in 2022, 497 applicants shared and reflected on stories about gender barriers to immunization. Three virtual events organized in collaboration with the Zero Dose Community of Practice, UNICEF and WHO during June 2022 focused on gender barriers to service use and within the health workforce. The live discussions with participants and global experts provided additional insights regarding gender barriers among caregivers affecting uptake of immunization and other healthcare services as well as gender issues among providers themselves. Key findings Four key barriers were identified: Men tend to have main decision-making power within the household and community in many settings, which can make it difficult for women and children to access immunization services. Even if male approval is required, the practical burden of getting children immunized is largely seen as solely a woman’s responsibility. Socio-cultural norms and religious beliefs can discourage women’s health-seeking behaviours, impacting vaccination of both male and female children under their care. Spread of misinformation and myths, and lack of knowledge about vaccines deter families from seeking immunization services out of fear, leaving them at risk of infectious disease. When women do seek out immunization services, client-unfriendly services such as long wait times in the face of additional household or professional duties, security and mobility concerns while travelling long distances to health clinics, and lack of female healthcare workers add layers of obstacles. Implications The contributions from applicants align with the barriers, and strategies to overcome barriers, identified in WHO’s Why Gender Matters: Immunization Agenda 2030 but provide additional depth through direct health professionals’ experiences. The practitioners’ contributions highlight three key themes: Complex, interconnected layers of gender-related barriers exist at the household, community and societal levels, requiring complementary and integrated approaches across levels. Gender barriers to health service use and within the health workforce are related and both need to be addressed simultaneously to close gender gaps. Many of these barriers are shared across regions but require tailored microplanning and motivated health professionals attuned to such challenges. Innovative approaches (e.g. TGLF’s digital peer learning platform) are essential to provide such opportunities for consistency and sharing of experience and ideas, which can then be adapted to local context. This Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) case study is part of theIA2030Movement’sKnowledge-to-Action Hub.Learn more about the Hub…Learn more about the Movement&hellip

This Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) case study is part of theIA2030Movement’sKnowledge-to-Action Hub.Learn more about the Hub…Learn more about the Movement… This report is part of series aiming to capture the perspectives of a diverse group of health practitioners working to deliver or manage immunization services in low- and middle-income countries.Contributing to consultative engagement between international and local levels, each report offers a unique opportunity to discover unfiltered experiences and insights from thousands of people whose daily lives revolve around delivering immunization services. Background This report provides an overview of fourteen weeks of experience sharing sessions organized by TGLF for the 6185 health professionals who joined a four-month programme known as the “Full Learning Cycle” (FLC) intended to support learning and change. Throughout this programme, participants had the opportunity to meet four times per week (twice in French, twice in English) to problem-solve their immunization challenges through experience sharing, using the Immunization Training Challenge Hackathon (ITCH) pedagogical pattern developed by TGLF. A total of 44 Peer support sessions were organized; 22 for the English cohort and 22 for the French cohort. Two experience sharing sessions were organized per language each week with an average attendance of 60 participants per session. This report seeks to capture the value created through the experiences shared during these sessions, both key lessons to improve immunization practice as well as what participants gained from engaging in a methodology that recognizes the value of their lived experience as immunization practitioners. Methods All the sessions took place synchronously via Zoom. Sessions were recorded and summaries of experiences shared by participants as well as key takeaways were prepared by the session facilitators, usually at the end of each week. The first part of this report captures specific experiences shared during the sessions at each stage of the Full Learning Cycle (FLC) around certain recurring themes like COVID-19 vaccine uptake, improving immunization coverage, tackling vaccine hesitancy, vaccine confidence, immunization financing, improving measles vaccination coverage in response to outbreaks, effective vaccine management and new vaccine introduction. The second part showcases key learnings that could help participants and challenge owners to resolve their immunization challenges, grouped by the recurring themes that were the focus of most sessions. Some challenges can be country and local area or community specific, demonstrating how solutions tend to be dependent on local context. Nevertheless, beyond sharing individual solutions, experience sharing provides opportunities to practice giving and receiving feedback, learning how to evaluate local challenges, practices, and solutions, and thinking through how they may or may not be adapted or transferable to one’s own context. The last part will focus on the perceived value of these experience sharing sessions to participants. Throughout the FLC, members of the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) were asked to share on a weekly basis how they were doing as members of the IA2030 Movement and how/what in their participation was helping their professional practice through a simple form. As of August 2022, this form had registered 10,092 responses (5600 in English and 4492 in French). The form has a set of 5 evidence-based questions focusing on the impact of participation on their professional practice. While these questions were not limited to the experience sharing sessions but to all the other activities/events that were part of the programme a good number of respondents shared the impact participating in the experience sharing sessions had on them and on their professional practice. A qualitative analysis of the responses was used to capture what participants had to say about the value of the experience sharing sessions. TGLF wishes to recognize all of the participants who shared their challenges and experience. Key findings To every challenge there is a potential solution: For all the challenges shared during the experience sharing sessions, there was always at least one member who had encountered or was encountering the same challenge and had carried out measures to resolve it. Some of the solutions were context-specific, but it most cases, the challenge owner could adopt and adapt this idea or practice to their context. Experience sharing adds value to peer learning by creating a platform for knowledge transfer through the sharing of concrete and practical stories that are making a difference in other contexts. Members of the Movement for IA2030 shared that by listening to others’ experiences was and many reported an improvement in their skill sets as far as immunization is concerned. Experience sharing helps build confidence and motivation. Members were able to identify themselves in the challenges and experiences shared and this helped them to realize that they were not alone; that the challenges they faced were shared by others elsewhere. Also, being in a position to help others through experience sharing was a motivating factor for some members.

Every year, all kinds of practitioners help to deliver around 400 million shots to infants, adolescents and adults in every country on Earth. This is a tribute to those whose efforts save millions of lives every year. Immunization can sometimes seem to be fixated on numbers. Conversations are dominated by coverage rates, the numbers of zero-dose children, the numbers of new vaccine introductions. Every July, global immunization data are published and pored over in great detail. But immunization isn’t really about numbers. It’s about people. It’s about the infants being protected against killer infectious diseases, adolescent girls being spared the threat of cervical cancer, people of all ages escaping the worst impacts of COVID-19. And it’s about the countless people in every country who work tirelessly to get vaccines to those who need them, wherever they are. The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) called on Members of the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) to“show how your daily work makes a difference in protecting children and their families from vaccine-preventable diseases”. More than 1000 photos were submitted during World Immunization Week (25–29 April 2022) by IA2030 Movement members working with communities in nearly 60 countries. Each picture does not just tell a story. It also provides an opportunity to learn about the“how”of immunization Each picture does not just tell a story. It also provides an opportunity to learn about the“how”of immunization, which requires health professionals to connect with the communities they serve. Immunization means bringing families into health systems, a health professional meeting and speaking with a parent or caretaker, a child being assessed during its early vulnerable life, then finally vaccines administered to prevent illness and death. And it’s happening more than 400 million times each year. Regardless of gender, wealth or ethnicity, and in some of the most challenging circumstances imaginable. These pictures reflect a tiny percentage of those 400 million individual events and the enormous commitment of health professionals, people, communities and governments necessary to make that happen each year. Collectively, they provide insights into the everyday experience of immunization practitioners: what it actually takes to deliver vaccines to populations – a monumental effort undertaken every year for each new birth cohort. It’s worth remembering that, globally, immunization services still reach more people than any other health service. There are cold chains to manage, distribution systems to organize, community outreach sessions to run, records to keep and analyse. The pictures are a reminder of the many different roles that need to be fulfilled. Immunization programmes depend on the coordinated activities of vaccinators, supervisors, cold chain managers, community mobilizers, researchers and multiple others, all of whom are essential cogs in the immunization machinery. The photos provide a vivid picture of what immunization means in practice The photos provide a vivid picture of what immunization means in practice: what a community immunization session looks like; what a health facility session looks like; what environmental challenges really look like. Some show the seldom reported practicalities of immunization: the finger marking, the paperwork, the ice boxes on motorbikes. But often it is the incidental detail that is revealing: the rubble in an insecure area; the damaged ceiling of a health facility; the vaccinators’footwear; the sheer numbers of people attending sessions. What shines through is the sense of pride and commitment of health workers Yet what always emerges is the humanity of recipient and provider: the smiling faces of the children whose future is being protected, the protectiveness of parents and other caregivers. And, above all, what shines through is the sense of pride and commitment of health workers, who every day are doing their utmost to ensure that vaccines are where they need to be and that people want to receive them. People who are vaccinated, and people who deliver vaccines, are not numbers. Each is an individual whose life is worth protecting and whose efforts to help others need recognizing. When the next set of immunization data are released, it is worth reflecting what they truly mean for people in need and the people striving to meet that need. Where to see the complete collection The complete collection of IA2030 Movement photo stories can beviewed on Instagram. An inauguration event for the photo stories was held on 17 June 2022at Teach to Reach: Connect 6. It can be viewed on YouTube. The IA2030 Movement During 2022, 6185 health professionals from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) applied to join the “Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030)” and participated in a four-month programme of digitally enabled peer learning events. Focusing on a specific local priority challenge, participants undertook a structured five-stage process: Initiation: Committing to the Movement and completing an application survey Ideas generation: Sharing ideas with global peers Situational analysis: Undertaking a systematic analysis of the causes of their challenge Action planning: Developing an action plan, reviewed by peers Impact accelerator: A four-week project kick-start with weekly milestones. Programme participants (“Scholars”) will spend the next 6–12 months completing their projects, periodically reporting back on progress. This Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) Listening and Learning Report is part of theIA2030Movement’sKnowledge-to-Action Hub.Learn more about the Hub…Learn more about the Movement&hellip

This report is part of series aiming to capture the perspectives of a diverse group of health practitioners working to deliver or manage immunization services in low- and middle-income countries.Contributing to consultative engagement between international and local levels, each report offers a unique opportunity to discover unfiltered experiences and insights from thousands of people whose daily lives revolve around delivering immunization services. A total of 6185 healthcare workers wishing to take part in the IA2030-focused peer learning programme run by the Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) in 2022 completed an online application form, part of which asked them to identify the most difficult and important challenge they faced. Responses provided by the first 2000 applicants (1000 English-speaking, 1000 French-speaking) were mapped onto IA2030 strategic priority and key focus areas. For the most popular key focus areas, responses were subcategorized to provide more granular insights into the nature of priority challenges as perceived by applicants. Key findings Reported challenges most commonly fell into the following four IA2030 key areas of focus: 2.5 Knowledge (used to capture all challenges related to community demand and hesitation) 1.4 Supply chain 3.1 Reaching disadvantaged populations, particularly remote rural communities 1.3 Human resources Demand and hesitation challenges were by far the mostly commonly cited, accounting for around a quarter of all the challenges referenced. More granular coding identified lack of knowledge or understanding of vaccination’s benefits (or actions to address these issues) as the aspect of hesitation and demand thought to be most significant. In particular, hesitancy was identified as a major factor affecting COVID-19 vaccination, with myths and misperceptions seen to be having a major impact on take up. Conclusions An analysis of the key challenges identified by 2000 immunization programme staff from low- and middle-income countries has identified widespread concerns about low levels of demand and substantial vaccine hesitancy in communities. The causes of this hesitancy are frequently perceived to be limited knowledge or understanding of the benefits of vaccination. At the global level, recent years have seen growing emphasis on social and behavioural drivers of immunization-related behaviours as key factors in vaccination take up, including the development of a WHO position paper on understanding the behavioural and social drivers of vaccine uptake published in May 2022. Lack of knowledge is not included in the core framework of this position paper, given the lack of evidence that this is a significant factor in low take up. These findings therefore suggest a mismatch between global approaches to demand/hesitancy and the perceptions and actions of country-level practitioners in low- and middle-income countries, which focus primarily on closing perceived gaps in knowledge. The results do not imply that lack of knowledge is truly the biggest demand-related challenge in low-resource settings, and consultation with caregivers and communities could reveal a different picture. However, the findings do provide insight into health workers’ perceptions, which will be critical in shaping their choice of response. The results highlight the need for further investigation of demand-related attitudes among practitioners, and how these affect local demand-creation strategies, as well as of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of caretakers in low-resource settings. Given the relative lack of data, they also emphasize the need for further work on the design of appropriate demand-creation approaches in low-resource settings, particularly given the potential impacts of COVID-19-related hesitancy on take up of essential immunization services. This Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) case study is part of theIA2030Movement’sKnowledge-to-Action Hub.Learn more about the Hub…Learn more about the Movement… &nbsp

The peer learning platform managed by the Geneva Learning Foundation (LinkedIn | YouTube | Twitter | Podcast) provides a platform for engaging with frontline staff from all levels of immunization systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) case study analyzes the platform’s potential relevancefor IA2030 consultative engagement. Key features include: (1) Opportunities for in-depth engagement on priority topics with staff directly responsible for managing and delivering services; (2)insights into the raw, unfiltered perspectives of frontline staff through analysis of project plans and implementation reports; and (3) opportunities to strike up meaningful dialogue and to give a voice to frontline workers, especially those in LMICs. “The inputs and points raised by panelists and the audience really were very insightful, actual experiences, opportunities, challenges and enablers on the topic of safeguarding and strengthening routine immunization during COVID-19 vaccine rollout.” – Dr Folake Olayinka,Chair, IA2030 Working Group 1 The peer learning model aims to exploit the power of digital technology, bringing health staff working on primary health care and immunization together to share experience and to learn from each other, with a focus on solving the issues that are of most importance where they work. Participation helps to generate more motivated, energized and better-connected staff able to make a greater contribution to the performance of national immunization programmes and health systems more widely. More than this, Scholars have shown themselves to be enthusiastic contributors, both during and after participation in learning interventions. They therefore offer a unique opportunity for the regional and global immunization and PHC community to hear first-hand about frontline challenges and how they are being overcome, and to involve immunization staff from all levels in the co-development of strategies and implementation plans to advance IA2030. This Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) case study is part of the IA2030Movement’sKnowledge-to-Action Hub.Learn more about the Hub…Learn more about the Movement&hellip

This Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) Listening and Learning Report is part of theIA2030Movement’sKnowledge-to-Action Hub.Learn more about the Hub…Learn more about the Movement… The Immunization Agenda (IA2030), the global immunization strategy for 2021–2023, places countries at its heart. In line with this principle, it has identified “consultative engagement” as a critical aspect of the work of the 13 IA2030 Working Groups. The purpose of such engagement is to provide country-level input into global deliberations and policymaking, to identify the priority challenges facing immunization workers on the frontline and in ministries of health, and to identify potential solutions to these challenges that could be disseminated more widely. IA2030 is intended to be a flexible strategy that responds to changing contexts and opportunities. Effective consultative engagement may be an important way in which to ensure that IA2030 evolves in response to changing frontline challenges. How best to undertake consultative engagement remains an unanswered question. One possibility is to take advantage of the peer learning platform organized by the Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF), which facilitates peer learning among healthcare workers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Participants in TGLF courses (“Scholars”) identify priority local challenges, perform situational analysis (including field visits), exchange and comment ideas and practices with their peers, and come together in online forums over the course of six months to discuss their experiences and offer each other advice as they begin to implement action plans. In 2021, Wellcome funded TGLF to recruit two learning cohorts focused on IA2030 and to explore with project partner Bridges to Development and the IA2030 Working Groups potential approaches to consultative engagement. In addition, a 2021 cohort of Scholars undertaking a WHO Scholar Level 1 certification course chose challenges and developed action plans structured around IA2030 strategic priorities. This interim learning report summarizes progress to date, focusing on 2021 Scholars selecting IA2030 strategic priority 1 (SP1), immunization programmes for primary health care and universal health coverage, and IA2030 Working Group 1 (WG1), whose remit covers SP1. This report summarizes four pieces of work carried out in partnership with WG1: A quantitative analysis of Scholars and their choice of IA2030 strategic priority and, within SP1, their choice of key area of focus. A thematic analysis of the action plans developed by Scholars, to shed light on priority issues identified by national immunization staff and approaches being taken to address them. A thematic case study on safeguarding existing immunization services during COVID-19 vaccine rollout, based on virtual discussion events. “First person” case studies of individual Scholars and their projects, to provide a deeper dive into specific LMIC contexts. The first cohort comprised 551 Scholars, 256 from anglophone countries and 295 from francophone countries. Most were based in sub-Saharan Africa, 34% were female and all levels of immunization programmes were represented. Scholars were requested to select one IA2030 strategic priority to focus on, based on their local context and priorities. SP1 was selected by 105/551 (19%) of Scholars, making it the third most popular strategic priority. Each strategic priority is divided into multiple, more specific key focus areas (KFAs), and Scholars were requested to base their actions plans on three KFAs, again based on their local context and priorities. Within SP1, KFA1.3 (health workforce) and KFA1.1 (immunization in primary healthcare) were the most frequently selected key focus areas. This interim report covers a relatively short period, so conclusions should be taken as provisional. Nevertheless, reflection on early experience highlights some key points. Activities and outputs Thematic analysis of action plans has identified some of the priority issues facing Scholars and the approaches being taken to address them. Understanding of IA2030 is mixed, with many Scholars simply framing their activities within the IA2030 structure, not always accurately. An analysis of the eight SP1 key focus areas found that the first, KFA1 (Immunization for primary healthcare) was often used as a “catch all” for a general focus on immunization programme function; for the other key focus areas, action plans tended to align more closely with key focus area themes. It is notable that, even after decades of immunization programme development within primary healthcare systems, fundamental immunization programme “basics” – such as cold chain infrastructure, the health workforce, leadership, health information systems – are still seen by frontline health workers as key constraints on immunization programme performance. An analysis of three key cross-cutting areas – community engagement, use of new technology and gender-related issues – provided a wealth of insight into local challenges and strategies being adopted to address them. Thematic online discussion events were successfully organized, were well attended by Scholars, alumni and other stakeholders, and prompted extensive sharing of information. The resulting thematic case study on safeguarding essential immunization services during COVID-19 vaccine rollout has identified some of the ways that this twin challenge has been addressed. Individual case studies provide a “deep dive” into specific contexts, helping to bring to life specific issues and activities. These case studies also have the potential to stimulate further dialogue as living documents. Specific issues discussed include: Using COVID-19 vaccine responses to strengthen existing immunization systems (Ghana). Applying nationwide an approach to community engagement successfully used in conflict-affected regions (Cameroon). Promoting use of equity-based microplanning to improve coverage in hard-to-reach populations (Democratic Republic of the Congo). Focusing on core immunization programme functions at the district level to improve coverage in resource-poor settings (Sierra Leone). Consultative engagement and Working Group involvement Scholars and alumni have proven enthusiastic contributors to engagement activities, including production of case studies. The project has been mindful not to overload Scholars and has endeavoured to ensure that cohorts also benefit from engagement activities, for example through their exposure to global-level experts. Engagement with Working Groups has not always been straightforward, although WG1 has been an enthusiastic “pathfinder” and engagement with other Working Groups for learning cycles 2 and 3 has begun. Possible explanations include: Uncertainty among some Working Groups about the value of consultative engagement, whether it is worthwhile, and what form it should take. The novelty of the method of engagement, through an ongoing programme of peer learning events, which has taken some Working Group members outside their comfort zone. Heavy demands on Working Group members, which limit the time they have to contribute to the project. Lack of familiarity with the complex TGLF model, which creates a significant learning curve. The need to integrate engagement activities within existing TGLF processes, which limits some potential mechanisms of engagement. Managing large volumes of data, much of which reflects “raw” insights from front-line health workers; this is intended to be shared with relevant Working Groups but sharing, analysing and making sense of the data raises some practical and resourcing challenges. Later in the project, conversations will be held with Working Groups to gather feedback on the value of the peer learning platform for consultative engagement, which outputs and analytical activities have been most useful, and how the potential usefulness of the platform for consultative engagement could best be realized. Discussions are continuing with WG1 to develop the case studies into living documents and with WGs 3, 4 and the Data Working Group to co-design engagement activities for the 2022 learning cycles. This will include a discussion on the usefulness of the case studies produced to date and this interim learning report, to shape further engagement activities.&nbsp

Journal of computer assisted learning 37 (2021) 6, S. 1694-1707, The COVID-19 outbreak came with an unprecedented opportunity to investigate how the new reality of social distancing and limited international travel will affect the organization of academic conferences. Drawing on conceptualization of academic conferences as professional learning spaces, in this study, we examine the factors associated with the perceived value of purely virtual academic conferences and how such perceptions differ between participants from different research fields. The aim was to gain knowledge about factors that should be considered when designing a virtual conference. Results show satisfaction with social interaction, the extent to which presentations met participants' topics of interest and the perceived importance of learning and getting an overview on the research topic to be related to the value rating. Researchers from different research fields differ significantly in their opinion about the most appropriate conference format regarding getting an overview on the research topic. For some researchers, virtual participation might be a valuable alternative to attending a conference in person. The study serves as a first attempt to understand how and for which target groups virtual conferences serve as a valuable learning event. Further research on this conference format is needed. (DIPF/Orig.)