Search

This study evaluated the performance, acceptability, costs, and systems fit of three new cold chain devices in India: a second-generation ice-lined refrigerator (ILR), a solar direct drive (SDD) refrigerator, and a long-term passive device (LTPD). The evaluation was conducted over 15 months during 2016–2017. Sites were selected for their diversity in climate, terrain, and grid electrical supply, and 31 cold chain devices were deployed, 1 to each site. Results showed that all three technologies maintained correct temperatures. The SDD refrigerators had no malfunctions, whilst the ILRs had at least one malfunction, mostly due to the printed circuit board’s sensitivity to the erratic power supply. The LTPD temperature display panel caused challenges initially that required replacement of all solar panels with lithium batteries. Yet the devices’ long holdovers helped ensure vaccine potency. One challenge, particularly with the ILRs and SDD refrigerators, was condensation. The passively cooled LTPD was valued in settings with smaller populations and unreliable or no power; however, some its features, including the need to condition ice blocks, made it challenging to operate. In addition, the acceptable temperature range for the LTPD, as for all passively cooled devices (greater than 0 °C and less than + 10 °C), was confusing for some health workers due to the decades-long emphasis on maintaining temperatures at + 2 °C to + 8 °C. The greatest system-related benefit was establishment of new cold chain points (CCPs) at locations with intermittent or no grid electricity, bringing immunisation services closer to hard-to-reach areas. A key limitation of all three devices was the inability to freeze ice packs, which are required for vaccine carriers, somewhat restricting the potential of these technologies to reach underserved populations. Moreover, establishing new CCPs added costs to the health system. Results from this study, including costing data, can help guide decision-making.

This study evaluated the performance, acceptability, costs, and systems fit of three new cold chain devices in India: a second-generation ice-lined refrigerator (ILR), a solar direct drive (SDD) refrigerator, and a long-term passive device (LTPD). The evaluation was conducted over 15 months during 2016-2017. Sites were selected for their diversity in climate, terrain, and grid electrical supply, and 31 cold chain devices were deployed, 1 to each site. Results showed that all three technologies maintained correct temperatures. The SDD refrigerators had no malfunctions, whilst the ILRs had at least one malfunction, mostly due to the printed circuit board's sensitivity to the erratic power supply. The LTPD temperature display panel caused challenges initially that required replacement of all solar panels with lithium batteries. Yet the devices' long holdovers helped ensure vaccine potency. One challenge, particularly with the ILRs and SDD refrigerators, was condensation. The passively cooled LTPD was valued in settings with smaller populations and unreliable or no power; however, some its features, including the need to condition ice blocks, made it challenging to operate. In addition, the acceptable temperature range for the LTPD, as for all passively cooled devices (greater than 0 °C and less than + 10 °C), was confusing for some health workers due to the decades-long emphasis on maintaining temperatures at + 2 °C to + 8 °C. The greatest system-related benefit was establishment of new cold chain points (CCPs) at locations with intermittent or no grid electricity, bringing immunisation services closer to hard-to-reach areas. A key limitation of all three devices was the inability to freeze ice packs, which are required for vaccine carriers, somewhat restricting the potential of these technologies to reach underserved populations. Moreover, establishing new CCPs added costs to the health system. Results from this study, including costing data, can help guide decision-making., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Author(s).)