IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1001404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Coverage in MNCH: Design, Implementation, and Interpretation Challenges Associated with Tracking Vaccination Coverage Using Household Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Felicity T Cutts
  • Hector S Izurieta
  • Dale A Rhoda

Abstract

In a PLOS Medicine Review, Felicity Cutts and colleagues describe the challenges facing the estimation of vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries using surveys and recommend ways to improve the measurement of this important public health indicator.Vaccination coverage is an important public health indicator that is measured using administrative reports and/or surveys. The measurement of vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries using surveys is susceptible to numerous challenges. These challenges include selection bias and information bias, which cannot be solved by increasing the sample size, and the precision of the coverage estimate, which is determined by the survey sample size and sampling method. Selection bias can result from an inaccurate sampling frame or inappropriate field procedures and, since populations likely to be missed in a vaccination coverage survey are also likely to be missed by vaccination teams, most often inflates coverage estimates. Importantly, the large multi-purpose household surveys that are often used to measure vaccination coverage have invested substantial effort to reduce selection bias. Information bias occurs when a child's vaccination status is misclassified due to mistakes on his or her vaccination record, in data transcription, in the way survey questions are presented, or in the guardian's recall of vaccination for children without a written record. There has been substantial reliance on the guardian's recall in recent surveys, and, worryingly, information bias may become more likely in the future as immunization schedules become more complex and variable. Finally, some surveys assess immunity directly using serological assays. Sero-surveys are important for assessing public health risk, but currently are unable to validate coverage estimates directly. To improve vaccination coverage estimates based on surveys, we recommend that recording tools and practices should be improved and that surveys should incorporate best practices for design, implementation, and analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Felicity T Cutts & Hector S Izurieta & Dale A Rhoda, 2013. "Measuring Coverage in MNCH: Design, Implementation, and Interpretation Challenges Associated with Tracking Vaccination Coverage Using Household Surveys," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1001404
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001404
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001404&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001404?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McGovern, Mark E. & Canning, David, 2015. "Vaccination and All Cause Child Mortality 1985-2011: Global Evidence from the Demographic and Health Surveys," Working Paper 227741, Harvard University OpenScholar.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pmed00:1001404. 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: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.