IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v10y2020i1d10.1186_s13561-019-0259-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The efficiency of routine infant immunization services in six countries: a comparison of methods

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas A. Menzies

    (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
    Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)

  • Christian Suharlim

    (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)

  • Stephen C. Resch

    (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)

  • Logan Brenzel

    (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)

Abstract

Background Few studies have systematically examined the efficiency of routine infant immunization services. Using a representative sample of infant immunization sites in Benin, Ghana, Honduras, Moldova, Uganda and Zambia (316 total), we estimated average efficiency levels and variation in efficiency within each country, and investigated the properties of published efficiency estimation techniques. Methods Using a dataset describing 316 immunization sites we estimated site-level efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA), and a published ensemble method combining these two approaches. For these three methods we operationalized efficiency using the Sheppard input efficiency measure, which is bounded in (0, 1), with higher values indicating greater efficiency. We also compared these methods to a simple regression approach, which used residuals from a conventional production function as a simplified efficiency index. Inputs were site-level service delivery costs (excluding vaccines) and outputs were total clients receiving DTP3. We analyzed each country separately, and conducted sensitivity analysis for different input/output combinations. Results Using DEA, average input efficiency ranged from 0.40 in Ghana and Moldova to 0.58 in Benin. Using SFA, average input efficiency ranged from 0.43 in Ghana to 0.69 in Moldova. Within each country scores varied widely, with standard deviation of 0.18–0.23 for DEA and 0.10–0.20 for SFA. Input efficiency estimates generated using SFA were systematically higher than for DEA, and the rank correlation between scores ranged between 0.56–0.79. Average input efficiency from the ensemble estimator ranged between 0.41–0.61 across countries, and was highly correlated with the simplified efficiency index (rank correlation 0.81–0.92) as well as the DEA and SFA estimates. Conclusions Results imply costs could be 30–60% lower for fully efficient sites. Such efficiency gains are unlikely to be achievable in practice – some of the apparent inefficiency may reflect measurement errors, or unmodifiable differences in the operating environment. However, adapted to work with routine reporting data and simplified methods, efficiency analysis could triage low performing sites for greater management attention, or identify more efficient sites as models for other facilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas A. Menzies & Christian Suharlim & Stephen C. Resch & Logan Brenzel, 2020. "The efficiency of routine infant immunization services in six countries: a comparison of methods," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-019-0259-1
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-019-0259-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-019-0259-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-019-0259-1?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Léopold Simar & Paul W. Wilson, 1998. "Sensitivity Analysis of Efficiency Scores: How to Bootstrap in Nonparametric Frontier Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 49-61, January.
    2. Fan, Yanqin & Li, Qi & Weersink, Alfons, 1996. "Semiparametric Estimation of Stochastic Production Frontier Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 14(4), pages 460-468, October.
    3. Cliford E. Ebong & Pierre Lévy, 2011. "Impact of the introduction of new vaccines and vaccine wastage rate on the cost-effectiveness of routine EPI: lessons from a descriptive study in a Cameroonian health district," Post-Print hal-01293723, HAL.
    4. Bruce Hollingsworth & Anthony Harris & Elena Gospodarevskaya, 2002. "The efficiency of immunization of infants by local government," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(18), pages 2341-2345.
    5. Laura Di Giorgio & Abraham D Flaxman & Mark W Moses & Nancy Fullman & Michael Hanlon & Ruben O Conner & Alexandra Wollum & Christopher J L Murray, 2016. "Efficiency of Health Care Production in Low-Resource Settings: A Monte-Carlo Simulation to Compare the Performance of Data Envelopment Analysis, Stochastic Distance Functions, and an Ensemble Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7742 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ahn, Heinz & Clermont, Marcel & Langner, Julia, 2023. "Comparative performance analysis of frontier-based efficiency measurement methods – A Monte Carlo simulation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(1), pages 294-312.
    2. Léopold Simar & Paul W. Wilson, 2015. "Statistical Approaches for Non-parametric Frontier Models: A Guided Tour," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 83(1), pages 77-110, April.
    3. Oleg Badunenko & Daniel J. Henderson & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2012. "When, where and how to perform efficiency estimation," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 175(4), pages 863-892, October.
    4. Mitsuhiko Kataoka, 2022. "Perspiration versus inspiration: sources of national and provincial output growth in Indonesia [1990–2015] using province-level non-parametric frontier analysis," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 113-139, February.
    5. Quaranta, Anna Grazia & Raffoni, Anna & Visani, Franco, 2018. "A multidimensional approach to measuring bank branch efficiency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(2), pages 746-760.
    6. Maria Nieswand & Stefan Seifert, 2016. "Operational Conditions in Regulatory Benchmarking Models: A Monte Carlo Analysis," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1585, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Dongwei Su & Xingxing He, 2012. "Ownership structure, corporate governance and productive efficiency in China," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 303-318, December.
    8. Christian Growitsch & Tooraj Jamasb & Christine Müller & Matthias Wissner, 2016. "Social Cost Efficient Service Quality: Integrating Customer Valuation in Incentive Regulation—Evidence from the Case of Norway," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Joe Zhu (ed.), Data Envelopment Analysis, chapter 0, pages 71-91, Springer.
    9. Franz R. Hahn, 2007. "Determinants of Bank Efficiency in Europe. Assessing Bank Performance Across Markets," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 31499, April.
    10. Kerstin Enflo & Per Hjertstrand, 2009. "Relative Sources of European Regional Productivity Convergence: A Bootstrap Frontier Approach," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 643-659.
    11. Atris, Amani Mohammed & Goto, Mika, 2019. "Vertical structure and efficiency assessment of the US oil and gas companies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Léopold Simar & Paul Wilson, 2000. "Statistical Inference in Nonparametric Frontier Models: The State of the Art," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 49-78, January.
    13. George Halkos & Roman Matousek & Nickolaos Tzeremes, 2016. "Pre-evaluating technical efficiency gains from possible mergers and acquisitions: evidence from Japanese regional banks," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 47-77, January.
    14. George E. Halkos & Nickolaos G. Tzeremes, 2015. "Measuring Seaports' Productivity: A Malmquist Productivity Index Decomposition Approach," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 49(2), pages 355-376, April.
    15. Cherchye, L. & Post, G.T., 2001. "Methodological Advances in Dea," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2001-53-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    16. Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul W., 2007. "Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 31-64, January.
    17. Leopold Simar & Paul Wilson, 2000. "A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(6), pages 779-802.
    18. Agasisti, Tommaso & de Oliveira Ribeiro, Celma & Montemor, Daniel Sanches, 2022. "The efficiency of Brazilian elementary public schools," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    19. Michaelides, Panayotis G. & Vouldis, Angelos T. & Tsionas, Efthymios G., 2010. "Globally flexible functional forms: The neural distance function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 456-469, October.
    20. Kuosmanen, Timo & Johnson, Andrew, 2017. "Modeling joint production of multiple outputs in StoNED: Directional distance function approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 792-801.

    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:spr:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-019-0259-1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.