Cargando…
Monitoring vaccination coverage: Defining the role of surveys
Vaccination coverage is a widely used indicator of programme performance, measured by registries, routine administrative reports or household surveys. Because the population denominator and the reported number of vaccinations used in administrative estimates are often inaccurate, survey data are oft...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier Science
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4967442/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27349841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.06.053 |
_version_ | 1782445514728407040 |
---|---|
author | Cutts, Felicity T. Claquin, Pierre Danovaro-Holliday, M. Carolina Rhoda, Dale A. |
author_facet | Cutts, Felicity T. Claquin, Pierre Danovaro-Holliday, M. Carolina Rhoda, Dale A. |
author_sort | Cutts, Felicity T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Vaccination coverage is a widely used indicator of programme performance, measured by registries, routine administrative reports or household surveys. Because the population denominator and the reported number of vaccinations used in administrative estimates are often inaccurate, survey data are often considered to be more reliable. Many countries obtain survey data on vaccination coverage every 3–5 years from large-scale multi-purpose survey programs. Additional surveys may be needed to evaluate coverage in Supplemental Immunization Activities such as measles or polio campaigns, or after major changes have occurred in the vaccination programme or its context. When a coverage survey is undertaken, rigorous statistical principles and field protocols should be followed to avoid selection bias and information bias. This requires substantial time, expertise and resources hence the role of vaccination coverage surveys in programme monitoring needs to be carefully defined. At times, programmatic monitoring may be more appropriate and provides data to guide program improvement. Practical field methods such as health facility-based assessments can evaluate multiple aspects of service provision, costs, coverage (among clinic attendees) and data quality. Similarly, purposeful sampling or censuses of specific populations can help local health workers evaluate their own performance and understand community attitudes, without trying to claim that the results are representative of the entire population. Administrative reports enable programme managers to do real-time monitoring, investigate potential problems and take timely remedial action, thus improvement of administrative estimates is of high priority. Most importantly, investment in collecting data needs to be complemented by investment in acting on results to improve performance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4967442 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Elsevier Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49674422016-08-04 Monitoring vaccination coverage: Defining the role of surveys Cutts, Felicity T. Claquin, Pierre Danovaro-Holliday, M. Carolina Rhoda, Dale A. Vaccine Review Vaccination coverage is a widely used indicator of programme performance, measured by registries, routine administrative reports or household surveys. Because the population denominator and the reported number of vaccinations used in administrative estimates are often inaccurate, survey data are often considered to be more reliable. Many countries obtain survey data on vaccination coverage every 3–5 years from large-scale multi-purpose survey programs. Additional surveys may be needed to evaluate coverage in Supplemental Immunization Activities such as measles or polio campaigns, or after major changes have occurred in the vaccination programme or its context. When a coverage survey is undertaken, rigorous statistical principles and field protocols should be followed to avoid selection bias and information bias. This requires substantial time, expertise and resources hence the role of vaccination coverage surveys in programme monitoring needs to be carefully defined. At times, programmatic monitoring may be more appropriate and provides data to guide program improvement. Practical field methods such as health facility-based assessments can evaluate multiple aspects of service provision, costs, coverage (among clinic attendees) and data quality. Similarly, purposeful sampling or censuses of specific populations can help local health workers evaluate their own performance and understand community attitudes, without trying to claim that the results are representative of the entire population. Administrative reports enable programme managers to do real-time monitoring, investigate potential problems and take timely remedial action, thus improvement of administrative estimates is of high priority. Most importantly, investment in collecting data needs to be complemented by investment in acting on results to improve performance. Elsevier Science 2016-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4967442/ /pubmed/27349841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.06.053 Text en © 2016 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Cutts, Felicity T. Claquin, Pierre Danovaro-Holliday, M. Carolina Rhoda, Dale A. Monitoring vaccination coverage: Defining the role of surveys |
title | Monitoring vaccination coverage: Defining the role of surveys |
title_full | Monitoring vaccination coverage: Defining the role of surveys |
title_fullStr | Monitoring vaccination coverage: Defining the role of surveys |
title_full_unstemmed | Monitoring vaccination coverage: Defining the role of surveys |
title_short | Monitoring vaccination coverage: Defining the role of surveys |
title_sort | monitoring vaccination coverage: defining the role of surveys |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4967442/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27349841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.06.053 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cuttsfelicityt monitoringvaccinationcoveragedefiningtheroleofsurveys AT claquinpierre monitoringvaccinationcoveragedefiningtheroleofsurveys AT danovarohollidaymcarolina monitoringvaccinationcoveragedefiningtheroleofsurveys AT rhodadalea monitoringvaccinationcoveragedefiningtheroleofsurveys |