Cargando…

Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania

BACKGROUND: The estimates of vaccination coverage are measured from administrative data and from population based survey. While both card-based and recall data are collected through population survey, and the recall is when the card is missing, the preferred estimates remain of the card-based due to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Binyaruka, Peter, Borghi, Josephine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5998457/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29895298
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3270-z
_version_ 1783331245575372800
author Binyaruka, Peter
Borghi, Josephine
author_facet Binyaruka, Peter
Borghi, Josephine
author_sort Binyaruka, Peter
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The estimates of vaccination coverage are measured from administrative data and from population based survey. While both card-based and recall data are collected through population survey, and the recall is when the card is missing, the preferred estimates remain of the card-based due to limited validity of parental recalls. As there is a concern of missing cards in poor settings, the evidence on validity of parental recalls is limited and varied across vaccine types, and therefore timely and needed. We validated the recalls against card-based data based on population survey in Tanzania. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional survey of about 3000 households with women who delivered in the last 12 months prior to the interview in 2012 from three regions in Tanzania. Data on the vaccination status on four vaccine types were collected using two data sources, card and recall-based. We compared the level of agreement and identified the recall bias between the two data sources. We further computed the sensitivity and specificity of parental recalls, and used a multivariate logit model to identify the determinants of parental recall bias. RESULTS: Most parents (85.4%) were able to present the vaccination cards during the survey, and these were used for analysis. Although the coverage levels were generally similar across data sources, the recall-based data slightly overestimated the coverage estimates. The level of agreement between the two data sources was high above 94%, with minimal recall bias of less than 6%. The recall bias due to over-reporting were slightly higher than that due to under-reporting. The sensitivity of parental recalls was generally high for all vaccine types, while the specificity was generally low across vaccine types except for measles. The minimal recall bias for DPT and measles were associated with the mother’s age, education level, health insurance status, region location and child age. CONCLUSION: Parental recalls when compared to card-based data are hugely accurate with minimal recall bias in Tanzania. Our findings support the use of parental recall collected through surveys to identify the child vaccination status in the absence of vaccination cards. The use of recall data alongside card-based estimates also ensures more representative coverage estimates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5998457
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59984572018-06-25 Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania Binyaruka, Peter Borghi, Josephine BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The estimates of vaccination coverage are measured from administrative data and from population based survey. While both card-based and recall data are collected through population survey, and the recall is when the card is missing, the preferred estimates remain of the card-based due to limited validity of parental recalls. As there is a concern of missing cards in poor settings, the evidence on validity of parental recalls is limited and varied across vaccine types, and therefore timely and needed. We validated the recalls against card-based data based on population survey in Tanzania. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional survey of about 3000 households with women who delivered in the last 12 months prior to the interview in 2012 from three regions in Tanzania. Data on the vaccination status on four vaccine types were collected using two data sources, card and recall-based. We compared the level of agreement and identified the recall bias between the two data sources. We further computed the sensitivity and specificity of parental recalls, and used a multivariate logit model to identify the determinants of parental recall bias. RESULTS: Most parents (85.4%) were able to present the vaccination cards during the survey, and these were used for analysis. Although the coverage levels were generally similar across data sources, the recall-based data slightly overestimated the coverage estimates. The level of agreement between the two data sources was high above 94%, with minimal recall bias of less than 6%. The recall bias due to over-reporting were slightly higher than that due to under-reporting. The sensitivity of parental recalls was generally high for all vaccine types, while the specificity was generally low across vaccine types except for measles. The minimal recall bias for DPT and measles were associated with the mother’s age, education level, health insurance status, region location and child age. CONCLUSION: Parental recalls when compared to card-based data are hugely accurate with minimal recall bias in Tanzania. Our findings support the use of parental recall collected through surveys to identify the child vaccination status in the absence of vaccination cards. The use of recall data alongside card-based estimates also ensures more representative coverage estimates. BioMed Central 2018-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5998457/ /pubmed/29895298 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3270-z Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Binyaruka, Peter
Borghi, Josephine
Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania
title Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania
title_full Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania
title_fullStr Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania
title_full_unstemmed Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania
title_short Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania
title_sort validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from tanzania
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5998457/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29895298
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3270-z
work_keys_str_mv AT binyarukapeter validityofparentalrecallstoestimatevaccinationcoverageevidencefromtanzania
AT borghijosephine validityofparentalrecallstoestimatevaccinationcoverageevidencefromtanzania