4.1 Article

Assessing full immunisation coverage using lot quality assurance sampling in urban and rural districts of southwest Nigeria

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/trstmh/trt079

关键词

Immunisation coverage; Full immunisation; Vaccination schedule; Lot quality assurance sampling; Nigeria; Vaccine preventable diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study was conducted to identify administrative wards (lots) with unacceptable levels of full child immunisation coverage, and to identify factors associated with achievement of a complete child immunisation schedule in Ibadan North East (IBNE) and Ido local government areas (LGAs) of Oyo State, Nigeria. Methods: A cross-sectional survey involving 1178 mothers, 588 from IBNE LGAs and 590 from Ido LGAs, with children 12-23 months of age was conducted. Children were considered 'fully-immunised' if they received all the vaccines included in the immunisation schedule. Lot quality assurance sampling was used to determine lots with acceptable and non-acceptable coverage. Samples were weighted based on the population by lot to estimate overall coverage in the two LGAs and a logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with the fully immunised child. Results: Mean age of the mothers was 28.5+/-5.6 and 28.1+/-6.0 years in IBNE and Ido LGAs, respectively. Eleven of 12 wards in IBNE and all the wards in Ido had unacceptable coverage. The proportion of fully immunised children was 40.2% in IBNE and 41.3% in Ido. Maternal age >= 30 years, retention of an immunisation card, completion of tertiary education, or secondary education, hospital birth and first-order birth were significant predictors of complete childhood immunisation. Conclusion: The level of full immunisation coverage was unacceptable in almost all the wards. Educational intervention on the importance of completion of immunisation schedule should target young, uneducated mothers, mothers who delivered their babies at home and those with a high birth order.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据