4.2 Article

Estimation of population coverage for antibiotic distribution for trachoma control: a comparison of methods

期刊

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
卷 1, 期 2, 页码 182-189

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.inhe.2009.09.002

关键词

Coverage survey; mass drug administration; population coverage; SAFE strategy; Southern Sudan; trachoma

资金

  1. Carter Center Trachoma Control Programme
  2. Lions Clubs International Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trachoma control includes mass drug administration (MDA) with antibiotics targeting coverage of at least 80%. Coverage is traditionally calculated by dividing doses distributed by population estimate, which is unreliable. We compared a verifiable coverage assessment method against self-reported participation and the traditional calculation, and examined factors associated with MDA participation in Akobo County, Southern Sudan. During MDA, recipients were marked with indelible ink and followed-up using a two-stage household survey: 25 clusters from three districts, and 10 households per cluster. All household members were enumerated; asked about self-reported participation and observed for indelible marks. Household heads were interviewed to assess factors associated with MDA. Overall 11 419 treatments were given and 1358 residents from 247 households surveyed. By traditional methods MDA coverage was 20.9% (95% CI: 20.6-21.3); 61.5% (95 % CI: 49.4-716) by self-reporting; and 37.5% (95% CI: 25.1%-49.9%) from observed ink marks. Controlling for other factors, presence of a health worker (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.5-3.6); head of household knowledge of azithromycin (OR 1.6, 95% CI: 1.5-3.1); and head of household advance notice of MDA (OR 34.9, 18.1-66.3) were independent predictors of participation. Cluster randomised surveys can estimate MDA coverage better than the traditional method and implementation of indelible marking merits investigation. (C) 2009 Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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