Skip to main content

Measuring the Performance of Vaccination Programs Using Cross-Sectional Surveys: A Likelihood Framework and Retrospective Analysis

Author(s): Lessler, Justin; Metcalf, C. Jessica E.; Grais, Rebecca F.; Luquero, Francisco J.; Cummings, Derek A. T.; et al

To refer to this page use:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLessler, Justin-
dc.contributor.authorMetcalf, C. Jessica E.-
dc.contributor.authorGrais, Rebecca F.-
dc.contributor.authorLuquero, Francisco J.-
dc.contributor.authorCummings, Derek A. T.-
dc.contributor.authorGrenfell, Bryan T.-
dc.identifier.citationLessler, Justin, Metcalf, C. Jessica E., Grais, Rebecca F., Luquero, Francisco J., Cummings, Derek A. T., Grenfell, Bryan T. (2011). Measuring the Performance of Vaccination Programs Using Cross-Sectional Surveys: A Likelihood Framework and Retrospective Analysis. PLoS Medicine, 8 (10), e1001110 - e1001110. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001110en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: The performance of routine and supplemental immunization activities is usually measured by the administrative method: dividing the number of doses distributed by the size of the target population. This method leads to coverage estimates that are sometimes impossible (e.g., vaccination of 102% of the target population), and are generally inconsistent with the proportion found to be vaccinated in Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). We describe a method that estimates the fraction of the population accessible to vaccination activities, as well as within-campaign inefficiencies, thus providing a consistent estimate of vaccination coverage. Methods and Findings: We developed a likelihood framework for estimating the effective coverage of vaccination programs using cross-sectional surveys of vaccine coverage combined with administrative data. We applied our method to measles vaccination in three African countries: Ghana, Madagascar, and Sierra Leone, using data from each country’s most recent DHS survey and administrative coverage data reported to the World Health Organization. We estimate that 93% (95% CI: 91, 94) of the population in Ghana was ever covered by any measles vaccination activity, 77% (95% CI: 78, 81) in Madagascar, and 69% (95% CI: 67, 70) in Sierra Leone. ‘‘Within-activity’’ inefficiencies were estimated to be low in Ghana, and higher in Sierra Leone and Madagascar. Our model successfully fits age-specific vaccination coverage levels seen in DHS data, which differ markedly from those predicted by naive extrapolation from country-reported and World Health Organization–adjusted vaccination coverage. Conclusions: Combining administrative data with survey data substantially improves estimates of vaccination coverage. Estimates of the inefficiency of past vaccination activities and the proportion not covered by any activity allow us to more accurately predict the results of future activities and provide insight into the ways in which vaccination programs are failing to meet their goals.en_US
dc.format.extente1001110 - e1001110en_US
dc.relation.ispartofPLoS Medicineen_US
dc.rightsFinal published version. This is an open access article.en_US
dc.titleMeasuring the Performance of Vaccination Programs Using Cross-Sectional Surveys: A Likelihood Framework and Retrospective Analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
journal.pmed.1001110.PDF357.43 kBAdobe PDFView/Download

Items in OAR@Princeton are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.