Measles vaccination among children in border areas of Yunnan Province, Southwest China

Less than one-fifth of Ethiopian children were vaccinated for measles second dose; evidence from the Ethiopian mini demographic and health survey 2019

Ethiopia introduced the measles second dose vaccine from the routine expanded immunization program in 2018. Shreds of evidence are scarce on the measles second dose vaccination coverage and its associated factors in Ethiopia. We aimed to assess the measles second dose vaccination coverage and associated factors in Ethiopia using the recent Ethiopian Mini Demographic and Health Survey (EMDHS) 2019 data. An in-depth secondary data analysis was conducted based on the Ethiopian mini demographic and health survey 2019 data; which was a cross-sectional survey targeted on key indicators of maternal and child health. A weighted sample of 965 children was included in the analysis. A multi-level mixed effect logistics regression model was fitted. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with 95 %CI was reported for statistically significant variables. The measles second dose coverage was 12.36 % (95 %CI = 10.89, 15.44). Not vaccinated for the third dose of pentavalent vaccine (Penta 3) (AOR = 0.60, 95 %CI: 0.37, 0.95), age of the child [13 to 23 months (AOR = 2.14, 95 %CI: 1.05, 4.36), 24 to 36 months (AOR = 2.58, 95 %CI: 1.32, 5.05)], household head educational status [no education (AOR = 0.51,95 %CI: 0.26, 0.99), primary (AOR = 0.44, 95 %CI: 0.23, 0.85)], and living in south nation, nationalities and peoples region (SNNPR) (AOR = 2.83,95 %CI: 1.12, 7.11) were significantly associated with measles second dose vaccination coverage. Measles second dose vaccination coverage was low in Ethiopia. Age of the child, being vaccinated for the Penta 3, educational status of the household head, and region of residence were significant determinants of measles second dose vaccination coverage.

Timeliness of routine childhood vaccination in 103 low-and middle-income countries, 1978-2021: A scoping review to map measurement and methodological gaps

Empiric studies exploring the timeliness of routine vaccination in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have gained momentum in the last decade. Nevertheless, there is emerging evidence suggesting that these studies have key measurement and methodological gaps that limit their comparability and utility. Hence, there is a need to identify, and document these gaps which could inform the design, conduct, and reporting of future research on the timeliness of vaccination. We synthesised the literature to determine the methodological and measurement gaps in the assessment of vaccination timeliness in LMICs. We searched five electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles in English and French that evaluated vaccination timeliness in LMICs, and were published between 01 January 1978, and 01 July 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts of relevant articles, following the guidance framework for scoping reviews by the Joanna Briggs Institute. From the 4263 titles identified, we included 224 articles from 103 countries. China (40), India (27), and Kenya (23) had the highest number of publications respectively. Of the three domains of timeliness, the most studied domain was 'delayed vaccination' [99.5% (223/224)], followed by 'early vaccination' [21.9% (49/224)], and 'untimely interval vaccination' [9% (20/224)]. Definitions for early (seven different definitions), untimely interval (four different definitions), and delayed vaccination (19 different definitions) varied across the studies. Most studies [72.3% (166/224)] operationalised vaccination timeliness as a categorical variable, compared to only 9.8% (22/224) of studies that operationalised timeliness as continuous variables. A large proportion of studies [47.8% (107/224)] excluded the data of children with no written vaccination records irrespective of caregivers' recall of their vaccination status. Our findings show that studies on vaccination timeliness in LMICs has measurement and methodological gaps. We recommend the development and implement of guidelines for measuring and reporting vaccination timeliness to bridge these gaps.