Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Sep;25(5):393-405.
doi: 10.1093/heapol/czq007. Epub 2010 Feb 25.

Heterogeneity in the validity of administrative-based estimates of immunization coverage across health districts in Burkina Faso: implications for measurement, monitoring and planning

Affiliations

Heterogeneity in the validity of administrative-based estimates of immunization coverage across health districts in Burkina Faso: implications for measurement, monitoring and planning

Slim Haddad et al. Health Policy Plan. 2010 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Data aggregation in national information systems begins at the district level. Decentralization has given districts a lead role in health planning and management, therefore validity of administrative-based estimates at that level is important to improve the performance of immunization information systems.

Objective: To assess the validity of administrative-based immunization estimates and their usability for planning and monitoring activities at district level.

Methods: DTP3 and measles coverage rates from administrative sources were compared with estimates from the EPI cluster survey (ECS) and Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) carried out in 2003 at national and regional levels. ECS estimates were compared with administrative rates across the 52 districts, which were classified into three groups: those where administrative rates were underestimating, overestimating or concordant with ECS estimates (differences within 95% CI of ECS rate).

Results: National rates provided by administrative data and ECS are similar (74% and 71% for DTP3 and 68% and 66% for measles, respectively); DHS estimates are much lower. Regional administrative data show large discrepancies when compared against ECS and DHS data (differences sometimes reaching 30 percentage points). At district level, geographical area is correlated with over- or underestimation by administrative sources, which overestimate DTP3 and measles coverage in remote areas. Underestimation is observed in districts near urban and highly populated centres. Over- and underestimation are independent of the antigen under consideration.

Conclusions: Variability in immunization coverage across districts highlights the limitations of using nationally aggregated indicators. If district data are to be used in monitoring and planning immunization programmes as intended by decentralization, heterogeneity in their validity must be reduced. The authors recommend: (1) strengthening administrative data systems; (2) implementing indicators that are insensitive to population mobility; (3) integrating surveys into monitoring processes at the subnational level; (4) actively promoting the use of coverage information by local personnel and district-level staff.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Data collection periods and targeted children cohorts, by source of data: administrative, DHS and ECS
Figure 2
Figure 2
Coverage gap between the worst and the best performing districts in each region (EPI cluster survey 2003)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Difference in estimates provided by ECS and DHS by region and antigen
Figure 4
Figure 4
Percentage gap between administrative rates (mean 2002–03) and survey rates—DTP3
Figure 5
Figure 5
Percentage gap between administrative rates (mean 2002–03) and survey rates—measles
Figure 6
Figure 6
Level of concordance of estimates: DTP3 coverage rate according to administrative data (mean 2002–03) and to the EPI survey data (2003)
Figure 7
Figure 7
Level of concordance of estimates: measles coverage rate according to administrative data (mean 2002–03) and to the EPI survey data (2003)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Arevshatian L, Clements CJ, Lwanga SK, et al. An evaluation of infant immunization in Africa: is a transformation in progress? Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2007;85:449–57. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Balraj V, Mukundan S, Samuel R, John TJ. Factors affecting immunization coverage levels in a district of India. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1993;22:1146–53. - PubMed
    1. Bishai DM. Global initiatives in universal childhood immunisation. The Lancet. 2008;372:2004–5. - PubMed
    1. Bicaba A, Haddad S, Kabore M, et al. Monitoring the performance of the Expanded Program on Immunization: the case of Burkina Faso. BMC International Health and Human Rights. 2009;9(Suppl. 1):S12. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boerma JT, Sommerfelt AE, Rutstein SO, Rojas G. Columbia, MD: Institute for Resource Development; 1990. Immunization: levels, trends and differentials. DHS Comparative Studies No. 1.

Publication types

MeSH terms