Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives
- PMID: 20478960
- PMCID: PMC2871989
- DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c2220
Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives
Erratum in
-
Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives.BMJ. 2016 Nov 29;355:i6423. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6423. BMJ. 2016. PMID: 27899349 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the efficacy of modest non-financial incentives on immunisation rates in children aged 1-3 and to compare it with the effect of only improving the reliability of the supply of services.
Design: Clustered randomised controlled study.
Setting: Rural Rajasthan, India.
Participants: 1640 children aged 1-3 at end point.
Interventions: 134 villages were randomised to one of three groups: a once monthly reliable immunisation camp (intervention A; 379 children from 30 villages); a once monthly reliable immunisation camp with small incentives (raw lentils and metal plates for completed immunisation; intervention B; 382 children from 30 villages), or control (no intervention, 860 children in 74 villages). Surveys were undertaken in randomly selected households at baseline and about 18 months after the interventions started (end point).
Main outcome measures: Proportion of children aged 1-3 at the end point who were partially or fully immunised.
Results: Among children aged 1-3 in the end point survey, rates of full immunisation were 39% (148/382, 95% confidence interval 30% to 47%) for intervention B villages (reliable immunisation with incentives), 18% (68/379, 11% to 23%) for intervention A villages (reliable immunisation without incentives), and 6% (50/860, 3% to 9%) for control villages. The relative risk of complete immunisation for intervention B versus control was 6.7 (4.5 to 8.8) and for intervention B versus intervention A was 2.2 (1.5 to 2.8). Children in areas neighbouring intervention B villages were also more likely to be fully immunised than those from areas neighbouring intervention A villages (1.9, 1.1 to 2.8). The average cost per immunisation was $56 (2202 rupees) in intervention A and $28 (1102 rupees, about pound16 or euro19) in intervention B.
Conclusions: Improving reliability of services improves immunisation rates, but the effect remains modest. Small incentives have large positive impacts on the uptake of immunisation services in resource poor areas and are more cost effective than purely improving supply.
Trial registration: IRSCTN87759937.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at
Figures
Comment in
-
Improving immunisation coverage in rural India.BMJ. 2010 May 17;340:c2553. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c2553. BMJ. 2010. PMID: 20478963 No abstract available.
References
-
- WHO and UNICEF. Global immunization vision and strategy. World Health Organization, 2005. www.who.int/vaccines-documents/DocsPDF05/GIVS_Final_EN.pdf. - PMC - PubMed
-
- Bloom D, Canning D, Weston M. The value of vaccination. World Economics 2005;6:15-39.
-
- WHO and UNICEF. Global immunization data. World Health Organization, 2008. www.who.int/immunization/newsroom/Global_Immunization_Data.pdf. - PMC - PubMed
-
- Lim SS, Stein DB, Charrow A, Murray CJ. Tracking progress towards universal childhood immunisation and the impact of global initiatives: a systematic analysis of three-dose diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis immunisation coverage. Lancet 2008;372:2031-46. - PubMed
-
- Coutinho L, Bisht S, Raje G. Numerical narratives and documentary practices: vaccines, targets and reports of immunisation programme. Econ Polit Wkly 2000;35:656-66.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical