It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The success of vaccination programs depends largely on the mechanisms used in vaccine delivery. National immunization programs offer childhood vaccines through fixed and outreach services within the health system and often, additional supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) are undertaken to fill gaps and boost coverage. Here, we map predicted coverage at 1 × 1 km spatial resolution in five low- and middle-income countries to identify areas that are under-vaccinated via each delivery method using Demographic and Health Surveys data. We compare estimates of the coverage of the third dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-containing vaccine (DTP3), which is typically delivered through routine immunization (RI), with those of measles-containing vaccine (MCV) for which SIAs are also undertaken. We find that SIAs have boosted MCV coverage in some places, but not in others, particularly where RI had been deficient, as depicted by DTP coverage. The modelling approaches outlined here can help to guide geographical prioritization and strategy design.
The success of vaccination programs depends largely on the mechanisms used in vaccine delivery. Here, the authors evaluate the relative effectiveness of two major vaccine delivery strategies, namely routine immunization and supplementary immunization activities in five study countries.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 University of Southampton, WorldPop, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Southampton, UK (GRID:grid.5491.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9297); University of Southampton, Southampton Statistical Sciences Research Institute, Southampton, UK (GRID:grid.5491.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9297)
2 University of Southampton, WorldPop, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Southampton, UK (GRID:grid.5491.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9297)
3 University of Southampton, WorldPop, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Southampton, UK (GRID:grid.5491.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9297); Flowminder Foundation, Stockholm SE, Sweden (GRID:grid.475139.d)
4 The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, State College, USA (GRID:grid.29857.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4281)
5 Princeton University, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton, USA (GRID:grid.16750.35) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 5006)
6 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Baltimore, USA (GRID:grid.21107.35) (ISNI:0000 0001 2171 9311)
7 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London, UK (GRID:grid.8991.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0425 469X)