Table 2

Prevalence ratios for MCV1 coverage to adjust for differences between indicators: an approach to comparing vaccination coverage indicators
Comparison indicator Prevalence ratio [95% CI]
Reference indicator Maternal report Card + History EPI records Serum
Serum 1.026 0.954 0.952
[0.998, 1.056] [0.914, 0.996] [0.893, 1.015]
n = 342 n = 342 n = 278
EPI records 1.057 0.976
[1.024, 1.088] [0.940, 1.013]
n = 891 n = 891
Card + History 1.077
[1.059, 1.096]
n = 1226
Maternal report

Note: Estimates are prevalence ratios [95% confidence intervals] to estimate the degree of over- or underestimation for each method used. The prevalence ratio based on comparison indicator (row) divided by reference indicator (column). E.g. the maternal report indicator generates an MCV1 coverage estimate 7.7% higher (PrR: 1.077 = 0.9078/0.8426) than coverage estimated by card + history. Bold indicates statistical significance with a 5% two-sided alpha. Results from this study are presented as an example of a tool governments or EPI programs could develop to compare vaccination coverage estimates from different indicators.

Hayford et al.

Hayford et al. BMC Public Health 2013 13:1211   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-1211

Open Data