|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|
|[0.998, 1.056]||[0.914, 0.996]||[0.893, 1.015]|
|n = 342||n = 342||n = 278|
|[1.024, 1.088]||[0.940, 1.013]|
|n = 891||n = 891|
|Card + History||1.077||–|
|n = 1226|
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