OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent of socio-economic inequity in coverage and timeliness of key childhood immunisations in Ghana. METHODS: Secondary analysis of vaccination card data collected from babies born between January 2008 and January 2010 who were registered in the surveillance system supporting the ObaapaVita and Newhints Trials was carried out. 20 251 babies had 6 weeks' follow-up, 16 652 had 26 weeks' follow-up, and 5568 had 1 year's follow-up. We performed a descriptive analysis of coverage and timeliness of vaccinations by indicators for urban/rural status, wealth and educational attainment. The association of coverage with socio-economic indicators was tested using a chi-square-test and the association with timeliness using Cox regression. RESULTS: Overall coverage at 1 year of age was high (>95%) for Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), all three pentavalent diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus-haemophilus influenzae B-hepatitis B (DPTHH) doses and all polio doses except polio at birth (63%). Coverage against measles and yellow fever was 85%. Median delay for BCG was 1.7 weeks. For polio at birth, the median delay was 5 days; all other vaccine doses had median delays of 2-4 weeks. We found substantial health inequity across all socio-economic indicators for all vaccines in terms of timeliness, but not coverage at 1 year. For example, for the last DPTHH dose, the proportion of children delayed more than 8 weeks were 27% for urban children and 31% for rural children (P < 0.001), 21% in the wealthiest quintile and 41% in the poorest quintile (P < 0.001), and 9% in the most educated group and 39% in the least educated group (P < 0.001). However, 1-year coverage of the same dose remained above 90% for all levels of all socio-economic indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Ghana has substantial health inequity across urban/rural, socio-economic and educational divides. While overall coverage was high, most vaccines suffered from poor timeliness. We suggest that countries achieving high coverage should include timeliness indicators in their surveillance systems.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent of socio-economic inequity in coverage and timeliness of key childhood immunisations in Ghana. METHODS: Secondary analysis of vaccination card data collected from babies born between January 2008 and January 2010 who were registered in the surveillance system supporting the ObaapaVita and Newhints Trials was carried out. 20 251 babies had 6 weeks' follow-up, 16 652 had 26 weeks' follow-up, and 5568 had 1 year's follow-up. We performed a descriptive analysis of coverage and timeliness of vaccinations by indicators for urban/rural status, wealth and educational attainment. The association of coverage with socio-economic indicators was tested using a chi-square-test and the association with timeliness using Cox regression. RESULTS: Overall coverage at 1 year of age was high (>95%) for Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), all three pentavalent diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus-haemophilus influenzae B-hepatitis B (DPTHH) doses and all polio doses except polio at birth (63%). Coverage against measles and yellow fever was 85%. Median delay for BCG was 1.7 weeks. For polio at birth, the median delay was 5 days; all other vaccine doses had median delays of 2-4 weeks. We found substantial health inequity across all socio-economic indicators for all vaccines in terms of timeliness, but not coverage at 1 year. For example, for the last DPTHH dose, the proportion of children delayed more than 8 weeks were 27% for urban children and 31% for rural children (P < 0.001), 21% in the wealthiest quintile and 41% in the poorest quintile (P < 0.001), and 9% in the most educated group and 39% in the least educated group (P < 0.001). However, 1-year coverage of the same dose remained above 90% for all levels of all socio-economic indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Ghana has substantial health inequity across urban/rural, socio-economic and educational divides. While overall coverage was high, most vaccines suffered from poor timeliness. We suggest that countries achieving high coverage should include timeliness indicators in their surveillance systems.
Authors: Lana Childs; Paul Adrien; Anna A Minta; Jeannot François; Nadia Phaïmyr Jn Charles; Valery Blot; Gloria Rey-Benito; Jodi L Vanden Eng; Rania A Tohme Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Bridget C Griffith; Sarah E Cusick; Kelly M Searle; Diana M Negoescu; Nicole E Basta; Cecily Banura Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Fabricia Oliveira Saraiva; Ruth Minamisava; Maria Aparecida da Silva Vieira; Ana Luiza Bierrenbach; Ana Lucia Andrade Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hazzie Mvula; Ellen Heinsbroek; Menard Chihana; Amelia C Crampin; Storn Kabuluzi; Geoffrey Chirwa; Charles Mwansambo; Anthony Costello; Nigel A Cunliffe; Robert S Heyderman; Neil French; Naor Bar-Zeev Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kobina Assan Ampah; Carlos Augusto Pinho-Nascimento; Sarah Kerber; Prince Asare; Daniel De-Graft; Frank Adu-Nti; Izabel C N P Paixão; Christian Niel; Dorothy Yeboah-Manu; Gerd Pluschke; Katharina Röltgen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Emmanuel Quansah; Lilian Akorfa Ohene; Linda Norman; Michael Osei Mireku; Thomas K Karikari Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 3.240