Assessment of missed opportunities for vaccination in Kenyan health facilities, 2016.

BACKGROUND: In November 2016, the Kenya National Vaccines and Immunization Programme conducted an assessment of missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) using the World Health Organization (WHO) MOV methodology. A MOV includes any contact with health services during which an eligible individual does not receive all the vaccine doses for which he or she is eligible.
METHODS: The MOV assessment in Kenya was conducted in 10 geographically diverse counties, comprising exit interviews with caregivers and knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) surveys with health workers. On the survey dates, which covered a 4-day period in November 2016, all health workers and caregivers visiting the selected health facilities with children <24 months of age were eligible to participate. Health facilities (n = 4 per county) were purposively selected by size, location, ownership, and performance. We calculated the proportion of MOV among children eligible for vaccination and with documented vaccination histories (i.e., from a home-based record or health facility register), and stratified MOV by age and reason for visit. Timeliness of vaccine doses was also calculated.
RESULTS: We conducted 677 age-eligible children exit interviews and 376 health worker KAP surveys. Of the 558 children with documented vaccination histories, 33% were visiting the health facility for a vaccination visit and 67% were for other reasons. A MOV was seen in 75% (244/324) of children eligible for vaccination with documented vaccination histories, with 57% (186/324) receiving no vaccinations. This included 55% of children visiting for a vaccination visit and 93% visiting for non-vaccination visits. Timeliness for multi-dose vaccine series doses decreased with subsequent doses. Among health workers, 25% (74/291) were unable to correctly identify the national vaccination schedule for vaccines administered during the first year of life. Among health workers who reported administering vaccines as part of their daily work, 39% (55/142) reported that they did not always have the materials they needed for patients seeking immunization services, such as vaccines, syringes, and vaccination recording documents.
CONCLUSIONS: The MOV assessment in Kenya highlighted areas of improvement that could reduce MOV. The results suggest several interventions including standardizing health worker practices, implementing an orientation package for all health workers, and developing a stock management module to reduce stock-outs of vaccines and vaccination-related supplies. To improve vaccination coverage and equity in all counties in Kenya, interventions to reduce MOV should be considered as part of an overall immunization service improvement plan.

Background

A missed opportunity for vaccination (MOV) includes any contact with health services by a child (or adult) who is eligible for vaccination (unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or not up-to-date, and free of contraindications to vaccination), which does not result in the individual receiving all the vaccine doses for which he or she is eligible [1, 2]. Studies have shown that MOV can occur for a variety of reasons including health workers not checking vaccination status, limited integration of vaccination services with other health services, a shortage of staff administering vaccines, poor vaccination card retention, and stock-outs of vaccines or related supplies [1, 3–9]. MOV may be hindering countries from increasing their vaccination coverage; successful efforts to address MOV have the potential to help countries reach their immunization targets, improve timeliness, and promote integration between health programs.

Globally, the first systematic literature review of MOV identified a global median MOV prevalence of 32% among both children and women of childbearing age who visited a health center and 67% among the subpopulation of women and children eligible for vaccination at the time of visit [1]. An updated systematic review published in 2014 identified the same global median MOV prevalence of 32% among children and 47% among women of childbearing age who visited a health center [10]. Unfortunately, these systematic literature reviews of MOV prevalence have shown limited progress in the reduction of MOVs globally over the course of the past 20 years [1, 10].

In 2008, Kenya endorsed a national multi-year strategic plan for development, Vision 2030, which has set a target of 90% vaccination coverage for all infants of all recommended vaccines [11]. Since then, the Kenya National Vaccines and Immunization Programme (NVIP) has introduced several new vaccines including pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) (2011), the second dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV) (2013), and rotavirus vaccine (2014) [12, 13]. In 2016, however, 35% of the annual birth cohort remained under-vaccinated [14, 15]. A proportion of these children in Kenya may already be accessing health facilities for other health services but may be missed for vaccination. A review of Demographic and Health Survey data in 2014 found an MOV prevalence of 42% and a study of children of Maasai nomadic pastoralists conducted in 2016 found the prevalence of MOV to be 30% [4, 16]. Another study among children in an urban poor settlement of Nairobi, Kenya found that 22% of children who were fully immunized by 12 months had received their vaccine doses out of the recommended order [17]. Unfortunately, previous studies assessing MOV or factors related to MOV have been limited in scope and have used varying methodologies, leading to limitations in comparability [4, 16, 18–23].

In 2016, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization endorsed the updated World Health Organization’s (WHO) strategy for assessing MOV [24]. The standardized methodology has three phases: a desk review, facility-based field assessment of MOV (primary data collection including quantitative and qualitative field work), and an intervention phase. The updated methodology focuses on triangulation of data to develop actionable country-driven interventions to reduce MOV [2, 25, 26]. As of April 2019, a total of 12 countries across four WHO regions have implemented this methodology [7–9, 27, 28]. Recent studies in Chad, Malawi and Timor Leste using the updated WHO methodology showed that between 41–66% of eligible children had made contact with the health system and were not vaccinated with all the vaccines for which they were eligible [8, 29]. In November 2016, to better understand the reasons for under-vaccination and to prioritize needed interventions, the Kenya NVIP conducted a MOV assessment using the updated WHO methodology [28]. This paper details the findings from the quantitative component of the MOV assessment. The results of the qualitative component of the Kenya MOV assessment have been described in detail in a separate manuscript [28].

Methods

Study design

A cross-sectional study design employing both qualitative and quantitative methods was used. Study aims included understanding how many MOVs are occurring, why they are occurring, and what interventions can be implemented to address identified gaps and barriers to full vaccination of infants and children [2]. The quantitative component of the WHO MOV methodology, described in this paper, included exit interviews with caregivers of children <24 months and anonymous self-administered health worker knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) surveys. The WHO guides on the MOV strategy and past MOV assessments provide more detailed information on the general process and expected outcomes [2, 7, 8, 25–28].

Data collection tools

Prior to deployment for field work, field staff adapted the data collection tools (caregiver exit questionnaire and the health worker KAP) to the Kenyan context from the generic questionnaires available from WHO [2, 26]. The caregiver exit questionnaire collected demographic information, vaccination history, awareness of routine immunization services, and perceived quality of the vaccination services. The health worker KAP questionnaire collected demographic information, knowledge and attitudes toward vaccination, and additional questions on vaccination practices and decision-making specifically for health workers who reported that they routinely administer vaccines as part of their daily duties. Both questionnaires included core questions and additional questions (not required), and single and multi-select responses. All questionnaires were written in English, but exit interviews were conducted in English or Swahili depending on the preference of the respondent. Health worker KAP surveys were self-administered with a surveyor available to help assist with language and the electronic platform, as needed. Prior to data collection, all field tools were pretested for country context and ease of administration [2, 26].

Data collection

Field work for the MOV assessment took place over 10 days in November 2016. Data collectors were trained during the first three days, followed by four days of data collection and three days of data analysis, brainstorming and debrief. All data collectors reconvened for the brainstorming sessions and finalization of the intervention action plan. Data collectors consisted of staff from the NVIP, Kenya Ministry of Health (MoH), and various in-country immunization partners as well as international development partners (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and WHO).

Using the guidance provided in the MOV methodology, the NVIP selected 10 counties for field data collection [26]. The counties selected were Bungoma, Kajiado, Kiambu, Kitui, Migori, Mombasa, Nakuru, Taita Taveta, Trans Nzoia, and West Pokot. The 10 counties represented a geographical spread across the country and various immunization performance levels (as indicated by coverage of the third dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-hepatitis B-Haemophilus influenzae type b or pentavalent vaccine). In each county, from a list of all health facilities, the MOV strategy team purposively selected four health facilities for quantitative data collection, regardless of whether or not they were providing immunization services daily. The health facilities included were of varying sizes (Kenya Essential Health Package [KEPH] levels 2–5), ownerships (MoH, Non-Governmental Organization [NGO], faith-based, private), and types (hospitals, health centers, and dispensaries). Due to the limited timeframe for data collection, the MOV strategy team also took logistics and ease of accessibility into account when determining the final sample of health facilities.

Teams of three to four data collectors were deployed to each of the 10 selected counties. Team members were purposively assigned by the MOV strategy team to ensure a mix of representation from local immunization partners, gender, local language ability, and field survey skills.

Data collectors conducted exit interviews as caregivers were leaving each health facility after receiving health services. Each team spent one day per health facility. Each team was expected to conduct 20 exit surveys per health facility per day, approaching sequential caregivers leaving the health facility until they achieved 20 completed exit surveys. All caregivers who were 15 years of age or older and who were leaving the health facility with a child <24 months on the days of field work were eligible and were requested to participate in the survey. If a caregiver was accompanied by more than one child, the survey questions were asked about the youngest child. No specific efforts were made to obtain equal samples of children in different age groups (e.g. <12 months or between 12 and 24 months). Data collectors recorded the child’s dates of vaccination from their mother-and-child health (MCH) booklets, which contains a child’s comprehensive vaccination history in Kenya, or other temporary documents. If mothers did not have documentation of the child’s vaccination dates, data collectors requested basic demographic information for use to later abstract vaccination dates from the health facility register following the survey. Oral vaccination histories were not accepted as a substitute. If no MCH booklets or temporary document was available, and the data collector was unable to locate the child’s records in the health facility register, no vaccination dates were recorded in the questionnaire.

For the health worker KAP surveys, all health workers at the health facility, regardless of whether routine immunization service delivery was part of their daily work, were requested to participate. Each team was expected to conduct 10 health worker KAP surveys per health facility visited.

All data were collected electronically using a tablet survey software platform (Zegeba AS [Alesund, Norway]). Data collection teams were assigned unique logins for the survey platform specific to their field site. Only key study staff from the MOV strategy team had access to all survey data. Surveys were uploaded to a secure network daily.

Data analysis

Survey data were downloaded directly (in Excel format) from the secure electronic network for analysis. Data were analyzed using STATA (version 14.2, College Station, Texas). Following standard methodology used in the analysis of previous MOV assessments, we created a flow chart to identify children with MOV (Fig 1) [1, 8]. We created frequency distributions for children with documented vaccination dates, and those eligible for one or more vaccine doses at the visit. We calculated MOV based on the child’s date of birth and interview date, the national schedule, and the presence of contraindications (as reported by the caregiver). Only children who were eligible for one or more vaccine doses at the visit, and who had a documented vaccination history or evidence of a blank MCH booklet, were included in the calculation of child-based prevalence of MOV. Each child could only be eligible for one dose of a particular vaccine; if all doses in a vaccine series were overdue, only one dose could be given at the visit and thus counted only as one child-based MOV. We differentiated between children that had received all eligible doses, some, but not all the doses, and no doses. All antigens in the Kenyan national immunization schedule were included in the calculation of MOV except for inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) and yellow fever (YF) vaccine; these antigens were newly introduced and not available in every selected county at the time of the assessment. We cross tabulated MOV by key demographic variables, including reason for visit and age.

Fig 1

Health-center-based flow-chart for determining missed opportunities for vaccination, Kenya, 2016.

1All children were without contraindications; 2Missed opportunity for vaccination (MOV): contact with health services by a child (or adult) who is eligible for vaccination (unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or not up-to-date, and free of contraindications to vaccination), which does not result in the individual receiving all vaccine doses for which they are eligible [1, 2].

We also calculated timeliness of all vaccine doses received (not only those received on the day of exit interview). Timeliness was based on the child’s date of birth, vaccination date, and the nationally recommended ages for each vaccine dose. We created timeliness intervals (too early, timely, and late) based on the national schedule and past studies (Table 1) [8, 17, 30, 31]. These categories do not imply validity of the doses given, but are simply a measure of the interval between the nationally recommended age (based on the national schedule) and the actual date of vaccination. Antigens in the Kenya NVIP have no recommended maximum interval between doses and the NVIP had lifted the age restrictions for rotavirus vaccine prior to this assessment. Since the maximum age of children in this survey was <24 months, the maximum recommended ages for all the antigens were higher than the ages of the study population [12, 32]. IPV and YF were also excluded from the timeliness analysis.

Table 1

Time intervals used for classifying timeliness of vaccination doses received by surveyed children (<24 months), using the nationally recommended ages for vaccination, missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) assessment, Kenya, 2016.

Vaccine	Recommended age of vaccination	Too early	Timely	Late
Birth dose
BCG2	Birth	--	0–30 days	>30 days
OPV3			0–14 days	>14 days
First dose
Pentavalent4 vaccine	6 weeks (42 days)	<42 days	42–56 days	>56 days
OPV3
PCV5
Rotavirus vaccine
Second dose
Pentavalent4 vaccine	10 weeks (70 days)	<70 days	70–84 days	>84 days
OPV3
PCV5
Rotavirus vaccine
Third dose
Pentavalent4 vaccine	14 weeks (98 days)	<98 days	98–112 days	>112 days
OPV3
PCV5
MCV6 first dose	9 months (270 days)	<270 days	270–365 days	>365 days
MCV6 second dose	18 months (548 days)	<548 days	548–730 days	>730 days

1 The table does not comprehensively include all vaccines listed in the national immunization schedule for children <24 months; newly introduced vaccines at the time of assessment (2016) were excluded (inactivated polio vaccine and yellow fever vaccine).

2 bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine.

3 Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

4 Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-hepatitis B-Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (Pentavalent).

5 Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV).

6 Measles-containing vaccine (MCV).

Ethical approval

The MOV assessment protocol was reviewed by the Kenya MoH and categorized as a program assessment. As a program assessment, it was considered exempt from additional Institutional Review Board review. Prior to administering surveys, all data collectors informed participants about the details of the assessment and obtained verbal consent. As there was no personally identifiable information collected, the Kenya MoH considered verbal consent to be appropriate, since participation posed minimal risk to the participants. Informed verbal consent was recorded by the interviewer on the data collection tool.

Results

There were 690 caregivers surveyed during the exit interviews (Fig 1) and 376 health workers completed the KAP surveys. Thirteen children were excluded from the analysis of the exit surveys because of ineligibility by age or a missing date of birth. Of the remaining 677 age-eligible children, 558 children had documented vaccination dates (obtained by the data collector either from the child’s MCH booklet or health facility register). Of the 558 children with documented vaccination dates, 324 children were eligible for and due for at least one vaccine during the health facility visit. None of the caregivers or health workers who were approached for inclusion refused to participate in the study.

Caregiver exit interviews

Demographics of children and caregivers

Caregivers from 10 counties in Kenya were interviewed with a median of 56 interviews and interquartile range (IQR) of 33–81 interviews per county. Of 558 children with documented vaccination dates, 75% were <12 months of age and 25% were between 12 and <24 months of age (Table 2). Most interviewed caregivers were mothers (95%) and most could read and write (88%). Approximately 33% of visits were for vaccination and 67% were for other reasons.

Table 2

Characteristics of surveyed caregivers of children with documented vaccination dates, missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) assessment, Kenya, 2016.

	n	%
	558
Child demographics
Sex	550
Male	286	52
Female	264	48
Age	558
<12 months	420	75
≥12 months	138	25
Ever vaccinated	551
Yes	542	98
No	9	2
Caregiver demographics
Relationship to child	554
Mother	527	95
Father	4	1
Other (Grandparent, Uncle/Aunt, Sibling, Other)	23	4
Caregiver can read and write	462
Yes	406	88
No	56	12
Educational Level	554
None	42	8
At least some primary	308	56
At least some secondary	204	37
Health facility visit
What was your reason for visiting the health facility today?	558
Medical consultation	149	27
Vaccination	182	33
Healthy child visit or check-up	154	28
Child is accompanying adult or sibling	50	9
Hospitalization	2	0
Other or no reason reported	21	4
Does your child have a mother-and-child health (MCH) booklet?	556
Yes, and it is available at this visit	509	92
Yes, but not available at today’s visit	38	7
No	9	2
Do you know the vaccines your children need and when given?	541
Yes	347	64
No	107	20
Not sure	87	16
Did staff ask for the MCH booklet?	555
Yes	426	77
No	129	23
Have you ever been asked to pay for a vaccine?	551
Yes	28	5
No	523	95
Have you ever been asked to pay for a MCH booklet?	549
Yes	92	17
No	457	83
Was the child vaccinated here today?	551
Yes	184	33
No	367	67
Were you told what vaccines your child was given1	165
Yes	85	52
No	80	48
Were you told about potential adverse reactions following immunization?1	184
Yes	56	30
No	128	70
Were you satisfied with the service you received today?	186
Yes	167	90
No	19	10

1Asked only of caregivers who indicated the child was vaccinated at the health facility on day of the survey (n = 184).

Unless otherwise noted, questions were asked of all caregivers.

Vaccination status

Among children with documented vaccination dates, 23% of caregivers (129/555) reported that the health worker had not asked to see their MCH booklet (Table 2). Similarly, 36% of caregivers (194/541) felt that they did not know or were unsure of the vaccines their child needs (Table 2). Of the children who were vaccinated on the day of the survey, half of their caregivers (85/165) reported that they were informed what vaccines their children were given and one-third (56/184) reported that they were informed about potential adverse events following immunization. Almost all caregivers reported that they had never been asked to pay for a vaccine (95%; 523/551)); 17% (92/549) of the caregivers reported that they had been asked to pay for a MCH booklet at some time in the past.

Missed opportunities for vaccination

Child-based MOV prevalence. Out of the 558 children with documented vaccination dates, 324 were eligible for at least one vaccine dose during the visit on the survey date (Fig 1, Table 3). Of these 324 children, 25% (80) of the children were vaccinated with all the eligible vaccine doses, 18% (58) received some, but not all of the vaccine doses that they were eligible for, and 57% (186) were not given any of their eligible doses during the visit. Overall, 244 children who were determined to be eligible to receive due or delayed vaccine doses remained unvaccinated after the health service encounter, resulting in a child-based MOV prevalence of 75% in this study sample.

Table 3

Prevalence of missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) among surveyed children, by reason for visit and age, missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) assessment, Kenya, 2016.

		On arrival for the health visit	During the health visit
					Missed Opportunity for Vaccination
KENYA	Total children with documented vaccination dates	Number of children needing 1+ eligible due doses	All eligible doses given		Some eligible doses given (not all)		No eligible doses given
Age	n	n	n	%	n	%	n	%
<12 months	420	256	73	29	55	21	128	50
≥12 months	138	68	7	10	3	4	58	85
Total	558	324	80	25	58	18	186	57
Reason for visit	n	n	n		n		n
Vaccination	182	155	69	45	55	35	31	20
Non-vaccination visit
Medical consultation	149	83	0	0	2	2	81	98
Healthy child visit or check-up	154	51	6	12	1	2	44	86
Child is accompanying adult	50	23	0	0	0	0	23	100
Hospitalization	2	1	0	0	0	0	1	100
Other	11	8	5	63	0	0	3	38
No reason reported	10	3	0	0	0	0	3	100
Non-vaccination visit total	376	169	11	7	3	2	155	92
Total	558	324	80	25	58	18	186	57
	Total MOV (some, but not all eligible doses given or no eligible doses given)2						244	75

1Missed opportunity for vaccination (MOV): contact with health services by a child (or adult) who is eligible for vaccination (unvaccinated, partially vaccinated/not up-to-date, and free of contraindications to vaccination), which does not result in the individual receiving all the vaccine doses for which he or she is eligible) [1, 2].

2Among the subset of children with documented vaccination dates and eligible for one or more vaccine doses (n = 324).

When stratified by reason for visit, 93% (158/169) of children who visited the health facility for reasons other than vaccination (e.g. medical consultation, healthy child visit, accompanying an adult, hospitalization, etc.) with at least one eligible dose due remained incompletely vaccinated at the end of the health service encounter. Among those children visiting specifically for vaccination with at least one eligible dose due, 55% (86/155) had a MOV. By age categories, children who were 12 months or older had higher prevalence of MOV (90%; 61/68) than children who were less than 12 months (71%; 183/256).

Timeliness with reference to the nationally recommended schedules

Birth dose vaccines had the highest proportion of doses given in a timely manner, with bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine and oral polio vaccine (OPV) birth dose at 81% and 83%, respectively (Table 4). For multi-dose vaccine series, timeliness generally decreased with later doses. Similarly, timeliness of MCV, due to be given at 9 and 18 months, dropped nine percentage points from the first dose (75%; 127/169) to the second dose (66%; 21/32).

Table 4

Timeliness of vaccine doses administered to surveyed children with documented vaccination histories, missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) assessment, Kenya, 2016.

	Total number of children who received dose2	Timeliness1
Vaccine dose		Too early %	Timely %	Late %
At birth
BCG3	513	--	81	19
OPV4	443	--	83	17
First dose
OPV3	482	15	68	17
Pentavalent5 vaccine	497	13	70	18
PCV6	484	13	69	18
Rotavirus vaccine	471	13	69	18
Second dose
OPV3	425	8	70	22
Pentavalent5 vaccine	442	8	70	22
PCV6	428	8	70	22
Rotavirus vaccine	409	7	69	24
Third dose
OPV3	375	6	64	30
Pentavalent5 vaccine	389	5	64	30
PCV6	369	6	63	31
MCV7 first dose	169	19	75	6
MCV7 second dose	32	34	66	0

1 Please see Table 1 for intervals and immunization schedule used for this analysis.

2 Children with documented history of receiving a dose either on the day of survey or previously.

3 bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine.

4 Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

5 Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus-hepatitis B-Haemophilus influenzae type b (Pentavalent).

6 Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV).

7 Measles containing vaccine (MCV).

Health worker KAP survey

Demographics of surveyed health workers

KAP surveys were completed by 376 health workers, of whom 60% were female and 65% were under the age of 30 (Table 5). Half (50%) were nurses or midwives and 62% had less than five years of clinical experience.

Table 5

Characteristics and knowledge, attitudes, and practices of surveyed health workers, missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) assessment, Kenya, 2016.

	n	%
	376
Health worker demographics
Sex	371
Male	147	40
Female	224	60
Age	373
<19	127	34
20–29	115	31
30–39	81	22
40–49+	50	13
What is your professional training?	374
Doctor	7	2
Nurse/Midwife	188	50
Clinical Officer	59	16
Public Health Officer	14	4
Lab or pharmaceutical technologist	40	11
Health or information records officer	11	3
Nutritionist	13	3
Pharmacist	9	2
Other	33	9
Number of years of clinical experience	374
0–4 years	232	62
5–9 years	85	23
10+	57	15
Have you ever been trained in vaccination or vaccine-preventable diseases?	373
Yes	154	41
No	219	59
When were you last trained?	153
<1 year ago	41	27
1–2 years ago	15	10
2–3 years ago	69	45
>4 years ago	28	18
Health worker knowledge, attitudes, practices
Which vaccines should healthy children receive?1	376
BCG2	365	97
MCV3	369	98
Pentavalent4	344	91
Polio vaccine	366	97
Rotavirus vaccine	328	87
PCV5	329	88
Selected all of the above	304	81
Could correctly identify schedule for BCG2, oral polio vaccine, Pentavalent4, and MCV first dose	291
Yes	217	75
No	74	25
What are the contraindications for any vaccine1	352
Local reaction to previous dose	93	26
Low-grade fever	43	12
Seizures under medical treatment	81	23
Pneumonia and other serious diseases	74	21
None of the above	144	41
When should vaccination status be assessed?	373
Child's wellness/routine visit	53	14
Consultation for any illness	24	6
When a child is accompanying a woman visiting a healthcare facility for any reason	35	9
All of the above	261	70
Who should evaluate children's vaccination status?	376
The child's parents	13	3
The nurse responsible for immunization	124	33
Physicians in external consultations, inpatient services, and emergency rooms	7	2
All of the above	232	62
Do you administer vaccines as part of your routine job?	376
Yes	142	38
No	234	62
What instructions do you give caregivers when you give them a new mother-and-child health (MCH) booklet?1,6	141
Keep this booklet safe (only)	105	74
Bring this booklet to all visits to the health facility (only)	134	95
Keep this booklet safe and bring this booklet to all visits to the health facility	93	66
Bring this booklet only when you come for vaccinations	7	5
Other	3	2
Today, I have enough materials for the patients seeking immunization services6	142
Agree	87	61
Disagree	55	39
What is missing?7	47
Vaccines	15	32
Syringes	16	34
Recording materials	7	15
MCH booklets	32	68
Other	4	9

1 Respondents were allowed to select multiple responses.

2 measles containing vaccine (MCV).

3 bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine.

4 Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus-hepatitis B-Haemophilus influenzae type b (Pentavalent) vaccine.

5 Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV).

6 Question asked to health workers who indicated that they administer vaccines as part of their routine job (n = 142).

7 Among those who disagreed that there were enough materials for the patients seeking immunization services.

Health worker knowledge, attitudes, practices

Less than half (41%) of health workers reported ever receiving training on vaccination or vaccine-preventable diseases (Table 5). However, most health workers were able to identify vaccines that children should routinely receive (88–97%), including BCG, pentavalent, MCV, polio, rotavirus, and PCV. However, about one in five (19%) could not correctly identify all the routine vaccines. In addition, one in four of those surveyed (25%) made mistakes in describing the vaccination schedule for BCG, OPV, pentavalent vaccine, and MCV first dose.

Among health workers who reported administering vaccines as part of their daily work routine, 39% (55/142) reported that they did not have the materials they needed for patients seeking immunization services (Table 5). Among those reporting missing materials, 32% (15/47) were missing vaccines, 34% (16/47) were missing syringes, and 68% (32/47) said they were missing MCH booklets. When giving a new MCH booklet to caregivers, 66% (93/141) of health workers indicated that they usually instruct caregivers to keep the booklet safe and bring the booklet to all health facility visits.

Discussion

The MOV assessment in Kenya found a high prevalence of MOV (75%) among children <24 months of age visiting selected health facilities. MOV rates were very high among those visiting for non-vaccination-related reasons with only a small percentage receiving any vaccines. In addition, approximately half of children coming for vaccination visits did not receive all vaccines for which they were eligible. The health worker survey revealed inadequate knowledge and poor practices, as well as a reported lack of resources needed to vaccinate all eligible children visiting health facilities in Kenya. Nearly one-quarter of all caregivers of children visiting for all reasons reported that the health worker had not asked for their child’s vaccination record (MCH booklet) at the time of the visit. These findings have implications for the national program in Kenya. Routine vaccination checks by health workers during all health facility visits, including non-vaccination visits, has the potential for increasing coverage and equity in Kenya. In addition, processes to ensure that adequate vaccination-related supplies are available at facilities offering immunization services during all visit types and for all age groups will be necessary.

The findings from the qualitative component of the assessment and other studies also highlight inconsistent vaccination checks, particularly during non-vaccination visits, or among certain populations [3, 4, 28]. In order to ensure children are not missed, efforts should be made to institute routine checking of children’s MCH booklet as a standard practice, particularly at non-vaccination visits and among children ≥12 months old. To maximize their benefits, MCH booklets must be complete and legible [7]. Unfortunately, when health workers are faced with competing tasks, completing vaccination records can be among the first activities to be de-prioritized [7, 33].

To be effective, vaccination record checks require that health workers possess adequate knowledge of the antigens in the national schedule, are able to assess eligibility by age based on the schedule, and have access to the necessary job aids they need to support them in this. In our study, approximately one in five surveyed health workers were unable to identify all the vaccines in the national schedule and one in four were unable to identify the correct schedule for BCG, OPV, pentavalent vaccine, and MCV first dose. Overall, all health workers must be trained on the vaccination schedule and further work may be useful to identify exact gaps in knowledge within the immunization schedule for targeted education. Additionally, although the questionnaire did not test their understanding of catch-up schedules, previous studies show this to be a confusing concept for many health workers and it is necessary to also ensure health workers understand the national policy on catch-up vaccination for children with a delayed schedule [5, 29]. As Kenya has continued to add more antigens to their national immunization schedule, with varying target age groups (MCV second dose in 2015, IPV and YF in 2016 and human papillomavirus vaccine in 2019), the potential for MOV has increased and will accelerate further. It is important to ensure that all health workers who interface with patients, regardless of whether or not they work in immunizations, are equipped with the knowledge, job aids, and support to handle the multiple scenarios that children with delayed and out-of-sync schedules may present.

Finally, health workers cannot deliver vaccines to children when the vaccines or related materials are out of stock. Two out of five surveyed health workers reported that they did not have enough materials for children seeking immunization, with vaccines, syringes, and MCH booklets most often identified as missing. The consequence is that eligible children remain unvaccinated and susceptible to vaccine-preventable diseases following a health facility visit. When MCH booklets are out of stock, missing records may make it difficult for health workers to track the child’s vaccination status in the future. MCH booklets were frequently cited by health workers as a missing item and from the qualitative assessment, we learned the importance of these MCH booklets to caregivers, giving them ownership over their child’s health [28]. Inadequate stocks create barriers to caregivers seeking immunization [3, 34]. Efforts must be made to ensure that health facilities are equipped with adequate stocks of vaccine doses and vaccination-related supplies needed for all children seeking immunization and other health services.

Following discussion of the findings from this MOV assessment, the multi-partner technical working group on immunization in Kenya endorsed an action plan to reduce MOV. Kenya is standardizing health worker practices by disseminating updated Kenyan NVIP manuals and standard operating procedures. The MoH has also implemented an orientation package, aimed specifically at non-NVIP health staff, to improve health worker knowledge on immunization and practices across all departments. This orientation package includes training modules on vaccination practices and interpersonal communication skills utilizing adult learning strategies. To reduce the likelihood of stock-outs of vaccines, a stock management module is being implemented across all counties. The national level is also distributing electronic copies of vaccination recording materials, including monitoring charts, summary sheets, tally sheets, and MCH booklets, to allow them to be printed at the county level as well as by private health facilities for easier access.

Limitations

Due to the sampling methodology of MOV assessments, this assessment was not nationally representative and the results cannot be interpreted to represent MOV rates across all Kenya health facilities. Additionally, because this was a health facility-based assessment, caregivers that visited the health facility on the day of the assessment may differ from others in the community. Next, although all questionnaires were piloted and adapted to the country-context prior to the assessment, there were still areas in which they could have been improved; certain modifications may have improved the quality of the survey by ensuring clarity of questions, responses, and appropriate skip patterns. Similarly, questionnaires were only available in English, but were sometimes administered in Swahili. This may have resulted in varied translations causing differing understandings of questions.

Finally, the estimation of MOV was limited to children with documented vaccination dates; verbal recall was not accepted. If children without documented vaccination dates are more likely to have a MOV, the true prevalence of MOV in Kenya is likely to be higher than we have reported.

Conclusion

The MOV assessment conducted in Kenya proved to be a low-resource approach that identified easily-implementable but potentially very impactful activities to improve vaccination coverage. Kenya’s intervention plan to address MOV must continue to be scaled up across the country in order to reduce MOV, increase routine immunization, reduce outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases and further reduce infant mortality.

Clarification of ethical review for standard program reviews in Kenya.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Missed opportunities for vaccination assessment exit interview survey: Kenya, 2016.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Missed opportunities for vaccination assessment health worker survey: Kenya, 2016.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-31527

Assessment of missed opportunities for vaccination in Kenyan health facilities, 2016

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Anyie Joana Li

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by June 10. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniela Flavia Hozbor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent.

In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified whether consent was written or verbal/oral.

If consent was verbal/oral, please specify: a) whether the ethics committee approved the verbal/oral consent procedure, b) why written consent could not be obtained, and c) how verbal/oral consent was recorded.

Since your study included minors under age 18, please state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians in these cases.

Please also indicate in your Ethics Statement whether all data were anonymised before the study authors accessed them.

3. Please note that all PLOS journals ask authors to adhere to our policies for sharing of data and materials: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. According to PLOS ONE’s Data Availability policy, we require that the minimal dataset underlying results reported in the submission must be made immediately and freely available at the time of publication. As such, please remove any instances of 'unpublished data' or 'data not shown' in your manuscript and replace these with either the relevant data (in the form of additional figures, tables or descriptive text, as appropriate), a citation to where the data can be found, or remove altogether any statements supported by data not presented in the manuscript.

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The introduction and discussion can use a better framing of the purpose and implication of quantifying the missed opportunities. It seems a bit obvious that all contacts that did not result in vaccination if eligible will be a missed opportunity. Similarly, if health workers were not instructed to provide vaccination at every contacts that were not primarily for reasons of vaccinations, it is strange to ding them for not doing so.

Also it will help to give some context to the quantified missed opportunities. How does this compare to other countries? How bad is this? There was a quick description of the missed opportunities being much more if taking into account those without documentation of vaccination dates, but more can be said to further provide context to help readers understand the gravity of your results

Reviewer #2: The authors have provided a good documentation of findings regarding missed opportunities for simultaneous vaccines. The methods for data collection and analysis are described reasonably, such that readers can readily understand the basis and organization of results, without delving unnecessarily deeply into statistical methods. As such this study provides a good foundational work of reporting as a benchmark for future studies. To improve this study the authors might consider discussing the results in the context of specific action, rather than as a more general reporting of data. For example, the authors state that one in five surveyed health workers were unable to identify all of the vaccines in the national schedule. It could be additionally useful to know if there were specific vaccines or points in the recommended vaccination schedule that could be a point of focus for improvement. Similarly, cross-tabulation of demographic variables against timeliness and MOV data cold provide additional insight into specific characteristics that tend to favor missed opportunities or late vaccines - or indeed those characteristics that favor no missed opportunities and consistently timely vaccines. And, adding a statistical measure of significance, a "p" value, would provide to the reader a distinction between general reporting and significant findings.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Yvonne Tam

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Aug 2020

Thank you for your review. Please see the attached 'Response to Reviewers' for responses to each comment.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Aug 2020

Assessment of missed opportunities for vaccination in Kenyan health facilities, 2016

PONE-D-19-31527R1

Dear Dr. Anyie Joana Li,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Daniela Flavia Hozbor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

10 Aug 2020

PONE-D-19-31527R1

Assessment of missed opportunities for vaccination in Kenyan health facilities, 2016

Dear Dr. Li:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Daniela Flavia Hozbor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE