| Literature DB >> 36187658 |
Emma Hahesy1, Ligia Maria Cruz-Espinoza2, Gabriel Nyirenda2, Birkneh Tilahun Tadesse2, Jerome H Kim2, Florian Marks2,3,4, Raphael Rakotozandrindrainy3, Wibke Wetzker5, Andrea Haselbeck2.
Abstract
Background: Immunizations are one of the most effective tools a community can use to increase overall health and decrease the burden of vaccine-preventable diseases. Nevertheless, socioeconomic status, geographical location, education, and a child's sex have been identified as contributing to inequities in vaccine uptake in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Madagascar follows the World Health Organization's Extended Programme on Immunization (EPI) schedule, yet vaccine distribution remains highly inequitable throughout the country. This systematic review sought to understand the differences in EPI vaccine uptake between boys and girls in Madagascar.Entities:
Keywords: EPI; Madagascar; childhood immunization; sex differences; vaccine uptake; vaccines
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36187658 PMCID: PMC9523513 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.995788
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart showing the number of articles screened by title, abstract, and full-text for the systematic and gray literature search and illustrating the inclusion and exclusion of articles as well as the reasons for exclusion. WHO and GAVI are listed together under gray literature search as WHO presented data from GAVI. DHS, Demographic Health Survey; GAVI, Gavi the Vaccine Alliance; GIM, Global Index Medicus; WHO, World Health Organization.
Risk of bias assessment results after using the AXIS tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bosch-Capblanch, 2012 ( | Moderate | High | High | High | High | High | High |
| Hill, 1995 ( | High | High | Moderate | High | High | Low | Moderate |
| GAVI, 2019 ( | High | High | High | High | N/A | High | High |
| Restrepo-Méndez, 2016 ( | High | High | High | High | High | High | High |
A high grade indicates no risk of bias in any question within the category. A moderate grade indicates that risk of bias was found in some, but not a majority of the questions within the category. A low grade indicates that risk of bias was found in a majority of the questions within a category. Three included studies demonstrate a high overall quality while one demonstrates a moderate overall quality. No studies had to be excluded for low quality.
Figure 2Frequency of reported barriers to immunization other than sex. Such factors were qualitatively assessed and presented based on how many articles included in the full-text screening mentioned each factor. Bubble size corresponds to the number of articles that mentioned each factor, as does the number inside each bubble. Household's socioeconomic status and female education/literacy status were the two factors listed most frequently in such articles. Media access refers to an individual's access to information (including information about vaccinations) via the internet; Equipment management and transportation refers to managing refrigeration, gasoline, and the transportation of materials used for immunizations to health centers.
Sex-disaggregated vaccination data reported in included articles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
| Restrepo-Méndez ( | 2016 | DHS | 2008 | 12–23 | BCG, DPT3, polio3, measles | 61.4% | 61.9% | Girls |
| GAVI ( | 2019 | MICS | 2018 | 12–23 | BCG, DTP3, polio3, measles | 42% | 40% | Boys |
| Hill ( | 1995 | DHS | 1992 | 12–23 | BCG, DPT3, polio3, measles | Difference between percentage of girls and boys vaccinated: 2.0** | Girls | |
| Bosch-Capblanch ( | 2012 | DHS | 2004 | 12–59 | BCG, DTP3, polio3, measles | Odds ratio of being unvaccinated: 0.77 | Girls | |
Data is presented in the form of percentage immunized, differences in percentage immunized by sex, and the odds ratio of being unvaccinated. BCG, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Vaccine; DHS, Demographic Health Survey; DPT3, Diphtheria, Pertussis, and Tetanus Three-Dose Vaccine; GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations; GIM, Global Index Medicus.
Standard error of 2.0.
No statistical significance reported.
Confidence interval of 0.60 to 1.00.