Delivering Vitamin A Supplements to Children Aged 6–59 Months: Comparing Delivery through Campaigns and through Routine Health Services in Senegal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using twice-yearly campaigns such as Child Health Days to deliver vitamin A supplements has been a key strategy over the last 2 decades, and was an important component in helping reach the Millennium Development Goals in child health. As countries move to strengthen their routine health services under the Sustainable Development Goals, efforts are underway to shift supplementation from campaign to routine delivery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare cost, coverage, and user satisfaction between twice-yearly campaigns and routine delivery of vitamin A supplements in Senegal. METHODS: Information was collected on cost, coverage, and user satisfaction with both types of delivery, using administrative data, interviews at various levels in the health system, and focus group discussions with caregivers. Both qualitative and quantitative information were obtained, for 2 regions using routine delivery and 2 regions using campaign delivery. RESULTS: Routine delivery receives fewer dedicated resources. Coverage is lower, especially of children >12 mo of age. Districts undertake outreach ("mini-campaigns") to try to improve coverage in regions using routine delivery, in effect using a hybrid approach. Some mothers prefer the administration of supplements at a health facility as it is perceived as more hygienic and involving professional health workers, but others, especially those living further away, prefer house-to-house delivery which was the norm for the campaign mode. CONCLUSIONS: Advance planning for the shift to routine delivery is important in maintaining coverage, as is strengthening the primary health care system by having an appropriate ratio of salaried workers to population. When the system relies heavily on volunteers, and the small incentive payments to volunteers are discontinued, coverage suffers. Routine delivery also relies on good record-keeping and hence literacy. Community understanding of, and support for, supplementation are even more important for routine than for campaign delivery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".