Rural-urban disparities in missed opportunities for vaccination in sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-country decomposition analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to explore the rural-urban disparities in the magnitude and determinants of missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using nationally representative household surveys conducted between 2007 and 2017 in 35 countries across sub-Saharan Africa. The risk difference in MOV between rural or urban dwellers were calculated. Logistic regression method was used to investigate the urban-rural disparities in multivariable analyses. Then Blinder-Oaxaca method was used to decompose differences in MOV between rural and urban dwellers. RESULTS: The median number of children aged 12 to 23 months was 2113 (Min: 370, Max: 5896). There was wide variation in the the magnitude of MOV among children in rural and urban areas across the 35 countries. The magnitude of MOV in rural areas varied from 18.0% (95% CI 14.7 to 21.4) in the Gambia to 85.2% (81.2 to 88.9) in Gabon. Out of the 35 countries included in this analysis, pro-rural inequality was observed in 16 countries (i.e. MOV is prevalent among children living in rural areas) and pro-urban inequality in five countries (i.e. MOV is prevalent among children living in urban areas). The contributions of the compositional 'explained' and structural 'unexplained' components varied across the countries. However, household wealth index was the most frequently identified factor. CONCLUSIONS: Variation exists in the level of missed opportunities for vaccination between rural and urban areas, with widespread pro-rural inequalities across Africa. Although several factors account for these rural-urban disparities in various countries, household wealth was the most common.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".