MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040140491 · doi:10.1186/s12879-020-05201-5

Inequalities in measles immunization coverage in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional analysis of demographic and health surveys 2000–2016

2020· article· en· W3040140491 on OpenAlexaff
Gebretsadik Shibre, Betregiorgis Zegeye, Dina Idriss-Wheeler, Sanni Yaya

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsGlobal Affairs CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaslesResidenceMedicineDemographyConfidence intervalPopulationCross-sectional studyAttributable riskVaccinationEnvironmental healthImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ethiopia has low measles immunization coverage and little is known about the disparities surrounding what coverage is provided. This study assessed disparities in measles immunization and its change over time using the four Ethiopia Demographic and Health Surveys conducted between 2000 and 2016. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of data using Ethiopia Demographic and Health Surveys (EDHS) conducted between 2000 and 2016. We used the World Health Organization's (WHO) Health Equity Assessment Toolkit (HEAT) to present the inequalities. Four measures of inequality were calculated: Difference (D), Ratio (R), Population Attributable Fraction (PAF) and Population Attributable Risk (PAR). The results were disaggregated by wealth, education, residence, sex and sub-national regions and 95% Uncertainty Intervals (UIs) were computed for each point estimate to boost confidence of the findings. RESULTS: Measles immunization coverage was higher among the richest and secondary and above schools' subgroup by nearly 30 to 31 percentage points based on point estimates (D = 31%; 95% CI; 19.48, 42.66) and 29.8 percentage points (D = 29.8%; 95% CI; 16.57, 43.06) as compared to the poorest and no education subgroup respectively in the 2016 survey. Still, in the 2016 survey, substantial economic status (PAF = 36.73; 95%CI: 29.78, 43.68), (R = 1.71; 95%CI: 1.35, 2.08), education status (PAF = 45.07; 95% CI: 41.95, 48.18), (R = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.30, 1.90), place of residence (PAF = 39.84, 95% CI: 38.40, 41.27), (R = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.20, 1. 74) and regional (PAF = 71.35, 95% CI: 31.76, 110.95), (R = 3.09, 95%CI: 2.01, 4.17) inequality were observed with both simple and complex measures. There was no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of measles immunization between male and female children in all the studied years, as indicated, for instance, by measures of PAF in 2000 (PAF = 0; 95%CI: - 6.79, 6.79), 2005 (PAF = 0; 95%CI: - 6.04, 6.04), 2011(PAF = 0; 95%CI: - 3.79, 3.79) and 2016 (PAF = 2.66; - 1.67; 6.99). Overall, the inequality of measles immunization narrowed significantly by at least some of the measures between the first and the last survey periods across all the studied subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: National, regional and district levels of government should make a pledge to reduce inequalities in coverage of measles immunization. Equity-sensitive strategies, sufficient human and financial resources as well as continued research and monitoring of immunization coverage inequalities are necessary to achieve related sustainable development goals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Infectious DiseasesSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207