Methodologies to measure the coverage of vitamin A supplementation: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Countries are increasingly transitioning from event-based vitamin A supplementation (VAS) distribution to delivery through routine health system contacts, shifting also to administrative, electronic-based monitoring tools, a process that brings certain limitations affecting the quality of administrative VAS coverage. At present, there is no standardised methodology for measuring the coverage of VAS delivered through routine health services. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify and recommend methods to measure VAS coverage, with the aim of providing guidance to countries on the collection of consistent data for planning, monitoring and evaluating VAS programmes integrated into routine health systems. We searched the PubMed®, Embase®, Scopus, Google Scholar and World Health Organization (WHO) Global Index Medicus databases for studies published from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2021, reporting original data on VAS coverage and methodologies used for measurement. We screened 2371 original titles and abstracts, assessed twenty-seven full-text articles and ultimately included eighteen studies. All but two studies used a coverage cluster survey (CCS) design to measure VAS coverage, adapting the WHO Vaccination Coverage Cluster Surveys methodology, by modifying sample size and sampling parameters. Annual two-dose VAS coverage was reported from only four studies. Until electronic-based systems to collect and analyse VAS data are equipped to measure routine two-dose VAS coverage using administrative data, CCSs that comply with the 2018 WHO Vaccination Coverage Cluster Surveys Reference Manual represent the gold-standard method for effective VAS programme monitoring.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it