Euvichol-plus vaccine campaign coverage during the 2017/2018 cholera outbreak in Lusaka district, Zambia: a cross-sectional descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the coverage for the oral cholera vaccine (OCV) campaign conducted during the 2017/2018 cholera outbreak in Lusaka, Zambia. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional study employing survey method conducted among 1691 respondents from 369 households following the second round of the 2018 OCV campaign. STUDY SETTING: Four primary healthcare facilities and their catchment areas in Lusaka city (Kanyama, Chawama, Chipata and Matero subdistricts). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1691 respondents 12 months and older sampled from 369 households where the campaign was conducted. A satellite map-based sampling technique was used to randomly select households. DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS: test) was conducted to stratify OCV coverage according to age and sex for each round (p<0.05). RESULTS: The overall coverage for the first, second and two doses were 81.3% (95% CI 79.24% to 83.36%), 72.1% (95% CI 69.58% to 74.62%) and 66% (95% CI 63.22% to 68.78%), respectively. The drop-out rate was 18.8% (95% CI 14.51% to 23.09%). Of the 81.3% who received the first dose, 58.8% were female. Among those who received the second dose, the majority (61.0%) were females aged between 5 and 14 years (42.6%) and 15 and 35 years (27.7%). Only 15.5% of the participants aged between 36 and 65 and 2.5% among those aged above 65 years received the second dose. CONCLUSION: These findings confirm the 2018 OCV campaign coverage and highlight the need for follow-up surveys to validate administrative coverage estimates using population-based methods. Reliance on health facility data alone may mask low coverage and prevent measures to improve programming. Future public health interventions should consider sociodemographic factors in order to achieve optimal vaccine coverage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".