Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26010084›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Cluster survey evaluation of a measles vaccination campaign in Jharkhand, India, 2012.

Heather M Scobie, Arindam Ray, Satyabrata Routray, Anindya Bose, Sunil Bahl, Stephen Sosler, Kathleen Wannemuehler, Rakesh Kumar, Pradeep Haldar, Abhijeet Anand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Heather M ScobieGlobal Immunization Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America; Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Arindam RayNational Polio Surveillance Project, World Health Organization Country Office, New Delhi, India.
Satyabrata RoutrayNational Polio Surveillance Project, World Health Organization Country Office, New Delhi, India.
Anindya BoseNational Polio Surveillance Project, World Health Organization Country Office, New Delhi, India.
Sunil BahlNational Polio Surveillance Project, World Health Organization Country Office, New Delhi, India.
Stephen SoslerNational Polio Surveillance Project, World Health Organization Country Office, New Delhi, India.
Kathleen WannemuehlerGlobal Immunization Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Rakesh KumarMinistry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Pradeep HaldarMinistry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Abhijeet AnandGlobal Immunization Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIndia was the last country in the world to implement a two-dose strategy for measles-containing vaccine (MCV) in 2010. As part of measles second-dose introduction, phased measles vaccination campaigns were conducted during 2010-2013, targeting 131 million children 9 months to <10 years of age. We performed a post-campaign coverage survey to estimate measles vaccination coverage in Jharkhand state.

methodsA multi-stage cluster survey was conducted 2 months after the phase 2 measles campaign occurred in 19 of 24 districts of Jharkhand during November 2011-March 2012. Vaccination status of children 9 months to <10 years of age was documented based on vaccination card or mother's recall. Coverage estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for 1,018 children were calculated using survey methods.

resultsIn the Jharkhand phase 2 campaign, MCV coverage among children aged 9 months to <10 years was 61.0% (95% CI: 54.4-67.7%). Significant differences in coverage were observed between rural (65.0%; 95% CI: 56.8-73.2%) and urban areas (45.6%; 95% CI: 37.3-53.9%). Campaign awareness among mothers was low (51.5%), and the most commonly reported reason for non-vaccination was being unaware of the campaign (69.4%). At the end of the campaign, 53.7% (95% CI: 46.5-60.9%) of children 12 months to <10 years of age received ≥ 2 MCV doses, while a large proportion of children remained under-vaccinated (34.0%, 95% CI: 28.0-40.0%) or unvaccinated (12.3%, 95% CI: 9.3-16.2%).

conclusionsImplementation of the national measles campaign was a significant achievement towards measles elimination in India. In Jharkhand, campaign performance was below the target coverage of ≥ 90% set by the Government of India, and challenges in disseminating campaign messages were identified. Efforts towards increasing two-dose MCV coverage are needed to achieve the recently adopted measles elimination goal in India and the South-East Asia region.

Indexed as

Health SurveysChildChild, PreschoolDemographyFemaleHumansIndiaInfantMaleMeaslesMeasles VaccineRural PopulationUrban PopulationVaccinationMeasles Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID26010084
PMCPMC4444104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.