Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29996802›Full record

Observational studyBMC public health2018

Vaccine wastage in The Gambia: a prospective observational study.

Effua Usuf, Grant Mackenzie, Lamin Ceesay, Dawda Sowe, Beate Kampmann, Anna Roca

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Risk factors associated with non-vaccination in Gambian children: a population-based cohort study.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Assessment of vaccine wastage in South Sudan.The Pan African medical journal · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Effua UsufMedical Research Council Unit The Gambia at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Fajara, The Gambia. eusuf@mrc.gm.ORCID 0000-0002-6515-7186
Grant MackenzieMedical Research Council Unit The Gambia at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Fajara, The Gambia.
Lamin CeesayExpanded Programme on Immunization, Ministry of Health, Kotu, The Gambia.
Dawda SoweExpanded Programme on Immunization, Ministry of Health, Kotu, The Gambia.
Beate KampmannMedical Research Council Unit The Gambia at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Fajara, The Gambia.
Anna RocaMedical Research Council Unit The Gambia at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Fajara, The Gambia.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UP_A900_1122Medical Research Council MC_UU_00026/2WHO TDR B40129
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccination is a cost-effective and life-saving intervention. Recently several new, but more expensive vaccines have become part of immunization programmes in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Monitoring vaccine wastage helps to improve vaccine forecasting and minimise wastage. As the costs of vaccination increases better vaccine management is essential. Many LMIC however do not consistently monitor vaccine wastage.

methodsWe conducted two surveys in health facilities in rural and urban Gambia; 1) a prospective six months survey in two regions to estimate vaccine wastage rates and type of wastage for each of the vaccines administered by the Expanded programme on Immunization (EPI) and 2) a nationwide cross sectional survey of health workers from randomly selected facilities to assess knowledge, attitude and practice on vaccine waste management. We used WHO recommended forms and standard questionnaires. Wastage rates were compared to EPI targets.

resultsWastage rates for the lyophilised vaccines BCG, Measles and Yellow Fever ranged from 18.5-79.0%, 0-30.9% and 0-55.0% respectively, mainly through unused doses at the end of an immunization session. Wastage from the liquid vaccines multi-dose/ single dose vials were minimal, with peaks due to expiry or breakage of the vaccine diluent. We interviewed 80 health workers and observed good knowledge. Batching children for BCG was uncommon (19%) whereas most health workers (73.4%) will open a vial as needed.

conclusionNational projected wastage targets were met for the multi-dose/single dose vials, but for lyophilised vaccines, the target was only met in the largest major health facility.

Indexed as

ChildCost-Benefit AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGambiaHumansImmunization ProgramsMaleProspective StudiesVaccinationVaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID29996802
PMCPMC6042329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.