Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35803601›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2022

Equity assessment of childhood immunisation at national and subnational levels in Myanmar: a benefit incidence analysis.

Zin Mar Win, Tom Traill, Zarni Lynn Kyaw, Khaing Thandar Hnin, Phway Thinzar Chit, Thazin La, Ashwini Sunil Deshpande, Osondu Ogbuoji, Wenhui Mao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Zin Mar WinCommunity Partners International, Yangon, Myanmar.
Tom TraillDepartment of Policy and Research, Community Partners International, Yangon, Myanmar.
Zarni Lynn KyawCommunity Partners International, Yangon, Myanmar.
Khaing Thandar HninCommunity Partners International, Yangon, Myanmar.
Phway Thinzar ChitCommunity Partners International, Yangon, Myanmar.
Thazin LaCommunity Partners International, Yangon, Myanmar.
Ashwini Sunil DeshpandeCenter for Policy Impact in Global Health, Duke Global Health Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9842-989X
Osondu OgbuojiCenter for Policy Impact in Global Health, Duke Global Health Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Wenhui MaoCenter for Policy Impact in Global Health, Duke Global Health Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA wenhui.mao@duke.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9214-7787

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMyanmar, a conflict-affected geographically and ethnically diverse lower middle-income country, was in the donor transition phase for health prior to the political unrest of the last year. This study analyses the distribution of benefit and utilisation of basic childhood vaccinations from the highly donor-dependent Expanded Program on Immunization for populations of different socioeconomic status (SES).

methodsWe conducted a benefit incidence analysis with decomposition analysis to assess the equity of benefit. We used basic childhood immunisations-BCG, measles, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT)/pentavalent, oral polio vaccine (OPV) and full vaccination-as measurements for healthcare use. Childhood immunisation data were collected from Myanmar Demographic and Health Survey. Cost of vaccines was obtained from UNICEF document and 'Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue' and adjusted with regional cost variations. We reported Concentration Index (CI) and Achievement Index (AI) by SES, including wealth quintiles, maternal education and across geographic areas.

resultsNationally, better-off households disproportionately used more services from the programme (CI-Wealth Index (CI-WI) for BCG, measles, DPT/pentavalent, OPV and full immunisation: 0.032, 0.051, 0.120, 0.091 and 0.137, respectively). Benefits had a pro-poor distribution for BCG but a less pro-rich distribution than utilisation for all other vaccines (CI-WI: -0.004, 0.019, 0.092, 0.045 and 0.106, respectively). Urban regions had a more pro-rich distribution of benefit than that in rural areas, where BCG and measles had a pro-poor distribution. Subnational analysis found significant heterogeneity: benefit was less equitably distributed, and AI was lower in conflict-affected states than in government-controlled areas. The major contributors to vaccine inequality were SES, antenatal care visits and paternal education.

conclusionDonors, national government and regional government should better plan to maintain vaccine coverage while improving equity of vaccine services, especially for children of lower SES, mothers with less antenatal care visits and lower paternal education living in conflicted-affected remote regions.

Indexed as

BCG VaccineMeaslesChildFemaleHumansImmunizationIncidenceMyanmarPregnancyBCG VaccineHealth economicsHealth policyHealth services researchImmunisation

Identifiers

PMID35803601
PMCPMC9272074

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.