ArticleBMC research notes2024
Fiscal space for the immunisation program in Zambia- an efficiency analysis approach.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe immunisation programme in Zambia remains one of the most effective public health programmes. Its financial sustainability is, however, uncertain. Using administrative data on immunisation coverage rate, vaccine utilisation, the number of health facilities and human resources, expenditure on health promotion, and the provision of outreach services from 24 districts, we used Data Envelopment Analysis to determine the level of technical efficiency in the provision of immunisation services. Based on our calculated levels of technical efficiency, we determined the available fiscal space for immunisation.
resultsOut of the 24 districts in our sample, 9 (38%) were technically inefficient in the provision of immunisation services. The average efficiency score, however, was quite high, at 0.92 (CRS technology) and 0.95 (VRS technology). Based on the calculated level of technical efficiency, we estimated that an improvement in technical efficiency can save enough vaccine doses to supply between 5 and 14 additional districts. The challenge, however, lies in identifying and correcting for the sources of technical inefficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.