ArticleBMJ open2026
Direct and indirect effects of distance from health facility on zero-dose children in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional secondary analysis of performance monitoring for action cohort I data, 2025.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the effect of distance from the nearest health facility on zero-dose children in Ethiopia by using a generalised structural equation modelling.
designA cross-sectional secondary analysis of longitudinal data.
settingCommunity-based study in five regions of Ethiopia (Tigray, Oromia, Amhara, Southern Nation Nationalities and Peoples (SNNP) regions, and Addis Ababa city).
participantsThe final analysis included a weighted sample of 1973 mother-child pairs. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the direct effect of distance to the nearest health facility on zero-dose children. The secondary outcome was the mediating effect of maternal reproductive health service utilisation on this relationship.
resultThe prevalence of zero-dose children was 15.7%, with significant urban (2.2%) and rural (19.7%) disparities. The median distance to the nearest health facility was 1.93 km, with median distances of 2.10 km for rural and 1.26 km for urban residents. Similarly, the mean distance to the nearest public health facility was 2.09 km (SD = ±1.72). Each additional kilometre from the nearest public health facility was associated with 14.2% higher odds of a child being zero-dose (aOR: 1.14 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.28)). This effect was predominantly direct, accounting for 89.4% of the total effect (aOR: 1.13 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.26)), while the indirect effect mediated through maternal reproductive health service utilisation was minimal and not statistically significant (aOR: 1.01 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.05)).
conclusionThis study suggests that greater distance to the nearest health facility increases the likelihood of children being zero-dose. Therefore, improving physical access to health services through expanded outreach programmes and mobile vaccination services, and strengthening maternal health services, particularly antenatal care and facility delivery, is essential for reducing the burden of zero-dose children.
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.