Estimate Coverage Rate and Efficiency of Social Mobilization for Nationwide bOPV and MR Vaccination Campaign in Libya, 2017

Alkoshi, Salem

doi:10.52547/rabms.7.1.39

Volume 7, Issue 1 (3-2021) Journal of Research in Applied and Basic Medical Sciences 2021, 7(1): 39-45 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.52547/rabms.7.1.39

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Alkoshi S. Estimate Coverage Rate and Efficiency of Social Mobilization for Nationwide bOPV and MR Vaccination Campaign in Libya, 2017. Journal of Research in Applied and Basic Medical Sciences 2021; 7 (1) :39-45
URL: http://ijrabms.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-149-en.html

Estimate Coverage Rate and Efficiency of Social Mobilization for Nationwide bOPV and MR Vaccination Campaign in Libya, 2017

Salem Alkoshi ^*

PhD in Public Health, Department of public health, Faculty of Public Health & Nursing, Al Asmarya Islamic University, Libya , alkushis@yahoo.com

Abstract: (1769 Views)

Background & Aims: The main goal of vaccination in a campaign is to strengthen the immunity of people. The study aims to assess the vaccination coverage rate of the campaign, the efficiency of social mobilization, and parental awareness.
Materials & Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out in Msallata city from 8 Jan to 16 Mar 2018. Data collection was associated with children who belonged to the targeted age group. The source of data was from parents being met randomly in different public areas. The vaccines given in the campaign were bOPV for children below 6 years of age and MMR for children within the age range of 3-5 years. The questions to know the parental response and effectiveness of social mobilization.
Results: 1194 children were scanned for receiving bOPV vaccine, and 637 for receiving MMR vaccine through the campaign. The coverage rate of bOPV was 92.5%, while MMR was 93%. The main reasons for unvaccinated healthy children (89 unvaccinated children) were unsatisfied parents to SIAs (36%), busy in jobs (37%), and no idea about the campaign (27%), while 11 of the unvaccinated children were sick. Parents who heard late after launching the campaign were 63%. Campaign information to parents was from TV (30%), health officers (16%), Facebook (16%), and SMS (13%) (P-value <0.05). Parents' satisfaction with the campaign was very high (95%).
Conclusion: The study demonstrated that the campaign was close to achieving the target coverage rate (95%). Accurate preparation and appropriate microplanning with trained staff will contribute to vaccination.

Keywords: Polio, Measles, Campaign, Libya

Full-Text [PDF 295 kb] (1266 Downloads)

Type of Study: orginal article | Subject: General

References

1. Kagina BM, Wiysonge CS, Machingaidze S, Abdullahi LH, Adebayo E, Uthman OA, et al. The use of supplementary immunisation activities to improve uptake of current and future vaccines in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol. BMJ open 2014; 4(2): e004429. [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004429]

2. WHO. Supplementary Immunization. Polio Eradication Initiative (Internet). 2019. Available from: http: //polioeradication.org/who-we-are/strategic-plan-2013-2018/supplementary-immunization/ [WHO]

3. Khetsuriani N, Deshevoi S, Goel A, Spika J, Martin R, Emiroglu N. Supplementary immunization activities to achieve measles elimination: experience of the European Region. J Infect Dis 2011; 204(suppl_1): S343-52. [DOI:10.1093/infdis/jir074]

4. Helleringer S, Frimpong JA, Abdelwahab J, Asuming P, Touré H, Awoonor-Williams JK, et al. Supplementary polio immunization activities and prior use of routine immunization services in non-polio-endemic sub-Saharan Africa. Bull World Health Organ 2012; 90: 495-503. [DOI:10.2471/BLT.11.092494]

5. WHO. Polio Eradication Initiative. Supplementary immunization (Internet). 2019 (cited 2021 Jun 1). Available from: http: //www.emro.who.int/polio/strategy-supplemental-immunization/supplementary-immunization.html [WHO]

6. Hutchins SS, Redd SC, Schrag S, Kruszon-Moran D, Wooten K, McQuillan GM,et al. National serologic survey of measles immunity among persons 6 years of age or older, 1988-1994. MedGenMed 2001: E5. [pubmed]

7. Priti C, Sourabh S. Saxena, Measles & rubella vaccination campaign in India: Why, how, when and where. Indian Journal of Community Health 2018. 30(2): 111-4. [google scholar]

8. Kazi AM, Murtaza A, Khoja S, Zaidi AK, Ali SA. Monitoring polio supplementary immunization activities using an automated short text messaging system in Karachi, Pakistan. Bull World Health Organ 2013; 92: 220-5. [DOI:10.2471/BLT.13.122564]

9. WHO. Pakistan and Afghanistan: the final wild poliovirus bastion (Internet). 2019. Available from: https: //www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/pakistan-and-afghanistan-the-final-wild-poliovirus-bastion. [WHO]

10. Dabbagh A, Laws RL, Steulet C, Dumolard L, Mulders MN, Kretsinger K, et al. Progress toward regional measles elimination-worldwide, 2000-2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018; 67(47): 1323. [DOI:10.15585/mmwr.mm6747a6]

11. Orenstein WA, Cairns L, Hinman A, Nkowane B, Olivé JM, Reingold AL. Measles and rubella global strategic plan 2012-2020 midterm review. Vaccine 2018; 36: A1-34. [DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.026]

12. Organization WHO, Initiative GPE. Polio endgame strategy 2019-2023: eradication, integration, certification and containment. World Health Organization; 2019. [WHO]

13. Organization WHO. Measles elimination field guide. Manila: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific; 2013. [WHO]

14. Uddin MJ, Adhikary G, Ali MW, Ahmed S, Shamsuzzaman M, Odell C, et al. Evaluation of impact of measles rubella campaign on vaccination coverage and routine immunization services in Bangladesh. BMC Infect Dis 2016; 16(1): 411. [DOI:10.1186/s12879-016-1758-x]

15. General Information Authority, Population Survey. National Corporation for information and documentation in Libya, 2006. [address]

16. Weiss WM, Rahman MH, Solomon R, Ward D.Determinants of performance of supplemental immunization activities for polio eradication in Uttar Pradesh, India: social mobilization activities of the Social mobilization Network (SM Net) and Core Group Polio Project (CGPP). BMC Infect Dis 2013; 13(1): 17. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-13-17]

17. Duru JI, Usman S, Adeosun O, Stamidis KV, Bologna L. Contributions of volunteer community mobilizers to polio eradication in Nigeria: the experiences of non-governmental and civil society organizations. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2019; 101(4_Suppl): 74-84. [DOI:10.4269/ajtmh.19-0068]

18. Leask J, Kinnersley P, Jackson C, Cheater F, Bedford H, Rowles G. Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals. BMC Pediatr 2012; 12(1): 154. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2431-12-154]

19. Betsch C, Brewer NT, Brocard P, Davies P, Gaissmaier W, Haase N, et al. Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 for vaccination decisions. Vaccine 2012; 30(25): 3727-33. [DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.02.025]

20. Hobson‐West P. 'Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all': organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociol Health Illn 2007; 29(2): 198-215. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00544.x]

21. Brownlie J, Howson A. 'Leaps of faith'and MMR: an empirical study of trust. Sociology 2005; 39(2): 221-39. [DOI:10.1177/0038038505050536]