Abstract
Background.Kano State, Nigeria, introduced inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) into its routine immunization (RI) schedule in March 2015 and was the pilot site for an RI data module for the National Health Management Information System (NHMIS). We determined factors impacting IPV introduction and the value of the RI module on monitoring new vaccine introduction.Methods.Two assessment approaches were used: (1) analysis of IPV vaccinations reported in NHMIS, and (2) survey of 20 local government areas (LGAs) and 60 associated health facilities (HF).Results.By April 2015, 66% of LGAs had at least 20% of HFs administering IPV, by June all LGAs had HFs administering IPV and by July, 91% of the HFs in Kano reported administering IPV. Among surveyed staff, most rated training and implementation as successful. Among HFs, 97% had updated RI reporting tools, although only 50% had updated microplans. Challenges among HFs included: IPV shortages (20%), hesitancy to administer 2 injectable vaccines (28%), lack of knowledge on multi-dose vial policy (30%) and age of IPV administration (8%).Conclusion.The introduction of IPV was largely successful in Kano and the RI module was effective in monitoring progress, although certain gaps were noted, which should be used to inform plans for future vaccine introductions.
Highlights
Kano State, Nigeria, introduced inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) into its routine immunization (RI) schedule in March 2015 and was the pilot site for an RI data module for the National Health Management Information System (NHMIS)
By April 2015, 66% of local government area (LGA) had at least 20% of health facilities (HF) administering IPV, by June all LGAs had HFs administering IPV and by July, 91% of the HFs in Kano reported administering IPV
The introduction of IPV was largely successful in Kano and the RI module was effective in monitoring progress, certain gaps were noted, which should be used to inform plans for future vaccine introductions
Summary
Two assessment approaches were used: (1) analysis of IPV vaccinations reported in NHMIS, and (2) survey of 20 local government areas (LGAs) and 60 associated health facilities (HF). Data from the NHMIS were downloaded for two time periods: (1) August 2015 for the months of March to June 2015 and (2) February 2016 for the months of July to November 2015. The first time point (August 2015) was to enable site selection based on IPV introduction using April 2015 as the target month; data extraction occurred before the field assessment in January 2016. April was used as the target month to adjust for time lag between IPV statewide launching and actual introduction at the service delivery level. The latter time period, February 2016, which occurred after the field assessment, was used to assess IPV utilization. Because Penta and IPV are given to a child at the same visit, the concordance between antigens was used to determine IPV uptake and utilization
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
