↓ Skip to main content

Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3270-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Binyaruka, Josephine Borghi

Abstract

The estimates of vaccination coverage are measured from administrative data and from population based survey. While both card-based and recall data are collected through population survey, and the recall is when the card is missing, the preferred estimates remain of the card-based due to limited validity of parental recalls. As there is a concern of missing cards in poor settings, the evidence on validity of parental recalls is limited and varied across vaccine types, and therefore timely and needed. We validated the recalls against card-based data based on population survey in Tanzania. We used a cross-sectional survey of about 3000 households with women who delivered in the last 12 months prior to the interview in 2012 from three regions in Tanzania. Data on the vaccination status on four vaccine types were collected using two data sources, card and recall-based. We compared the level of agreement and identified the recall bias between the two data sources. We further computed the sensitivity and specificity of parental recalls, and used a multivariate logit model to identify the determinants of parental recall bias. Most parents (85.4%) were able to present the vaccination cards during the survey, and these were used for analysis. Although the coverage levels were generally similar across data sources, the recall-based data slightly overestimated the coverage estimates. The level of agreement between the two data sources was high above 94%, with minimal recall bias of less than 6%. The recall bias due to over-reporting were slightly higher than that due to under-reporting. The sensitivity of parental recalls was generally high for all vaccine types, while the specificity was generally low across vaccine types except for measles. The minimal recall bias for DPT and measles were associated with the mother's age, education level, health insurance status, region location and child age. Parental recalls when compared to card-based data are hugely accurate with minimal recall bias in Tanzania. Our findings support the use of parental recall collected through surveys to identify the child vaccination status in the absence of vaccination cards. The use of recall data alongside card-based estimates also ensures more representative coverage estimates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 19%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Social Sciences 10 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 31 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,046,041
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,842
of 7,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,537
of 328,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#87
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.