Topic:

Other

Abstract No.:

ISE.300

Title:

Evaluation of polio mass immunization campaign - Nyanza Kenya, 2011

Author(s):

N. Muriu¹, C. Maina², J. Omollo³, S. Amwayi⁴, T. Kolongei², D. Mutonga⁵, D. Langat², Y. Ajack², Z. Gura²; ¹JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY, FIELD OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND LABORATORY TRAINING PROGRAM, Nairobi/KE, ²Ministry of public health and sanitation, Disease prevention and control, Nairobi/KE, ³Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation, Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Traaining Program, Nairobi/KE, ⁴MINISTRY OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SANITATION, FIELD OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND LABORATORY TRAINING PROGRAM, Nairobi/KE, ⁵Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation, Disease surveillance and Response, 00100/KE

Abstract:

Background: The Ministries of Health successfully conducted Polio Supplementary Immunization Activity (SIA) targeting all children <5 years in 32 districts between Sept-Dec 2011. This followed a confirmed case of World Poliovirus type-1. A hybrid strategy of door-to-door vaccination and static centers in strategic sites was employed.We conducted an evaluation aimed at tracking performance, assessing vaccination coverage and effectiveness of social mobilization strategy hence taking corrective measures.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted across 32 districts considered high-risk for polio transmission using purposive sampling.A minimum of 2% of the target population was sampled both at household level and public places. Vaccination status was ascertained by finger mark on the small finger of either hand put after vaccine administration. The target for independent monitoring (IM) coverage was set at 90%. Data collection was done using a standardized questionnaire capturing coverage, awareness, main reasons for non-vaccination and social mobilization. Data analysis done in MS-Excel.
Results: The IM coverage increased across the rounds with round one recording 88% (24,435) while round four recorded  94% (24,077). In the four rounds, radio was the most effective strategy for social mobilization (range 31-41%), followed by megaphone (range 12-18%) and health workers (range11-16%). Television was least effective in all the campaigns. More than 70% of the households had functional latrines. The parents’ awareness of the campaign was at an average of 85%. Achieving the 90% target increased across the rounds with fourteen (44%) of the districts achieving the IM target in round one, and 26(81.25%) in round four. Zero doses were <1% in the whole campaign. Main reasons for non-vaccination were households not visited and absence of children and parents during the household visits.
Conclusion: The coverage improved across the rounds as the information generated informed the successive rounds on reasons for non-vaccination and the most effective methods of social mobilization, hence overall validating administrative data and improving quality.