5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measles-Rubella Supplementary Immunization Activity Readiness Assessment — India, 2017–2018

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In 2013, during the 66th session of the Regional Committee of the World Health Organization (WHO) South-East Asia Region (SEAR), the 11 SEAR countries* adopted goals to eliminate measles and control rubella and congenital rubella syndrome by 2020 † ( 1 ). To accelerate progress in India ( 2 , 3 ), a phased § nationwide supplementary immunization activity (SIA) ¶ using measles-rubella vaccine and targeting approximately 410 million children aged 9 months–14 years commenced in 2017 and will be completed by first quarter of 2019. To ensure a high-quality SIA, planning and preparation were monitored using a readiness assessment tool adapted from the WHO global field guide** ( 4 ) by the India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. This report describes the results and experience gained from conducting SIA readiness assessments in 24 districts of three Indian states (Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Telangana) during the second phase of the SIA. In each selected area, assessments were conducted 4–6 weeks and 1–2 weeks before the scheduled SIA. At the first assessment, none of the states and districts were on track with preparations for the SIA. However, at the second assessment, two (67%) states and 21 (88%) districts were on track. The SIA readiness assessment identified several preparedness gaps; early assessment results were immediately communicated to authorities and led to necessary corrective actions to ensure high-quality SIA implementation. Supplemental Immunization Activity Readiness Assessment Process SIA readiness assessments were conducted in 24 (41%) of the 58 districts in the states of Andhra Pradesh (seven districts), Kerala (five), and Telangana (12). In addition, 74 (72%) of 103 blocks †† in Telangana were selected for readiness assessments. Districts and blocks were selected for assessment based on low routine vaccination coverage, difficult-to-reach populations, high proportion of urban to rural population, and categorization as polio high-risk based on polio risk assessments. The assessments were conducted by teams coordinated by the WHO India Country Office. The teams included members from the India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, especially the Immunization Technical Support Unit, National Institute of Health and Family Welfare, and senior immunization program officers from other states; United Nations agencies, including WHO, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and United Nations Development Program; and nongovernmental organizations, including John Snow Inc., Global Health Strategies, CORE Group Polio Project, and others. The India SIA readiness assessment tool and checklists were adapted from the WHO field guide for planning and implementing SIAs ( 4 ) according to the India national measles-rubella SIA operational guidelines, for use at the national, state, district, and block levels. Assessment teams reviewed preparations in planning and coordination, advocacy, accountability, management of adverse events following immunization, vaccines and logistics management, funding, and communication, using checklists modified at each level based on expected functions of SIA components for that level (Table 1). The checklists included questions with possible answers of “yes” or “no.” The overall percentage of affirmative responses was calculated, and the assessed area was categorized as “on track” (≥80%), “needs work” (60%–79%), or “not ready” (<60%). TABLE 1 Questions on supplementary immunization activities readiness assessment checklist, by component — India, 2017–2018 Component Activity Planning and coordination State/District SIA Steering Committee met at least once? Did all essential government officials participate in at least one State Task Force for Immunization (STFI) meeting?* Circle those who did not participate: Permanent Secretary/State Education Officer/State Program Officer/Women and Child Development/Integrated Child Development Services/Minority Welfare Officer* Did essential non-governmental stakeholders participate in at least one STFI meeting?* Circle those who did not participate: Indian Medical Association (IMA)/Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP)/private practitioners/LIONS International/religious leaders.* State/district Immunization Officer or other state level monitors using state checklist-A for tracking progress of state level preparedness? State/district Immunization Officer using checklist-B for tracking progress by visiting the priority districts?* State/district monitors identified for visiting the priority districts for assessing the SIA preparedness? State/district Education Officer communicated with all District Education Officer? State/district Program Officer communicated with all Child Development Project Officers? Has the state committee for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) met at least once? Sensitization meetings Sensitization meeting held with heads of IMA and IAP, including leading private practitioners?* Sensitization meeting held with district level Education Officers? Coordination meeting with state level representatives of public schools, private schools’ associations, religious institutions, etc.?* Vaccine logistics and management Adequate quantity of vaccine and diluents available per microplan? (consider planned staggered distribution of vaccine) Adequate quantity of auto-disable syringes and mixing syringes available per microplan? (consider planned staggered distribution of vaccine) Adequate quantity of indelible marker pens available per microplan? Vaccine distribution plan available for districts? Funds Has state received funds from the national level? Has state disseminated financial guidelines to all districts? Communication planning Is there a nodal officer, other than State EPI Officer, designated for SIA communication planning at state level? At least one joint meeting held for secretaries of Health, Education, other department? (check for official circular) State communication core group formed and held at least one meeting? (verify meeting minutes)* SIA communication plan prepared in a template as per operational guidelines? All districts/blocks have submitted communication plan in prescribed template? Received guidelines for communication activities including financial for SIA and shared with all districts? (check for official circular)* State/district implementing communication plan for underserved communities? (identified influencers, religious and educational institutions for support)* Was there discussion on communication planning in STFI? (verify meeting minutes) Communication and social mobilization Printed and distributed all IEC (Information, Education, and Communication) materials or guidelines? Identified local celebrities or champion for SIA? (verify how involved in SIA) State/district launch or inauguration for SIA? (confirm date for launch) Advocacy Sensitization meeting with religious leaders or influencers planned/held? Media and social media State/district has identified media spokesperson for the SIA? Media workshop planned at state level for SIA? (confirm dates for media workshop) Is an official or agency regularly tracking media and social media for SIA and immunization messages? (collect related news articles)* Task force for social media was formed? (confirm at least one responsible person designated at state level for managing social media) WhatsApp group(s) was formed for health, education, and immunization-related sectors? Facebook page was created for the SIA? (check the page for SIA post)* * These variables were considered to be critical and were evaluated subjectively by the assessment team to decide "go" or "delayed go" for an area marked as "needs work." The checklists used at state, district, planning unit, and school levels were modified to reflect the level-specific role and function for each component. The first readiness assessment was conducted 4–6 weeks before the SIA and the second, 1–2 weeks before the SIA. A decision either to start the SIA on the designated date or to delay the SIA until preparations were complete was made at the district and state levels, based on the second assessment score and categorization of the district or state assessed. Those areas categorized as on track were permitted to start the SIA (“go”); those categorized as not ready were delayed (“delayed go”); and those categorized as needing work either started or delayed the SIA, based on subjective evaluation by the assessment team of critical gaps and level of commitment to taking corrective actions in a timely manner. At the end of the assessment, evidence-based feedback from the teams was shared with health and administration leaders at district, state, and national levels to facilitate decision-making for strengthening the quality of this and future SIAs. Supplemental Immunization Activity Readiness Assessment Results At the first assessment, none of the three states and none of the 24 districts was on track (Table 2). The challenges most frequently identified during the preparedness assessment were lack of logistics and training materials and nonengagement of schools. Based on feedback provided, state-level program managers initiated corrective actions in all districts. At the second assessment, Kerala and Telangana states were on track; Andhra Pradesh needed work and had to delay the start of the SIA to provide an additional week for preparation. Overall, 19 (79%) of the 24 districts were on track (including information, education, and communication [IEC] readiness), four (17%) needed additional work and undertook minor corrective actions, and one (4%) was not ready and had a delayed go. TABLE 2 Supplementary immunization activity readiness assessment* results — three states, India, 2017–2018 SIA readiness assessment results State (no. of districts) Andhra Pradesh (7) Kerala (5) Telangana (12) First assessment Not ready, no. (%) 5 (71) 1 (20) 10 (83) Needs work, no. (%) 2 (29) 4 (80) 2 (17) On track, no. (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Key findings State level trainings not started No SIA logistics plan available IEC materials not available IEC materials not available No schools aware of SIA No clarity on SIA financial guidelines Most schools not informed Trainings conducted without training materials Private schools not on board Medical fraternity not involved and informed about SIA High level of vaccine hesitancy and frank refusal in one district Informal educational institutions, religious schools, madrasas not in target population Low level SIA awareness No clarity on financial guidelines for local implementers Low level preparedness for management of AEFI Language barriers Lack of SIA awareness Vaccine hesitancy in minority communities Actions taken Video conference with all districts by the principal secretary and by each district to all blocks to discuss assessment findings and plan corrective actions SIA logistics made immediately available to the districts Video conference with all deputy commissioners, chief medical officers, and district immunization officers requesting immediate corrective actions Principal secretary visited all high-risk districts to get firsthand information on preparedness progress and next steps Microplans reviewed in all areas; additional field monitors deployed in high-risk districts and blocks Meeting with district education officers to develop plan; directives for noncompliant schools, meeting with heads of madrasas organized to encourage SIA participation Operational communication plan developed with all partners; all district microplans reviewed Additional communication and social mobilization officers mobilized in areas with vaccine hesitancy and refusal Prominent talk show personalities appear on local television channels; media release in Urdu language; video of prominent opinion leaders and religious leaders developed and circulated through social media platform Medical and Indian Academy of Pediatrics invited to participate in process and promote SIA in local newspaper Medical colleges and medical fraternity brought on board as support group to the SIA District magistrates briefed on assessment results; called all immunization offices and received regular updates on progress to accelerate preparedness Senior state officers visited high-risk areas to accelerate preparedness activities District AEFI committee reactivated and capacity building done Administrative processes to print and deploy materials were fast-tracked. Orientation on financial guidelines Meeting with district governors of Lions Clubs International and request to adopt problematic schools to accelerate SIA preparedness and awareness Second assessment Not ready, no. (%) 1 (14) 0 (0) 0 (0) Needs work, no. (%) 3 (43) 0 (0) 1 (8) On track, no. (%) 3 (43) 5 (100) 11 (92) Decision Delay Move forward Move forward % Administrative coverage, state (districts range) 97 (86 to >100) 89 (87 to 98) >100 (87 to >100) Abbreviations: AEFI = adverse events following immunization; IEC = information, education, and communication; SIA = supplementary immunization activity. * SIA readiness assessments during planning for phase 2 of the nationwide SIA using measles-rubella vaccine for children aged 9 months–14 years that started in 2017. The first readiness assessment was conducted at 4–6 weeks before the SIA and the second assessment at 1–2 weeks before the SIA. Checklists had questions with possible answers of “Yes” or “No.” Scoring was based on percentage of “Yes” responses, categorized as on track (≥80%), needs work (60%–79%), and not ready (<60%). Administrative coverage >100% indicated the intervention reached more persons than were in the estimated target population. During the SIA, rapid convenience monitoring, a programmatic tool that identifies children not vaccinated during the campaign and compiles reasons for nonvaccination, determined that 9,912 (6.9%) of all 143,894 targeted children were not vaccinated during the SIA, including 7% (3,314 of 44,906) in Andhra Pradesh, 10% (1,943 of 19,408) in Kerala, and 6% (4,659 of 79,580) in Telangana (Figure). Among all unvaccinated children located through rapid convenience monitoring, the most frequently reported reason given by caregivers for not vaccinating was that the child was sick (3,715; 37%), followed by lack of awareness of the campaign (1,566; 16%). In Kerala, refusal accounted for approximately a quarter of children who were not vaccinated. The least frequently reported reason (209; 2%) for nonvaccination was SIA operational gaps (e.g., nonfunctioning vaccination sites, absent or late vaccinators, vaccine stock-outs, and other logistics issues) (Figure). Reported SIA administrative coverage was ≥95% in two states and 17 districts (Table 2). FIGURE Percentage of unvaccinated children, by reported primary reason for nonvaccination* during supplementary immunization activity † (phase 2) § — Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Telangana states, India, 2017–2018 Abbreviations: AEFI = Adverse events following immunization; MR = measles-rubella; SIA = supplementary immunization activity. * Intra-SIA monitoring using rapid convenience monitoring. † Nationwide SIA using MR vaccine for children aged 9 months–14 years. § Phase 2 of phased nationwide SIA started in 2017 and to be completed by first quarter of 2019. Children targeted for vaccination during phase 2 of the SIA but not vaccinated included 7% in Andhra Pradesh, 10% in Kerala, and 6% in Telangana. The figure above is a bar chart showing the percentage of unvaccinated children, by reported primary reason for nonvaccination, during phase 2 of a supplementary immunization activity in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Telangana in India during 2017–2018. Discussion Experience with the SIA assessment in India demonstrated that the WHO SIA readiness assessment tool and procedures were useful for ensuring preparedness for implementation of a high-quality SIA. Corrective actions implemented after the first assessment, which found that two thirds of districts were not ready for the SIA, resulted in 79% of districts being on track by the second assessment. Providing feedback to key decision-makers immediately after the assessments helped with planning and allocation of resources and facilitated implementation of timely corrections. These midcourse corrections also might have resulted in further-reaching effects across each of the three states because of the statewide directives issued by immunization program managers for corrective actions in all districts to better prepare for this SIA and future SIAs. As suggested in the global guidelines, decision-makers in India used the terminology “delayed go” rather than “no go” in states and districts assessed as not ready for the measles-rubella SIA, to provide positive reinforcement to immunization program personnel who needed additional time for preparation. Intra-SIA rapid convenience monitoring found that SIA operational gaps were the least common reason for children not being vaccinated, an indication of good preparation and implementation of campaign activities. The primary reasons for children not being vaccinated during the SIA were related to IEC gaps and challenges in addressing parental misperceptions and their lack of awareness of and availability for the SIA. These findings suggest that the WHO SIA readiness checklists section on IEC and communication strategies might need to be revised and expanded. Although WHO global guidance recommends four to six assessments before an SIA to ensure readiness, in this setting, only two pre-SIA assessments were designed and conducted in each area. Because the SIA readiness assessment process was part of the overall operational activities and covered by the existing technical assistance of WHO, UNICEF, and partners, no additional costs were budgeted for the activity. However, inclusion of more districts, blocks, and health centers in the process could help to ensure homogeneous quality of SIA implementation. The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, the selection of areas for readiness assessments included in this report was purposeful, and no control groups were available for comparison. Second, the impact of the readiness assessments on achieving the ≥95% SIA coverage target was not assessed by post-SIA surveys because of time and resource limitations and lack of a comparison group. The WHO South-East Asia Region aims to vaccinate >500 million children with measles-rubella vaccine through SIAs by 2019. The experience with pre-SIA assessments in India reported here will help improve preparedness for high-quality SIAs, ensuring high vaccination coverage to achieve the regional goal of measles elimination and rubella and congenital rubella syndrome control by 2020. Summary What is already known about this topic? India has adopted a goal for measles elimination and rubella and congenital rubella syndrome control by 2020 by achieving high coverage with 2 routine doses of measles-containing vaccine and supplemental immunization activities (SIAs), which require substantial preparation. What is added by this report? Two pre-SIA readiness assessments in 24 districts in three states provided feedback to decision-makers that led to corrective actions. Readiness improved from 33% to 79% between the two assessments. What are the implications for public health practice? The WHO South-East Asia Region aims to vaccinate >500 million children with measles-rubella vaccine through SIAs by 2019. The experience with pre-SIA assessments can help improve preparedness and ensure high coverage through SIAs in the region.

          Related collections

          Most cited references1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Progress Toward Regional Measles Elimination — Worldwide, 2000–2016

          The fourth United Nations Millennium Development Goal, adopted in 2000, set a target to reduce child mortality by two thirds by 2015. One indicator of progress toward this target was measles vaccination coverage ( 1 ). In 2010, the World Health Assembly (WHA) set three milestones for measles control by 2015: 1) increase routine coverage with the first dose of a measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) among children aged 1 year to ≥90% at the national level and to ≥80% in every district; 2) reduce global annual measles incidence to 95% (since 2008). Since 2000, the number of countries with MCV1 coverage of ≥90% increased globally from 85 (44%) in 2000 to 119 (61%) in 2015, and to 123 (63%) in 2016. However, among countries with ≥90% MCV1 coverage nationally, the percentage with ≥80% MCV1 coverage in all districts declined from 46% (52 of 112) in 2010 to 45% (49 of 110) in 2015 and 36% (44 of 123) in 2016. Among the estimated 20.8 million infants who did not receive MCV1 through routine immunization services in 2016, approximately 11 million (53%) were in six countries with large birth cohorts and suboptimal coverage: Nigeria (3.3 million), India (2.9 million), Pakistan (2.0 million), Indonesia (1.2 million), Ethiopia (0.9 million), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (0.7 million). TABLE 1 Estimates of coverage with the first and second doses of measles-containing vaccine administered through routine immunization services, reported measles cases and incidence, and estimated measles deaths,* by World Health Organization (WHO) region — worldwide, 2000 and 2016 WHO region (no. countries in region)/Year % Coverage with MCV1† % Countries with ≥90% MCV1 coverage % Coverage with MCV2† % Countries with incidence 100% indicate that the intervention reached more persons than the estimated target population. § Rollover national campaigns started the previous year or will continue into the next year. Disease Incidence Countries report the aggregate number of incident measles cases** , †† to WHO and UNICEF annually through the Joint Reporting Form. In 2016, 189 (97%) countries conducted case-based surveillance in at least part of the country, and 191 (98%) had access to standardized quality-controlled testing through the WHO Global Measles and Rubella Laboratory Network. Nonetheless, surveillance was weak in many countries; fewer than half of countries (64 of 134; 48%) achieved the sensitivity indicator target of two or more discarded measles and rubella §§ cases per 100,000 population in 2016 compared with 2015 (80 of 135; 59%). During 2000–2016, the number of measles cases reported annually worldwide decreased 85%, from 853,479 in 2000 to 214,812 in 2015 and then to 132,137 in 2016; measles incidence decreased 87%, from 145 to 19 cases per 1 million population (Table 1). Compared with 2015, 2016 incidence decreased from 29 to 19 cases per million, although three fewer countries (173 of 194; 89%) reported case data in 2016 than did in 2015 (176 of 194; 92%). ¶¶ The percentage of reporting countries with fewer than five measles cases per million population increased from 38% (64/169) in 2000 to 69% (119/173) in 2016. During 2000–2016, measles incidence of fewer than five cases per million was sustained in AMR (Table 1). During 2015–2016, the number of reported measles cases declined globally and in all regions (AFR, 31%; AMR, 98%; EMR, 71%; EUR, 84%; SEAR, 44%, and WPR, 11%). In addition to aggregate reporting, countries report measles case-based data to WHO monthly. In some countries large discrepancies exist between the two reporting systems. During 2016, some countries either did not report or reported only a fraction of monthly reported measles cases through the Joint Reporting Form (e.g., India reported 70,798 measles cases through monthly reporting, but only 17,250 through the Joint Reporting Form). Genotypes of viruses isolated from measles cases were reported by 60 (55%) of the 110 countries that reported at least one measles case in 2016. Among the 24 recognized measles virus genotypes, 11 were detected during 2005–2008, eight during 2009–2014, six in 2015, and five in 2016, excluding those from vaccine reactions and cases of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, a fatal progressive neurologic disorder caused by persistent measles infection ( 4 ).*** In 2016, among 4,796 reported measles virus sequences, ††† 666 were genotype B3 (36 countries); 44 were D4 (four); 1,407 were D8 (43); 87 were D9 (four); and 2,592 were H1 (13). Disease and Mortality Estimates A previously described model for estimating measles disease and mortality was updated with new measles vaccination coverage data, case data, and United Nations population estimates for all countries during 2000–2016, enabling derivation of a new series of disease and mortality estimates ( 5 ). Based on the updated data, the estimated number of measles cases declined from 29,068,400 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 20,606,800–55,859,000) in 2000 to 6,976,800 (95% CI = 4,190,500–28,657,300) in 2016. During this period, the number of estimated measles deaths declined 84%, from 550,100 (95% CI = 374,000–896,500) in 2000 to 89,780 (95% CI = 45,700–269,600) in 2016 (Table 1). Compared with no measles vaccination, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 20.4 million deaths during 2000–2016 (Figure). FIGURE Estimated annual number of measles deaths with and without vaccination programs — worldwide, 2000–2016* Abbreviation: CL = confidence limit. * Deaths prevented by vaccination is indicated by the shaded area between estimated deaths with vaccination and those without vaccination (cumulative total of 20.4 million deaths prevented during 2000–2016). The figure above is a line graph showing the estimated annual number of measles deaths with and without vaccination programs worldwide during 2000–2016. Regional Verification of Measles Elimination In 2016, four WHO regions had functioning regional verification commissions. In September 2016, the AMR regional verification commission declared the region free of endemic measles ( 6 ). In 2016, the EUR commission verified measles elimination in 24 countries ( 7 ). Two SEAR countries (Bhutan and Maldives) were verified as having eliminated measles in 2017 ( 8 ). The WPR commission reclassified Mongolia as having reestablished endemic measles virus transmission because of an outbreak that lasted >12 months; thus, five WPR countries (Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Japan, and South Korea) and two areas (Macao Special Autonomous Region [SAR] [China] and Hong Kong SAR [China]) had verified measles elimination status in 2016 ( 9 ). Discussion During 2000–2016, increased coverage with MCV administered through routine immunization programs worldwide, combined with SIAs, contributed to an 87% decrease in reported measles incidence and an 84% reduction in estimated measles mortality. Measles vaccination prevented an estimated 20.4 million deaths during this period, and during 2016, for the first time ever, estimated measles deaths declined to fewer than 100,000. Furthermore, the number of countries with measles incidence of fewer than five per million population has increased, although considerable underreporting occurred, and AMR has maintained an incidence of fewer than five cases per million population during 2000–2016. The decreasing number of circulating measles virus genotypes suggests interruption of some chains of transmission. However, the 2015 global control milestones were not met, global MCV1 coverage has stagnated, global MCV2 coverage has reached only 64%, and SIA quality was inadequate to achieve ≥95% coverage in several countries. With suboptimal MCV coverage, outbreaks continued to occur among unvaccinated persons, including school-aged children and young adults. The 2016 Mid-term Review of the Global Measles and Rubella Strategic Plan 2012–2020 concluded that measles elimination strategies were sound, and the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization endorsed its findings. The review noted, however, that implementation of the strategies needs improvement. Measures should focus on strengthening immunization and surveillance systems. The Measles and Rubella Initiative should increase its emphasis on using surveillance data to drive programmatic actions. The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, SIA coverage data might be biased by inaccurate reports of the number of doses delivered, doses administered to children outside the target age group, and inaccurate estimates of the target population size. Second, large differences between the estimated and reported incidence indicate variable surveillance sensitivity, making comparisons between countries and regions difficult to interpret. Finally, the accuracy of the results from the measles mortality model is affected by biases in all model inputs, including country-specific measles vaccination coverage and measles case-based surveillance data. The decrease in measles mortality to fewer than 100,000 deaths in 2016 is one of five main contributors (along with decreases in mortality from diarrhea, malaria, pneumonia, and neonatal intrapartum deaths) to the decline in overall child mortality worldwide and progress toward the fourth United Nations Millennium Development Goal, but continued work is needed to help achieve measles elimination goals ( 10 ). Of concern is the possibility that the gains made and future progress in measles elimination could be reversed when polio-funded resources supporting routine immunization services, measles SIAs, and measles surveillance diminish and disappear after polio eradication. Countries with the highest measles mortality rely most heavily on polio-funded resources and are at highest risk for reversal of progress after polio eradication is achieved. Improved implementation of elimination strategies by countries and their partners is needed, with focus on increasing vaccination coverage with substantial and sustained additional investments in health systems, strengthening surveillance systems, using surveillance data to drive programmatic actions, securing political commitment, and raising the visibility of measles elimination goals. Summary What is already known about this topic? The fourth United Nations Millennium Development Goal, adopted in 2000, set a target to reduce child mortality by two thirds by 2015. One indicator of progress toward this target was measles vaccination coverage. What is added by this report? For the first time, annual estimated measles deaths were fewer than 100,000, in 2016. This achievement follows an increase in the number of countries providing the second dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV2) nationally through routine immunization services to 164 (85%) of 194 countries, and the vaccination of approximately 119 million persons against measles during supplementary immunization activities in 2016. During 2000–2016, annual reported measles incidence decreased 87%, from 145 to 19 cases per million persons, annual estimated measles deaths decreased 84%, from 550,100 to 89,780, and an estimated 20.4 million deaths were prevented. However, the 2015 measles elimination milestones have not yet been met, and only one World Health Organization region has been verified as having eliminated measles. What are the implications for public health practice? To achieve measles elimination goals, countries and their partners need to act urgently to secure political commitment, raise the visibility of measles elimination, increase vaccination coverage, strengthen surveillance, and mitigate the threat of decreasing resources once polio eradication is achieved. Polio eradication resources have supported routine immunization services and surveillance activities.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Journal
            MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
            MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep
            WR
            Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
            Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
            0149-2195
            1545-861X
            06 July 2018
            06 July 2018
            : 67
            : 26
            : 742-746
            Affiliations
            Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India; Immunization and Vaccine Development, World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia, New Delhi, India; National Polio Surveillance Project, India Country Office, World Health Organization, New Delhi, India; India Country Office, United Nations Children’s Fund, New Delhi, India; Immunization and Vaccine Development, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; Global Immunization Division, Center for Global Health, CDC.
            Author notes
            Corresponding author: Sudhir Khanal, khanals@ 123456who.int , +91-9650197391.
            Article
            mm6726a3
            10.15585/mmwr.mm6726a3
            6048977
            29975677
            158a4607-56ef-4f5b-9cf9-72c1a8682dc3

            All material in the MMWR Series is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.

            History
            Categories
            Full Report

            Comments

            Comment on this article