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

      Coverage and Equity of Childhood Vaccines in China

      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

          This cross-sectional study investigates coverage rates and equity of childhood vaccines in China in 2019.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the rates and equity levels of childhood vaccination in China?

          Findings

          In this cross-sectional study of vaccination records and socioeconomic status among 5294 children and their primary caregivers in China, coverage rates for National Immunization Program (NIP) vaccines were higher than those for non-NIP vaccines. There was significant inequity among non-NIP vaccines.

          Meanings

          This study’s findings may provide reliable estimates of childhood vaccine coverage rates and equity for NIP and non-NIP vaccines in China from a multidimensional equity model.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Measuring vaccination coverage rates and equity is crucial for informing immunization policies in China.

          Objectives

          To estimate coverage rates and multidimensional equity for childhood vaccination in China.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cross-sectional study was conducted via a survey in 10 Chinese provinces between August 5 and October 16, 2019, among children ages 6 months to 5 years and their primary caregivers. Children’s vaccination records and their primary caregivers’ demographics and socioeconomic status were collected. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to March 2022.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Vaccine coverage rates were measured as a percentage of National Immunization Program (NIP) and non-NIP vaccines administered before the day on which the child was surveyed. A multidimensional equity model applied a standardized approach to ranking individuals from least to most unfairly disadvantaged by estimating differences between observed vaccination status and estimated vaccination status as function of fair and unfair variation. Fair sources of variation in coverage included whether the child was of age to receive the vaccine, and unfair sources of variation included sex of the child and sociodemographic characteristics of caregivers. Absolute equity gaps (AEGs), concentration index values, and decompositions of factors associated with vaccine equity were estimated in the model.

          Results

          Vaccine records and sociodemographic information of 5294 children (2976 [52.8%] boys and 2498 [47.2%] girls; age range, 6-59 months; 1547 children aged 12-23 months) and their primary caregivers were collected from 10 provinces. Fully immunized coverage under the NIP was 83.1% (95% CI, 82.0%-84.1%) at the national level and more than 80% in 7 provinces (province coverage ranged from 77.8% [95% CI, 74.3% to 81.3%] in Jiangxi to 88.4% [95% CI, 85.7%-91.1%] in Beijing). For most non-NIP vaccines, however, coverage rates were less than 50%, ranging from 1.8% (95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%) for the third dose of rotavirus vaccine to 67.1% (65.4% to 68.8%) for the first dose of the varicella vaccine. The first dose of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine had the largest AEG, at 0.603 (95% CI, 0.570-0.636), and rotavirus vaccine dose 3 had the largest concentration index value, at 0.769 (95% CI, 0.709-0.829). The largest share of non-NIP vaccine inequity was contributed by monthly family income per capita, followed by education level, place of residence, and province for caregivers. For example, the proportion of explained inequity for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine dose 3 was 40.94% (95% CI, 39.49%-42.39%), 22.67% (95% CI, 21.43%-23.9%), 27.15% (95% CI, 25.84%-28.46%), and 0.68% (95% CI, 0.44%-0.92%) for these factors, respectively.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This cross-sectional study found that NIP vaccination coverage in China was high but there was inequity for non-NIP vaccines. These findings suggest that improvements in equitable coverage of non-NIP vaccination may be urgently needed to meet national immunization goals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Estimates

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The global value of vaccination.

              J Ehreth (2003)
              While most agree that vaccination is one of the most important public health practices, vaccines continue to be underused and undervalued, and vaccine-preventable diseases remain a threat to world health. Perhaps one reason this gap remains is that decision-making generally is made on a vaccine-by-vaccine basis. There has been less attention to the value of vaccination in general. To more clearly identify this value, this paper reviews the cost-effectiveness literature and calculates the annual benefits of vaccination on a global scale.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                9 December 2022
                December 2022
                9 December 2022
                : 5
                : 12
                : e2246005
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China
                [2 ]China Center for Health Development Studies, Peking University, Beijing, China
                [3 ]Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                [4 ]International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                [5 ]Peking University Health Science Center, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention Joint Research Center for Vaccine Economics, Beijing, China
                [6 ]Institute for Global Health and Development, Peking University, Beijing, China
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: October 25, 2022.
                Published: December 9, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.46005
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Zhang H et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Hai Fang, PhD, China Center for Health Development Studies, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Rd, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, China ( hfang@ 123456hsc.pku.edu.cn ).
                Author Contributions: Prof Fang had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Haijun Zhang, Lai, Fang, Patenaude.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Haijun Zhang, Patenaude.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Haijun Zhang, Lai, Mak, Sriudomporn, Patenaude.
                Obtained funding: Fang, Patenaude.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Haijun Zhang, Lai, Sriudomporn.
                Supervision: Fang, Patenaude.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by grants INV-003813 and INV-034554 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                zoi221302
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.46005
                9856225
                36484985
                964db0c2-c796-4542-ae76-0aea8c561278
                Copyright 2022 Zhang H et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 13 July 2022
                : 25 October 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Health Policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article