Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Aug 8;18(8):e0289744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289744

Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12-23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional study

Muhammad Kamel Frozanfar 1,2, Nobuyuki Hamajima 1, Said Hafizullah Fayaz 1,3, Abdullah Darman Rahimzad 4, Hedayatullah Stanekzai 5, Souphalak Inthaphatha 1, Kimihiro Nishino 1, Eiko Yamamoto 1,*
Editor: Orvalho Augusto6
PMCID: PMC10409276  PMID: 37552707

Abstract

Introduction

This study aimed to identify the factors associated with the coverage of the third dose of pentavalent vaccine (Penta3) among children aged 12–23 months in Afghanistan.

Methods

The data of 3,040 children aged 12–23 months were taken from the Afghanistan Health Survey 2018, including characteristics of the children and their households, household heads, and mothers/primary care givers. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a logistic model. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis with forward-selection (Model 1) and backward-selection (Model 2) was performed using variables that showed significant differences by bivariate analysis.

Results

The coverage of Penta3 among 12–23-month-old children was 82.3%. Factors associated with Penta3 coverage in the two models of multivariable analysis were 18–23 months old compared to 12–17 months old; having no diarrhea in the last two weeks compared to having diarrhea; no bipedal edema compared to having edema; taking vitamin A supplement; 1–2 children under five years in a household compared to three or more; distance from residence to the nearest health facility ≤2 hours on foot; having a radio; having a TV; educated heads of households; non-smoking of heads of households; and literacy of mothers/primary caregivers.

Conclusions

Penta3 coverage among 12–23-month-old children improved but was still lower than the target. Primary education should be provided to all children throughout the country. TV and radio are useful tools for providing health information. Mobile outreach programs and the establishment of new health facilities should be promoted to improve access to health service for all people in Afghanistan.

Introduction

Childhood immunization can protect children from vaccine-preventable diseases and it is considered as the most cost-effective healthcare investment that has long-term benefits for public health [13]. According to the estimations, immunization annually averts 2.5 million child deaths around the world from vaccine-preventable diseases [2, 4]. The World Health Organization (WHO) established the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) in 1974 for extending immunization activities worldwide. Initially the target of this program was six diseases: tetanus, diphtheria, poliomyelitis, pertussis, tuberculosis, and measles [5]. It is important that different vaccine types are administered in a single dose to avoid multiple shots to the target children. Fortunately, the introduction of combined vaccines has promoted the incorporation of additional vaccines into a vaccination schedule. In 2011, the pentavalent vaccine (Penta), which protects against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis type B, and hemophilia influenza type B, was introduced in many countries by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations [6, 7].

Afghanistan is one of the countries that has the highest mortality rate of children under five years old (under-five mortality) in the world, although the under-five mortality in Afghanistan declined from 191 per 1,000 live births in 2006 to 58 per 1,000 live births in 2020 [8, 9]. One of the reasons for the high under-five mortality rate is low vaccination coverage. In Afghanistan, the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) started the national immunization program in 1978 [10] and eight vaccines are provided to prevent vaccine-preventable diseases, such as Bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG), measles, oral polio vaccine (OPV), and Penta. According to the current EPI schedule, BCG and OPV 0 dose (OPV0) are administered at birth, Penta1 and OPV1 in the 6th week, Penta2 and OPV2 in the 10th week, Penta3 and OPV3 in the 14th week, measles first dose (MCV1) in the 9th month, and MCV2 in the 18th month. All vaccines except MCV2 should be administered to all children before they are one year old [2, 5, 8]. The WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region set the target of childhood vaccine coverage for all antigens as 90% for countries in the region, including Afghanistan [11]. However, the coverage of Penta3 was 58% in 2015, and there is still much to do in order to reach the optimal 90% coverage countrywide [12].

Since the EPI started in Afghanistan, the vaccine delivery system has been improving. EPI centers, which have at least one trained vaccinator, provide the routine immunizations free of charge and the number of EPI centers increased from 870 in 2004 to more than 1,767 in 2016 [13]. The routine immunization coverage improved from 30.1% in 2003 to 59.7% in 2013 [10], but decreased from 58.8% in 2015 and 50.2% in 2018 [8, 14]. The coverage in 2018 was low (3.1–28.1%) in southern and southeastern provinces. Therefore, Afghanistan still has strong outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, especially diseases that can be prevented by Penta. In 2003, providing maternal and child health services by mobile health teams, which consist of a midwife, a vaccinator, and a nurse, started in remote and conflict-affected areas. In 2016 and 2017, the coverage of Penta3 in the areas with mobile health team services was 26.6%, which was lower than that in the areas without the services (30.5%) [15]. To improve the coverage of Penta3, the factors affecting no or incomplete vaccination of Penta3 should be understood. Previous studies reported that the factors associated with non- and under-vaccination of children in Afghanistan were socio-demographic and childhood factors, lack of urbanization, access to health facilities, and household factors including maternal and paternal education [2, 5, 12]. However, to our knowledge, there have been no studies on the factors associated with Penta3 coverage in Afghanistan. Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors associated with Penta3 coverage among children aged 12–23 months in the country, using the data of the Afghanistan Health Survey (AHS) 2018.

Materials and methods

The AHS 2018

This study is a secondary analysis of the AHS 2018 data. The AHS 2018 was conducted by the MoPH and Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen in 2018, covering all 34 provinces of Afghanistan [14]. The AHS 2018 was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the MoPH in Afghanistan. In this survey, stratified two-stage cluster sampling was used. Stratification was achieved by separating each province into urban and rural areas. In the first stage, 30 clusters were sampled per province. In the second stage, 23 households were sampled for household interviews in each selected cluster, yielding 690 households per province. Therefore, 23,460 households (4,738 households in urban areas and 18,722 households in rural areas) were selected as the survey samples in all 34 provinces. However, less than two-thirds of the selected clusters were surveyed in Zabul, Nuristan, and Helmand Provinces due to civil wars and hard-to-reach areas [14]. A total of 19,684 households from 912 clusters in 34 provinces were finally included in the survey.

Data collection was conducted from March to August in 2018 [14]. Field teams consisted of male and female interviewers, recruited from each of the 34 provinces of Afghanistan. All staff received extensive training prior to going into the field. The AHS instruments consisted of six questionnaires: (1) general information and socio-demography, (2) household history, (3) anthropometry of children, (4) mother’s general information, (5) women’s pregnancy history, and (6) child immunization status. The field teams visited each selected household and interviewed all men who had ever been married and women aged 15–49 of the household using the questionnaires after obtaining verbal consent. The response rate of households and women was 94.4% and 93.9%, respectively [14]. Regarding children’s data collection, the anthropometric completion rate and child health completion rate was 93.8% and 94.3%, respectively. Data collection in the field took place by adequate interview techniques maintaining all ethical protocols. When the data were analyzed, sampling weights were applied in order to adjust the results for differences that might be caused by the selection steps.

Study participants

In this study, the study subjects were children aged 12–23 months old, their mothers/primary care givers, and their household heads who participated in the AHS. Of the 19,684 households included in the AHS 2018, 3,040 households had a child aged 12–23 months and there was no household that had two or more children aged 12–23 months. Information of children was obtained from the mothers or primary caregivers of the target children. Heads of households and mothers/primary caregivers of 3,040 children agreed to participate in the survey including children’s information. The characteristics of the 12–23-month-old children, the characteristics of their households, and the characteristics of their household-heads and mothers/caregivers were taken from the AHS dataset. The dataset was provided by the MoPH for this study.

Variables of children

Characteristics of the children included sex, age, having a vaccine record card, having Penta1 and Penta3, diarrhea in the last two weeks and at the interview, bipedal edema at the interview, and taking vitamin A supplement. Age was categorized into 12–17 months old and 18–23 months old. History of Penta was collected from their vaccination cards or recalls of their mothers/primary caregivers. The definition of diarrhea was the passage of three or more loose or liquid stools in 24 hours [16]. Mothers/primary caregivers were asked about vitamin A supplementation for their children during the last national immunization campaign. In Afghanistan, vaccine record cards do not record vitamin A supplementation. Children were inspected by the investigation team if they had bipedal edema, which is an indicator of acute malnutrition [17].

Variables of households

Socio-demographic characteristics of the households were location, number of total people, number of total eligible women, number of total children under five years old, type of residence, source of drinking water, type of toilet, distance from the house to the nearest health facility, and having a radio, a TV, and a mobile phone. A household was defined as a group of people who lived in the same house and were led by the same household head. Location of a household was determined as urban or rural based on the criteria by the government. The total number of people in a household was categorized into 1–5, 6–10, and 11 or more. ‘Eligible women’ means women who were of reproductive age (12–49 years old). The number of eligible women (1 or 2≤) and children under five years old (1–2 or 3≤) in a household were categorized into two groups considering nuclear or extended families. Type of residence was designated as their own house or a rental house. The sources of drinking water were categorized into protected sources (covered wells, hand pumps, pipes, and public tap) and unprotected sources (open well, water from spring, rainwater, surface water, and ponds). Toilets were classified into sanitary and unsanitary. Sanitary toilets hygienically prevent contact with human excreta, which included flush or pour-flush toilets, piped sewer systems, septic tanks or pits, ventilated improved pit latrines, pit latrines with slabs, and composting toilets. Distance from a house to the nearest health facility was categorized into less than 30 minutes, 30 minutes to two hours, and more than two hours on foot. The data collectors observed whether a household had a TV, radio, and mobile phone.

Variables of household heads and mothers/primary caregivers

Characteristics of the heads of household included sex, age, education, employment type, marital status, smoking cigarettes, and usage of narcotic drugs. A head of the household was defined as a person in the household who made major decisions on financial expenditures, medical care, schooling, and food supply of the family. Age groups were categorized considering the quantile of the age (≤29 years, 30–44 years, 45–59 years, and ≥60 years). The level of education was grouped into “yes” when heads of households had primary or higher education. Employment type was grouped as self-employed or paid worker (person who worked for the government or private sector). Marital status was categorized into “married” and others (single, divorced, widow, or widower). They were asked about if they smoked cigarettes and if taking narcotic drugs.

Characteristics of mothers/primary caregivers included age, literacy, watching TV, and listening to the radio. Age was categorized into four groups (≤17 years, 18–29 years, 39–44 years, and ≥45 years). Literacy of mothers/primary caregivers were categorized after observing their reading and writing ability of any of the common languages of the country (Pashto, Dari, or Uzbek language). The women were asked how often they watched TV or listened to the radio and the response of “not at all” was categorized into “no” and the others (almost every day, at least once a week, and less than once a week) were categorized into “yes.” Variables for this study were chosen according to previous studies on the vaccine coverage [2, 5, 12, 1821].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analysis was used to describe the characteristics of children, their households, and their household heads and mothers/caregivers. A logistic regression analysis was applied to obtain odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed on Penta3 using 18 variables that showed significant differences by bivariate analysis (Model 1, forward-selection; Model 2, backward-selection). Multicollinearity was not found between the variables according to the variance inflation factor values for each of variables. The associations were considered statistically significant when P-value was <0.05. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 24.0 (IBM SPSS Inc, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for analysis.

Ethical issues

In this study, written informed consent was waived due to a secondary analysis of the anonymous data of the AHS 2018 and the study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the MoPH in Afghanistan (Approval number: E.1019.0087). In the AHS, field processes included appropriate interview techniques that incorporated all relevant ethical protocols. Verbal consent was obtained from each participant, namely a household head and a mother/primary caregiver of each child, after interviewers read all contents of a verbal consent form to the participant. For data collection of a child, verbal consent was obtained from the mother/primary caregiver of the child. When verbal consent was obtained, the interviewers checked the box of “consented”, wrote their name and the date of interview, and signed on the consent form.

Results

The data of 3,040 children aged 12–23 months, their mothers/primary caregivers, and heads of their households were taken from the AHS 2018 dataset. Of the 3,040 children, 1,666 children (54.8%) were male and 1,742 children (57.3%) were 12–17 months old (Table 1). The average age was 16.5 months old. Most children (n = 2,646, 87.0%) had vaccination cards but 340 children (11.2%) did not have vaccination cards.

Table 1. Characteristics of 12–23-month-old children (N = 3,040).

Variables Total (N = 3040) Penta3 (N = 2502)
N (%) n % (95% CI)
Sex
Female 1374 (45.2) 1120 81.5 (77.2–85.8)
Male 1666 (54.8) 1382 83.0 (79.0–87.0)
Age (months old)
12–17 1742 (57.3) 1469 84.3 (80.3–88.3)
18–23 1298 (42.8) 1033 79.6 (75.3–83.9)
Vaccination recorded on the card
Yes 2646 (87.0) 2190 82.8 (79.6–86.0)
No 340 (11.2) 268 78.8 (70.4–87.2)
No response 54 (1.8) 44 81.5 (59.8–103.2)
Penta1
Yes 2857 (94.0) 2502 87.6 (84.4–90.8)
No 183 (6.0) 0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0–0.0)
Diarrhea in the last 2 weeks
No 2043 (67.3) 1712 83.8 (80.2–87.4)
Yes 997 (32.7) 790 79.2 (74.3–84.1)
Diarrhea at the time of the interview
No 2894 (95.2) 2379 82.2 (79.2–85.2)
Yes 146 (4.8) 123 84.2 (70.5–97.9)
Bipedal edema
Absent 2996 (98.6) 2472 82.5 (79.5–85.5)
Present 44 (1.4) 30 68.2 (48.0–88.4)
Vitamin A supplementation
No 438 (14.4) 325 74.2 (67.3–81.1)
Yes 2602 (85.6) 2177 83.7 (80.5–86.9)

Penta1, the first dose of pentavalent vaccination; Penta3, the third dose of pentavalent vaccination.

The coverage of Penta1 and Penta3 was 94.0% (n = 2,857) and 82.3% (n = 2,502), respectively. Children who had a history of diarrhea in the last two weeks accounted for 32.7% (n = 997) and 146 children (4.8%) had diarrhea at the time of data collection. Bipedal edema was found among 44 children (1.4%) and 2,602 children (85.6%) took vitamin A supplements when they had the last vaccination.

Most households lived in rural areas (n = 2,442, 80.4%) and comprised of 6–10 persons (n = 1,338, 44.0%) and one eligible woman (n = 1,612, 53.0%) (Table 2). Households with one or two children under five years accounted for 66.4% (n = 2,019). The average number of total people, eligible women, and children under five years old in a household was 10.9, 1.7, and 2.4, respectively. Most households lived in their own residence (n = 2,579, 84.8%), had protected water sources (n = 2,244, 73.8%) and unsanitary toilets (n = 2,344, 77.1%), and located at a distance of 30 minutes up to 2 hours on foot from the nearest health facility (n = 2,790, 91.8%). Of the 3,040 households, 83.2% (n = 2,528) had mobile phones but only 36.7% (n = 1,115) and 46.3% (n = 1,406) had radios and televisions, respectively.

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of the households (N = 3,040).

Variables Total (N = 3040) Penta3 (N = 2502)
N (%) n % (95% CI)
Location
Rural 2442 (80.4) 1971 80.7 (77.5–83.9)
Urban 598 (19.6) 531 88.8 (81.7–95.9)
Total people
1–5 486 (16.0) 411 84.6 (77.1–92.1)
6–10 1338 (44.0) 1134 84.8 (80.3–89.3)
11≤ 1216 (40.0) 957 78.7 (74.3–83.1)
Total eligible women
1 1612 (53.0) 1360 84.3 (80.2–88.4)
2≤ 1428 (47.0) 1142 79.9 (75.8–84.0)
Total children under five years old
1–2 2019 (66.4) 1716 85.0 (81.3–88.7)
3≤ 1021 (33.6) 786 77.0 (72.3–81.7)
Residence
Own 2579 (84.8) 2110 81.8 (78.6–85.0)
Rental 461 (15.2) 392 85.0 (77.2–92.8)
Source of drinking water
Protected 2244 (73.8) 1835 81.8 (78.4–85.2)
Unprotected 796 (26.2) 667 83.8 (78.0–89.6)
Type of toilet
Sanitary 696 (22.9) 598 85.9 (79.5–92.3)
Unsanitary 2344 (77.1) 1904 81.2 (77.9–84.5)
Distance to the nearest health facility (on foot)
<30 min 194 (6.4) 161 82.9 (71.2–94.6)
30 min–2 hr 2790 (91.8) 2326 83.4 (80.3–86.5)
2 hr< 56 (1.8) 15 26.8 (19.8–33.8)
Having a radio
No 1925 (63.3) 1612 83.7 (80.0–87.4)
Yes 1115 (36.7) 890 79.8 (75.1–84.5)
Having a television
No 1634 (53.7) 1307 80.0 (76.1–83.9)
Yes 1406 (46.3) 1195 84.9 (80.5–89.3)
Having a mobile phone
No 512 (16.8) 399 77.9 (71.2–84.6)
Yes 2528 (83.2) 2103 83.2 (80.0–86.4)

Penta3, the third dose of pentavalent vaccination.

Most heads of households were male (n = 3,000, 98.6%) and 30–44 years (n = 1,117, 36.7%) and the average age was 43.6 years old (Table 3). There were 8 (0.3%) and 40 (1.3%) household heads who were under 18 and 21 years, respectively. Only 39.5% of the household heads (n = 1,201) had primary or higher education and 52.2% (n = 1,588) were paid workers. Only 9.4% and 2.6% of heads of households were smokers and users of narcotic drugs, respectively.

Table 3. Characteristics of the household heads and mothers/primary caregivers (N = 3,040).

Variables Total (N = 3040) Penta3 (N = 2502)
N (%) n % (95% CI)
Sex of household head
Male 3000 (98.6) 2469 82.3 (79.4–85.2)
Female 40 (1.4) 33 82.5 (56.9–108.1)
Age of household head (years old)
≤29 736 (24.2) 621 84.3 (78.2–90.4)
30–44 1117 (36.7) 931 83.3 (78.4–90.4)
45–59 774 (25.5) 612 79.1 (73.5–84.7)
60≤ 413 (13.6) 338 81.8 (73.9–89.7)
Education of household head
No 1839 (60.5) 1474 80.2 (76.5–83.9)
Yes 1201 (39.5) 1028 85.6 (80.8–90.4)
Employment type of household head
Self-employed 1452 (47.8) 1162 80.0 (75.9–84.1)
Paid worker 1588 (52.2) 1340 84.4 (80.2–88.6)
Marital status of household head
Married 2987 (98.3) 2457 82.3 (79.3–85.3)
Othersa 53 (1.7) 45 84.9 (62.0–107.8)
Smoking of household head
Yes 286 (9.4) 217 75.9 (67.1–84.7)
No 2754 (90.6) 2285 83.0 (79.9–86.1)
Using narcotic drugs of household head
Yes 78 (2.6) 63 80.8 (62.9–98.7)
No 2962 (97.4) 2439 82.3 (79.3–85.3)
Age of mother/primary caregiver (years old)
≤17 29 (0.9) 21 72.4 (46.0–98.8)
18–29 1843 (60.6) 1585 86.0 (82.1–89.9)
30–44 969 (31.9) 745 77.0 (72.2–81.8)
45≤ 199 (6.6) 151 75.8 (65.3–86.3)
Literacy of mother/primary caregiver
Illiterate 2308 (75.9) 1983 80.5 (77.2–83.8)
Literate 732 (24.1) 519 90.1 (83.6–96.6)
Listening to the radio by mother/primary caregiver
No 2199 (72.3) 1817 82.6 (79.1–86.1)
Yes 841 (27.7) 685 81.5 (76.0–87.0)
Watching TV by mother/primary caregiver
No 1841 (60.6) 147 80.0 (76.3–83.7)
Yes 1199 (39.4) 1029 85.8 (80.9–90.7)

Penta3, the third dose of pentavalent vaccination.

aOthers include single, divorced, widow, and widower.

The average age of 3,040 mothers/primary caregivers was 28.9 years old and 60.6% of all mothers were 18–29 years old. Mothers/primary caregivers who could read any of the local languages accounted for 24.1% (n = 732) (Table 3). Only 27.7% (n = 841) and 39.4% (n = 1,199) of all mothers/primary caregivers answered that they listened to the radio and watched TV, respectively.

The number and percentage of children who had Penta3 in each category are shown in Tables 13. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that children who were 18–23 months old (OR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.60–0.87), who had diarrhea in the last two weeks (OR = 0.71, 95%CI 0.60–0.89), and having bipedal edema (OR = 0.45, 95%CI 0.24–0.86) were negatively associated with Penta3 (Table 4). Children who took a vitamin A supplement when having the last vaccine (OR = 1.80, 95%CI 1.40–2.26), who lived in urban areas (OR = 1.89, 95%CI 1.44–2.49) and whose households had one eligible woman compared to two or more eligible women (OR = 2.76, 95%CI 2.07–3.68), had 1–2 children compared to three children or more (OR = 1.69, 95%CI 1.40–2.05), and had sanitary toilets (OR = 1.41, 95%CI 1.11–1.78) had significantly more Penta3. Children who lived at a distance of more than two hours on foot from the nearest health facility (OR = 0.07, 95%CI 0.04–0.13) were negatively associated with Penta3. Children whose household had a radio (OR = 1.30, 95%CI 1.07–1.57), had a TV (OR = 1.42, 95%CI 1.17–1.71), and had a mobile phone (OR = 1.40, 95%CI 1.11–1.77) had significantly more Penta3. In terms of variables of heads of households, having an education (OR = 1.47, 95%CI 1.20–1.79), being paid workers than self-employed (OR = 1.35, 95%CI 1.12–1.63), and non-smokers (OR = 1.54, 95%CI 1.61–2.07) were associated with Penta3. Children whose mothers/primary care givers were 17 years old or younger were negatively associated with Penta3 compared to 18–29 years old (OR = 0.51, 95%CI 0.36–0.73). When mothers/primary caregivers were literate (OR = 2.51, 95%CI 2.05–3.05) or watched TV (OR = 1.51, 95%CI 1.24–1.84), the coverage of Penta3 among their children was significantly higher than the others.

Table 4. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval of Penta3 coverage among 12–23-month-old children (N = 3,040).

Variables OR (95% CI) Model 1 Model 2
AOR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Age of child (months old)
12–17 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
18–23 0.72 (0.60–0.87)** 0.80 (0.66–0.99)* 0.80 (0.66–0.99)*
Diarrhea in the last 2 weeks
No 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
Yes 0.71 (0.60–0.89)** 0.75 (0.60–0.93)** 0.74 (0.60–0.92)**
Bipedal edema
Absent 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
Present 0.45 (0.24–0.86)** 0.43 (0.22–0.85)* 0.44 (0.23–0.87)*
Vitamin A supplementation
No 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
Yes 1.80 (1.40–2.26)*** 1.72 (1.34–2.22)*** 1.69 (1.30–2.18)***
Location of the household
Rural 1 (Reference) - 1 (Reference)
Urban 1.89 (1.44–2.49)*** - 1.29 (0.96–1.74)
Total eligible women
1 2.76 (2.07–3.68)*** - -
2≤ 1 (Reference) - -
Total children under five years old
1–2 1.69 (1.40–2.05) 2.06 (1.67–2.54)*** 2.01 (1.63–2.45)***
3≤ 1 (Reference)*** 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
Type of toilet
Sanitary 1.41 (1.11–1.78)** - -
Unsanitary 1 (Reference) - -
Distance to the nearest health facility (on foot)
≤2 hr 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
2 hr< 0.07 (0.04–0.13)*** 0.11 (0.06–0.22)*** 0.12 (0.06–0.23)***
Having a radio of household
No 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
Yes 1.30 (1.07–1.57)** 1.43 (1.16–1.77)** 1.42 (1.15–1.75)**
Having a television of household
No 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
Yes 1.42 (1.17–1.71)*** 1.55 (1.26–1.90)*** 1.48 (1.19–1.83)***
Having a mobile phone of household
No 1 (Reference) - -
Yes 1.40 (1.11–1.77)** - -
Education of household head
No 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
Yes 1.47 (1.20–1.79)*** 1.65 (1.32–2.05)*** 1.58 (1.27–1.98)***
Employment type of household head
Self-employed 1 (Reference) - 1 (Reference)
Paid worker 1.35 (1.12–1.63)** - 1.21 (0.99–1.49)
Smoking of household head
Yes 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
No 1.54 (1.61–2.07)** 1.50 (1.09–2.06)* 1.50 (1.10–2.06)*
Age of mother/primary caregiver (years old)
≤17 years 0.51 (0.36–0.73)*** 0.45 (0.19–1.05) 0.46 (0.19–1.07)
18–29 years 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
30–44 years 0.85 (0.66–1.35) 0.74 (0.31–1.75) 0.74 (0.31–1.76)
≥45 years 0.82 (0.38–1.72) 0.76 (0.30–1.89) 0.75 (0.30–1.86)
Literacy of mother/primary caregiver
Illiterate 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference) 1 (Reference)
Literate 2.51 (2.05–3.05)*** 3.02 (2.42–3.76)*** 3.00 (2.40–3.75)***
Watching TV by mother/primary caregiver
No 1 (Reference) - -
Yes 1.51 (1.24–1.84)*** - -

OR, odd ratio; AOR, adjusted odd ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Model 1: stepwise forward-selection (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: P = 0.451), Model 2: stepwise backward-selection (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: P = 0.101).

*P<0.05

**P<0.01

***P<0.001.

Multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis with forward-selection method (Model 1) using the 18 variables showed that factors associated with Penta3 among children aged 12–23 months old were 12–17 months old compared to 18–23 months old (AOR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.66–0.99); having no diarrhea in the last two weeks (AOR = 0.75, 95%CI 0.60–0.93) compared to having diarrhea; no bipedal edema compared to having edema (AOR = 0.43, 95%CI 0.22–0.85); taking vitamin A supplement (AOR = 1.72, 95%CI 1.34–2.22); 1–2 children under five years in a household compared to three or more (AOR = 2.06, 95% CI 1.67–2.54); distance from residence to the nearest health facility ≤2 hours on foot (AOR = 0.11, 95%CI 0.06–0.22); having a radio (AOR = 1.43, 95%CI 1.16–1.77); having a TV (AOR = 1.55, 95%CI 1.26–1.90); having educated heads of households (AOR = 1.65, 95%CI 1.32–2.05); non-smoking of heads of households (AOR = 1.50, 95%CI 1.09–2.06); and literacy of mothers/primary caregivers (AOR = 3.02, 95%CI 2.42–3.76) (Table 4). The factors associated with Penta3 in multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis with backward-selection method (Model 2) were the same as those in Model 1 (Table 4).

Discussion

This study showed that the coverage of Penta3 among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan was 82.3% in 2018, which was higher than that in the DHS 2015 (58%) [8, 12]. With recurrent outbreaks of pentavalent preventable diseases, the MoPH prioritized the immunization activities to strengthen the immunization systems and set the target of Penta3 vaccine coverage as 90% [5]. Health policies for promoting the equity of health services have been implemented and mobile immunization sessions have been expanded to areas with a low Penta3 coverage. However, the efforts of these policies were not so effective due to insecurity, absence of accurate data on target children, unavailability or low quality of monitoring and evaluation of the immunization activities, and vaccine hesitancy due to distrust in healthcare providers and the quality of health services [10, 12, 18, 2224].

Better health status of children was associated with Penta3 coverage, namely no diarrhea in the last two weeks, no bipedal edema, and taking vitamin A supplement. These results were consistent with results of previous studies in other developing countries [1921]. Bipedal edema is an indicator of severe acute malnutrition of children. Vitamin A is provided to 6–59-month-old children at health facilities at least twice a year by the National Immunization Campaigns and vitamin A deficiency weakens the immunity level of children against vaccine preventable diseases [19, 20]. These results suggest that parents who have appropriate knowledge of child health and sanitation are more likely to receive health services for children [19, 2527]. This study also showed an association between distance (more than two hours on foot) from the nearest health facility and a lower vaccine coverage. Access to health service is also important for children’s health, because poor access and distance from vaccination services were the most common reasons for not receiving Penta3 vaccines and hesitancy despite the availability of vaccines [10, 28].

The results of this study suggest that children whose parents were educated had a higher Penta3 coverage compared to those who had non-educated parents, because most household heads and caregivers were supposed to be fathers and mothers of the children. Previous studies reported that the education of parents strongly contributes to timely adherence to complete the schedule of Penta vaccine for children [28, 29]. Reading ability can promote understanding of the recommended immunization schedule, whereas illiteracy can decrease the Penta3 coverage [18, 25, 28, 30]. An association between receiving Penta3 and having a TV and a radio at home in this study suggests that household heads and mothers/caregivers might be able to receive health-related information even if they are illiterate. Announcements or dramas related to vaccination campaigns by TV or radio increases parents’ awareness about benefits from vaccines [18, 23, 31, 32]. Furthermore, parents’ attitude to their health may also affect Penta3 coverage because Penta3 coverage was significantly higher when household heads were non-smokers compared to when they were smokers in this study. When parents have proper knowledge of a healthy lifestyle, they understand the benefits of child immunization and their family members are healthy [18, 33].

The results of this study suggest that family characteristics such as the number of children in the household and age of mothers/primary caregivers may affect Penta3 coverage. It may be because a smaller family size can mitigate constraints in time allocation and resources [28, 34] and young mothers might have insufficient knowledge of child care because of early marriage, inadequate education, and lack of experience [35, 36]. In this study, children aged 12–17 months were significantly more likely to complete Penta3 compared to those aged 18–23 months. This may be because the Penta3 coverage has been increasing in Afghanistan. The improvement of the coverage from 2015 to 2018 was 24.3%, and it means 4.1% increase per six months. This is consistent with the result in this study that the difference of the coverage in the age group of 12–17 months old and the age group of 18–23 months old was 4.7%.

In the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region including 21 member countries, not only Afghanistan but also six other countries did not achieve the target of the DPT/Penta3 coverage among children under one year old in 2018; 87% in Afghanistan, 84% in Djibouti and Iraq, 80% in Yemen, 72% in Pakistan, 69% in Somalia, and 66% in Syrian Arab Republic [37]. These results suggest that living in conflict-affected areas may be a strong risk factor for low DPT/Penta3 coverage in the region by causing cancellation of planned services and missed opportunities. Humanitarian crisis, such as wars and natural disasters, are one of major barriers for improving the vaccine coverage [38]. Identifying children in hard-to-reach areas and expanding vaccine services to children who are older than the target age should be focused on more to improve the coverage.

Based on the results of this study, the following areas should be prioritized to increase Penta3 coverage in Afghanistan. First, health education, community awareness, and the formulation of ground-oriented interventions for social mobilization should be provided through different channels to increase vaccination knowledge and community demand for immunization. Second, primary education should be provided to both girls and boys, because they will be parents and the main decision-makers for child immunization. Third, people in hard-to-reach rural areas are vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases; therefore, regular mobile outreach programs for these communities should be established through routine immunization outreach service delivery plans. Fourth, the location and equity distribution of health facilities should be reassessed, and new health facilities should be established. This is pertinent because a distance of more than two hours on foot from health facilities is one of the main barriers for Penta3 vaccine completion.

This study has some limitations. First, variables included in this study did not include some important information such as the wealth status of the children’s family or characteristics of parents but not household heads or primary caregivers [5, 12, 21, 39, 40], because this study used the data of the AHS 2018 for secondary analysis. Second, the immunization history was not based on the immunization cards of all children but based on the self-reports of mothers/primary caregivers and household heads of 11.2% of all the children. Therefore, recall bias might occur when parents answered without immunization cards and the Penta3 coverage might be over- or under-estimated. Third, some areas were not included in this study due to security reasons and Penta3 coverage might be lower than the coverage estimated in this study. However, all 34 provinces were covered and 3,040 children were included in this study. The results in this study may be useful to make policies for improving the vaccination coverage in Afghanistan.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the coverage of Penta3 among children aged 12–23 months in Afghanistan was 82.3% in 2018, which showed improvement but did not reach the target coverage. Factors associated with Penta3 coverage were 12–17 months old compared to 18–23 months old, having no diarrhea in the last two weeks, no bipedal edema, taking vitamin A supplements, 1–2 children under five years in a household compared to three or more, distance from residence to the nearest health facility ≤2 hours on foot, having a radio, having a TV, education and non-smoking of heads of households, and literacy of mothers/primary care givers. Primary education should be provided to both boys and girls throughout the country and information about vaccination schedules and health should be provided by TV and radio. To improve the access to health service, promoting mobile outreach programs and establishing new health facilities are also recommended.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Health Information System General Department and the EPI Department of the MoPH for their support and assistance in providing the dataset of the AHS 2018. We also appreciate Dr. Asmatullah Arab, Dr. Werishmen Sabawoon, and Mr. Sadiq Mossadiq for their insights and technical support.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of a property of the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) of Afghanistan. MoPH of Afghanistan has the ownership and authority to manage the AHS 2018 data. Only authorized and permitted researchers by MoPH are allowed to access and use the data for research and analytical purposes. Data are available from the Ministry of Public Health of Afghanistan (General Directorate of Monitoring & Evaluation and Health Information System; Tel +93-20-231-3688 | Emails ehis.moph@gmail.com, mehis.moph@gmail.com) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

The author received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Mbengue MAS, Mboup A, Ly ID, Faye A, Camara FBN, Thiam M, et al. Vaccination coverage and immunization timeliness among children aged 12–23 months in Senegal: a Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis approach. Pan Afr Med J. 2017;27(Suppl 3):8. Epub 2018/01/04. doi: 10.11604/pamj.supp.2017.27.3.11534 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5745951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Shenton LM, Wagner AL, Carlson BF, Mubarak MY, Boulton ML. Vaccination status of children aged 1-4years in Afghanistan and associated factors, 2015. Vaccine. 2018;36(34):5141–9. Epub 2018/07/22. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.020 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fattorini M, Wilunda C, Raguzzoni G, Quercioli C, Messina G, Fantini MP, et al. Strengthening routine immunization services in an Angolan Comuna: The fight against the Burden of unvaccinated children in the Sustainable Development Goals Era. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(22). Epub 2019/11/23. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16224572 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6888547. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Okwaraji YB, Mulholland K, Schellenberg JR, Andarge G, Admassu M, Edmond KM. The association between travel time to health facilities and childhood vaccine coverage in rural Ethiopia. A community based cross sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:476. Epub 2012/06/26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-476 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3439329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Farzad F, Reyer JA, Yamamoto E, Hamajima N. Socio-economic and demographic determinants of full immunization among children of 12–23 months in Afghanistan. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2017;79(2):179–88. Epub 2017/06/20. doi: 10.18999/nagjms.79.2.179 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5472543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hadisoemarto PF, Reich MR, Castro MC. Introduction of pentavalent vaccine in Indonesia: a policy analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(8):1079–88. Epub 2016/04/24. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czw038 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5013783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Karami M, Ameri P, Bathaei J, Berangi Z, Pashaei T, Zahiri A, et al. Adverse events following immunization with pentavalent vaccine: experiences of newly introduced vaccine in Iran. BMC Immunol. 2017;18(1):42. Epub 2017/08/25. doi: 10.1186/s12865-017-0226-8 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5569531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Central Statistics Organization, Ministry of Public Health, ICF. Afghanistan demographic and health survey 2015. Kabul, Afghanistan: Central Statistics Organization; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. Under-five mortality rate-total-Afghanistan. [cited 2023 January 23]. Available from: https://childmortality.org/data/Afghanistan.
  • 10.Mugali RR, Mansoor F, Parwiz S, Ahmad F, Safi N, Higgins-Steele A, et al. Improving immunization in Afghanistan: results from a cross-sectional community-based survey to assess routine immunization coverage. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):290. Epub 2017/04/06. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4193-z ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5379688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. Afghanistan health profile 2015. Cairo: WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Aalemi AK, Shahpar K, Mubarak MY. Factors influencing vaccination coverage among children age 12–23 months in Afghanistan: Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0236955. Epub 2020/08/09. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236955 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7413477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.WHO. EPI review mission in Afghanistan. 2017 Contract No.: January 26.
  • 14.KIT Royal Tropical Institute of Netherlands, Ministry of Public Health of Afghanistan, National Statistics Information Agency of Afghanistan. Afghanistan health survey 2018. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen; 2019.
  • 15.Edmond K, Yousufi K, Naziri M, Higgins-Steele A, Qadir AQ, Sadat SM, et al. Mobile outreach health services for mothers and children in conflict-affected and remote areas: a population-based study from Afghanistan. Arch Dis Child. 2020;105(1):18–25. Epub 2019/07/05. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-316802 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.WHO. The Treatment of diarrhoea: a manual for physicians and other senior health workers. — 4th rev. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.WHO. Guideline: updates on the management of severe acute malnutrition in infants and children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Smith LE, Amlot R, Weinman J, Yiend J, Rubin GJ. A systematic review of factors affecting vaccine uptake in young children. Vaccine. 2017;35(45):6059–69. Epub 2017/10/05. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.046 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Prendergast AJ. Malnutrition and vaccination in developing countries. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1671). Epub 2015/05/13. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0141 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4527386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Penkert RR, Rowe HM, Surman SL, Sealy RE, Rosch J, Hurwitz JL. Influences of Vitamin A on Vaccine Immunogenicity and Efficacy. Front Immunol. 2019;10:1576. Epub 2019/08/06. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01576 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6651517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sheikh N, Sultana M, Ali N, Akram R, Mahumud RA, Asaduzzaman M, et al. Coverage, Timelines, and Determinants of Incomplete Immunization in Bangladesh. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2018;3(3). Epub 2018/10/03. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed3030072 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6160906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mbaeyi C, Kamawal NS, Porter KA, Azizi AK, Sadaat I, Hadler S, et al. Routine Immunization Service Delivery Through the Basic Package of Health Services Program in Afghanistan: Gaps, Challenges, and Opportunities. J Infect Dis. 2017;216(suppl_1):S273–S9. Epub 2017/08/26. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw549 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5853859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Haviari S, Benet T, Saadatian-Elahi M, Andre P, Loulergue P, Vanhems P. Vaccination of healthcare workers: A review. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(11):2522–37. Epub 2015/08/21. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1082014 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4685699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Paterson P, Meurice F, Stanberry LR, Glismann S, Rosenthal SL, Larson HJ. Vaccine hesitancy and healthcare providers. Vaccine. 2016;34(52):6700–6. Epub 2016/11/05. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.042 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sato R. Association between uptake of selected vaccines and undernutrition among Nigerian children. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021;17(8):2630–8. Epub 2021/02/26. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1880860 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8475618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wasiq AN, Saw YM, Jawid S, Kariya T, Yamamoto E, Hamajima N. Determinants of diarrhea in children under the age of five in Afghanistan: a secondary analysis of the Afghanistan Demographic and Health Survey 2015. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2020;82(3):545–56. Epub 2020/11/03. doi: 10.18999/nagjms.82.3.545 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7548244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Frozanfar MK, Yoshida Y, Yamamoto E, Reyer JA, Dalil S, Rahimzad AD, et al. Acute malnutrition among under-five children in Faryab, Afghanistan: prevalence and causes. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2016;78(1):41–53. Epub 2016/03/29. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4767513. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Schoeps A, Ouedraogo N, Kagone M, Sie A, Muller O, Becher H. Socio-demographic determinants of timely adherence to BCG, Penta3, measles, and complete vaccination schedule in Burkina Faso. Vaccine. 2013;32(1):96–102. Epub 2013/11/05. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.10.063 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lim KK, Chan YY, Noor Ani A, Rohani J, Siti Norfadhilah ZA, Santhi MR. Complete immunization coverage and its determinants among children in Malaysia: findings from the National Health and Morbidity Survey (NHMS) 2016. Public Health. 2017;153:52–7. Epub 2017/09/16. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.08.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dube E, Laberge C, Guay M, Bramadat P, Roy R, Bettinger J. Vaccine hesitancy: an overview. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(8):1763–73. Epub 2013/04/16. doi: 10.4161/hv.24657 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3906279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kazi AM, Ali M, Zubair K, Kalimuddin H, Kazi AN, Iqbal SP, et al. Effect of mobile phone text message reminders on routine immunization uptake in Pakistan: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2018;4(1):e20. Epub 2018/03/09. doi: 10.2196/publichealth.7026 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5863012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Noh JW, Kim YM, Akram N, Yoo KB, Park J, Cheon J, et al. Factors affecting complete and timely childhood immunization coverage in Sindh, Pakistan; A secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0206766. Epub 2018/11/01. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206766 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6209382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gualano MR, Olivero E, Voglino G, Corezzi M, Rossello P, Vicentini C, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs towards compulsory vaccination: a systematic review. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15(4):918–31. Epub 2019/01/12. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1564437 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6605844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rahman M, Obaida-Nasrin S. Factors affecting acceptance of complete immunization coverage of children under five years in rural Bangladesh. Salud Publica Mex. 2010;52(2):134–40. Epub 2010/05/21. doi: 10.1590/s0036-36342010000200005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hu Y, Wang Y, Chen Y, Liang H. Analyzing the urban-rural vaccination coverage disparity through a fair decomposition in Zhejiang Province, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(22). Epub 2019/11/23. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16224575 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6887931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Louangpradith V, Yamamoto E, Inthaphatha S, Phoummalaysith B, Kariya T, Saw YM, et al. Trends and risk factors for infant mortality in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):21723. Epub 2020/12/12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78819-9 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7730153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.WHO regional office for the East Mediterranean. DTP3-containing vaccine/ pentavalent coverage among children under 1 year of age 2018 [cited 2023 January 26].
  • 38.Sodha SV, Dietz V. Strengthening routine immunization systems to improve global vaccination coverage. Br Med Bull. 2015;113(1):5–14. Epub 2015/02/05. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldv001 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Phoummalaysith B, Yamamoto E, Xeuatvongsa A, Louangpradith V, Keohavong B, Saw YM, et al. Factors associated with routine immunization coverage of children under one year old in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Vaccine. 2018;36(19):2666–72. Epub 2018/04/03. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.03.051 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Vo HL, Huynh LT, Anh HNS, Do DA, Doan TN, Nguyen TH, et al. Trends in Socioeconomic Inequalities in Full Vaccination Coverage among Vietnamese Children aged 12–23 Months, 2000–2014: Evidence for Mitigating Disparities in Vaccination. Vaccines (Basel). 2019;7(4). Epub 2019/11/23. doi: 10.3390/vaccines7040188 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6963749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Orvalho Augusto

26 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-30048Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yamamoto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. Furthermore, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study “Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional study” describes the factors associated with administration of the third dose of pentavalent vaccine (Penta3) among children aged 12–23 months in Afghanistan, based on 2018 Afghanistan Health Survey data. The number of eligible children was 3,040 corresponding 19,684 households who had a child aged 12-23 months, the information was obtained from child mothers or a legal tutor. The coverage of Penta3 among 12–23-month-old children was 82.3%. Important determinants were identified associated with Penta3 administration such as age, having no diarrhea in the last two weeks, no bipedal edema, taking vitamin A supplement, household members, distance from residence to the nearest health facility, having a radio, having a TV, having education of heads of households, non-smoking of heads of households, age of mothers/primary care givers, and literacy of mothers/primary caregivers.

The findings reported in this manuscript fit the aims and scope of the journal; however, it does not present novel findings as the previous analysis was performed using the Afghanistan Health Survey 2012/2015 and the factors and findings do not differ too much. The authors should show the relevance of the continuous analysis of the surveys in order to monitor the determinants. I suggest major revision and clarifications for specific points.

Introduction and methods

What is the difference between administration and coverage? Please provide the definition of vaccine coverage in your introduction.

Just to reinforce, it’s a suggestion: Please provide information about the EPI centers, their establishment and operations, if vaccine administration is provided free of charge by the state.

UNICEF/WHO target of immunization is not mentioned in the manuscript, add it please.

L65-66: suggestion change (ages 1-4) by (under five years).

L67: please use updated information if available, 2015 to today many things happened.

L78-80: Please provide the national vaccination coverage estimate. If possible, show how it improved from 2015 to 2018 and wish regions of Afghanistan present the lowest coverage.

L80-83: suggestion: The factors associated with non- and under-vaccination of children in Afghanistan were reported to be socio-demographic and childhood factors, lack of urbanization, access to health facilities, and household factors including maternal and paternal education.

L83-85: The justification can be improved, data regarding vaccination coverage using community data are available in Afghanistan, it would be important to provide a strong justification and show which gap your study will fill.

L84: you have Penta3 administration, however, in L86 coverage, please standardize.

Materials and methods

For better visualization please provide a map that locates it on the continent, as well as the division by provinces.

The time of data collection is not mentioned by the authors the survey took a years or a couple of months? How did they collect it? by visiting individual home? What was the response rate of the participating mothers? method section lacks this information.

L91-92: Change by Cross-sectional study, conducted by the MoPH……………

L98-99: please make it clear

L116-L118: Suggestion: The characteristics of the 12–23-month-old children, their households, characteristics of their household-heads and mothers/caregivers were taken from the AHS database.

L124-125: In Afghanistan, the Vitamin A administration is made only in National campaigns and not as a routine immunization in Health Center? And this information usually goes to child health cards, why this information was only obtained through interviews. Please check L296

L133: please check if is “number of total eligible women” or “number of total eligible children”.

L153-162 and 163-170 check if the information is not overlapped, what is the difference between these two paragraphs and why they are important?

L173 there is no information about the descriptive analysis, please add.

L187: something is missing after the comma

190: please remove the word “old”

191: Please check the percentage of children without vaccination card, because in line 191 you have 11.2%, while in the limitation section 12.0%, please revise.

Results

i. General observation: how did you conduct the descriptive analysis on the tables? I was expected to see each one of the values divided by the sample size, not by its own “n”. For example, in table 1, I was expected to see diarrhea variable 68.4% for “no” and “31.6%” for yes, which reflects the estimates that you have in the country survey. This is just an observation the authors can think and discuss about it.

191-196: I think it deserves a subtitle maybe “Vaccination coverage” and concentrate all the information regarding the vaccine coverage.

Discussion

General

Make a comparative assessment of vaccination coverage in Afghanistan and other countries in the region.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Aug 8;18(8):e0289744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289744.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Feb 2023

Response to editor’s and reviewers’ comments

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments, which were very helpful. The revised manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker. The revisions have been completed and the responses are as follows.

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have carefully revised our manuscript to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements including file names.

2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. Furthermore, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB.

Lines 206-212: In the AHS 2018, a verbal informed consent form was used during the data collection. The interviewers read all contents of the form to each participant. When they obtained verbal consent from each participant, they wrote their name and the date of interview, checked the box of “consented”, and signed on the form. When the interviewers collected information about children, they obtained verbal consent from the children’s mother/primary caregiver. We have revised the paragraph of “Ethical issues” as follows, “Verbal consent was obtained from each participant, namely a household head and a mother/primary caregiver of each child, after interviewers read all contents of a verbal consent form to the participant. For data collection of a child, verbal consent was obtained from the mother/primary caregiver of the child. When verbal consent was obtained, the interviewers checked the box of “consented”, wrote their name and the date of interview, and signed on the consent form.”

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

The data for AHS 2018 is a property of the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) of Afghanistan. MoPH of Afghanistan has the ownership and authority to manage the AHS 2018 data. Only authorized and permitted researchers by MoPH are allowed to access and use the data for research and analytical purposes. Data are available from the Ministry of Public Health of Afghanistan (General Directorate of Monitoring & Evaluation and Health Information System; Tel +93-20-231-3688 | Emails ehis.moph@gmail.com, mehis.moph@gmail.com) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Reviewer #1:

Introduction

1. What is the difference between administration and coverage? Please provide the definition of vaccine coverage in your introduction.

We used the term “administration” as the process of applying vaccine for the targeted children and the term “coverage” as the outcome of applying vaccine for the target children. We think that “coverage” is more appropriate rather than “administration” in our manuscript and we have revised “administration” to “coverage” in the manuscript.

2. Just to reinforce, it’s a suggestion: Please provide information about the EPI centers, their establishment and operations, if vaccine administration is provided free of charge by the state.

Line 80-83: Immunization is one of the key components of Basic Package of Health Services in Afghanistan and provided at EPI centers free of charge. EPI centers have at least one trained vaccinator to apply the routine immunization vaccines to under-five children on a daily basis. The number of EPI centers increased from 1,575 in 2015 to 2,926 in 2018 and EPI centers cover all areas in the country. We have added as follows, “Since the EPI started in Afghanistan, the vaccine delivery system has been improving. EPI centers, which have at least one trained vaccinator, provide the routine immunizations free of charge and the number of EPI centers increased from 870 in 2004 to more than 1,767 in 2016 [13].”

3. UNICEF/WHO target of immunization is not mentioned in the manuscript, add it please.

Lines 76-78: The WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO) set the 90% vaccination target for member countries. We have added a sentence as follows, “The WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region set the target of childhood vaccine coverage for all antigens as 90% for countries in the region, including Afghanistan [11].”

4. L65-66: suggestion change (ages 1-4) by (under five years).

Line 65-66: We have revised “child mortality rate (CMR) (ages 1-4)” to “mortality rate of children under five years old (under-five mortality).”

5. L67: please use updated information if available, 2015 to today many things happened.

Line 66-68: The World Bank estimates the mortality rate of children under five years old in Afghanistan and the latest estimation reported 58 per 1,000 live births in 2020. We have revised the sentence as follows, “the under-five mortality in Afghanistan declined from 191 per 1,000 live births in 2006 to 58 per 1,000 live births in 2020 [8,9].”

6. L78-80: Please provide the national vaccination coverage estimate. If possible, show how it improved from 2015 to 2018 and wish regions of Afghanistan present the lowest coverage.

Line 80: “Immunization services” means “vaccine delivery system” and we have revised as follows, “the vaccine delivery system has been improving.”

Lines 83-85: According to the results of the nation-wide surveillance, the routine immunization coverage increased from 30.1% in 2003 to 59.7% in 2013. However, the coverage was 58.6% in 2015, which decreased to 50.2% in 2018. The coverage was especially low in southern and southeastern provinces (Helmand, Zabul, Urozgan, and Paktika Provinces) (3.1%-28.1%). We have added a sentence as follows, “The routine immunization coverage improved from 30.1% in 2003 to 59.7% in 2013 [10], but decreased from 58.8% in 2015 and 50.2% in 2018 [8, 14]. The coverage in 2018 was low (3.1-28.1%) in southern and southeastern provinces.”

7. L80-83: suggestion: The factors associated with non- and under-vaccination of children in Afghanistan were reported to be socio-demographic and childhood factors, lack of urbanization, access to health facilities, and household factors including maternal and paternal education.

Line 92-95: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have revised as follows, “the factors associated with non- and under-vaccination of children in Afghanistan were socio-demographic and childhood factors, lack of urbanization, access to health facilities, and household factors including maternal and paternal education.”

8. L83-85: The justification can be improved, data regarding vaccination coverage using community data are available in Afghanistan, it would be important to provide a strong justification and show which gap your study will fill.

Line 80-98: The vaccine service system has been developing, but Afghanistan has still outbreaks of infectious diseases which can be prevented by the 3 doses of pentavalent vaccine (Penta3). Vaccine service by mobile health teams was introduced in 2003 but the coverage of Penta3 was not higher in the areas with mobile health team services compared to the areas without the services. Therefore, factors influencing lower coverage of Penta 3 should be understood but no studies have been published focusing on factors associated with Penta3 coverage among children in Afghanistan. We have revised the part of the paragraph as follows, “Since the EPI started in Afghanistan, the vaccine delivery system has been improving. EPI centers, which have at least one trained vaccinator, provide the routine immunizations free of charge and the number of EPI centers increased from 870 in 2004 to more than 1,767 in 2016 [13]. The routine immunization coverage improved from 30.1% in 2003 to 59.7% in 2013 [10], but decreased from 58.8% in 2015 and 50.2% in 2018 [8, 14]. The coverage in 2018 was low (3.1-28.1%) in southern and southeastern provinces. Therefore, Afghanistan still has strong outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, especially diseases that can be prevented by Penta. In 2003, providing maternal and child health services by mobile health teams, which consist of a midwife, a vaccinator, and a nurse, started in remote and conflict-affected areas. In 2016 and 2017, the coverage of Penta3 in the areas with mobile health team services was 26.6%, which was lower than that in the areas without the services (30.5%) [15]. To improve the coverage of Penta3, the factors affecting no or incomplete vaccination of Penta3 should be understood. Previous studies reported that the factors associated with non- and under-vaccination of children in Afghanistan were socio-demographic and childhood factors, lack of urbanization, access to health facilities, and household factors including maternal and paternal education [2,5,12]. However, to our knowledge, there have been no studies on the factors associated with Penta3 coverage in Afghanistan. Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors associated with Penta3 coverage among children aged 12-23 months in the country, using the data of the Afghanistan Health Survey (AHS) 2018.”

9. L84: you have Penta3 administration, however, in L86 coverage, please standardize.

Line 96: As we have stated to a previous comment above, we have revised “administration” to “coverage” throughout the manuscript.

Materials and Methods:

10. For better visualization please provide a map that locates it on the continent, as well as the division by provinces.

Line 104: Thank you very much for your comment. We use “Afghanistan Health Survey 2018” as a reference (No. 14), which explains the sampling methods and includes maps of provinces of Afghanistan. Therefore, everyone can see the maps by searching “Afghanistan Health Survey 2018” without a figure of a country map in the manuscript. For this reason, we do not feel that it is necessary to include a figure of a map.

11. The time of data collection is not mentioned by the authors the survey took a years or a couple of months? How did they collect it? by visiting individual home? What was the response rate of the participating mothers? method section lacks this information.

Lines 109-110: Data collection took place between March 2018 and August 2018. Field teams consisted of male and female interviewers who visited each selected household and interviewed all men who have ever been and women in the household after obtaining verbal consent. The report of AHS showed the response rate of households and women and the complete rate of children’s data (anthropometric measurement and health data). Furthermore, children included in the AHS 2018 were under five years old but our study included children aged 12–23 months old. Therefore, we could not find the response rate of mothers/primary care givers of children 12-23 months old. We have revised the method section as follows, “Data collection was conducted from March to August in 2018 [14]. Field teams consisted of male and female interviewers, recruited from each of the 34 provinces of Afghanistan. All staff received extensive training prior to going into the field. The AHS instruments consisted of six questionnaires: (1) general information and socio-demography, (2) household history, (3) anthropometry of children, (4) mother’s general information, (5) women’s pregnancy history, and (6) child immunization status. The field teams visited each selected household and interviewed all men who had ever been married and women aged 15-49 of the household using the questionnaires after obtaining verbal consent. The response rate of households and women was 94.4% and 93.9%, respectively [14]. Regarding children’s data collection, the anthropometric completion rate and child health completion rate was 93.8% and 94.3%, respectively. Data collection in the field took place by adequate interview techniques maintaining all ethical protocols. When the data were analyzed, sampling weights were applied in order to adjust the results for differences that might be caused by the selection steps.”

12. L91-92: Change by Cross-sectional study, conducted by the MoPH……………

Line 102: The manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker. According to the English editor’s advice, it would be better to keep the original sentence.

13. L98-99: please make it clear

Line 116-120: We understand that the reviewer asked about “for security reasons and the safety of data collectors.” The security issues were recorded active fights (civil wars) in the selected clusters; therefore, female team members were not allowed to enter the area. The survey team was not allowed to use electronic devices. Furthermore, access to the area was difficult because of the geographical terrain. We have revised the sentence as follows, “However, less than two-thirds of the selected clusters were surveyed in Zabul, Nuristan, and Helmand Provinces due to civil wars and hard-to-reach areas [14].”

14. L116-L118: Suggestion: The characteristics of the 12–23-month-old children, their households, characteristics of their household-heads and mothers/caregivers were taken from the AHS database.

Lines 138-140: The manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker. According to the English editor’s advice, it would be better to keep the original sentence.

15. L124-125: In Afghanistan, the Vitamin A administration is made only in National campaigns and not as a routine immunization in Health Center? And this information usually goes to child health cards, why this information was only obtained through interviews. Please check L296

Lines 149-150: In Afghanistan, vitamin A is provided to children by the National Immunization Campaigns but not the routine immunization. The child vaccination card for routine immunization in Afghanistan does not record the administration of vitamin A. Therefore, data collectors asked mothers/primary caregivers if their child took vitamin A or not. We have added as follows, “In Afghanistan, vaccine record cards do not record vitamin A supplementation.”

16. L133: please check if is “number of total eligible women” or “number of total eligible children”.

Line 156: We have checked and “number of total eligible women” is correct.

17. L153-162 and 163-170 check if the information is not overlapped, what is the difference between these two paragraphs and why they are important?

Lines 176-185 and 186-193: The first paragraph (lines 176-185) explains about variables for the data of the heads of household and the second paragraph (lines 186-193) explains about variables of the data mothers/primary caregivers. Age and the educational history were included in both data but the methods of categorization were different. Variables other than age and the educational level were different between household heads and mothers/primary caregivers. Therefore, these two paragraphs are needed and important to explain about variables and categories.

18. L173 there is no information about the descriptive analysis, please add.

Lines 196-197: We have added the sentence as follows, “Descriptive analysis was used to describe the characteristics of children, their households, and their household heads and mothers/caregivers.”

Results:

19. L187: something is missing after the comma

Line 215: We have checked the sentence carefully and there is nothing missing after the comma.

20. 190: please remove the word “old”

Lines 217-218: “1,742 children (57.3%) were 12–17 months old” and “the average age was 16.5 months old” are grammatically correct.

21. 191: Please check the percentage of children without vaccination card, because in line 191 you have 11.2%, while in the limitation section 12.0%, please revise.

Line 387: We are sorry that the percentage in the limitation section was incorrect. We have revised it from 12.0% to 11.2%.

22. General observation: how did you conduct the descriptive analysis on the tables? I was expected to see each one of the values divided by the sample size, not by its own “n”. For example, in table 1, I was expected to see diarrhea variable 68.4% for “no” and “31.6%” for yes, which reflects the estimates that you have in the country survey. This is just an observation the authors can think and discuss about it.

Tables 1-3: The percentage of “Penta3” shows the proportion of children who had Penta3 among total children in each category. We have added the number and percentage of children who did not have Penta3 (who had 0-2 doses of pentavalent vaccine).

23. 191-196: I think it deserves a subtitle maybe “Vaccination coverage” and concentrate all the information regarding the vaccine coverage.

This is a part of the result section and subtitles are not used in the result section. The percentage of columns of “Penta3” means the coverage of Penta3 among each category in Tables 1-3. The comparison of the coverage among categories of each variable is explained from page 9 to page 12.

Discussion

24. Make a comparative assessment of vaccination coverage in Afghanistan and other countries in the region.

Lines 360-369: In our study, the Penta3 coverage among children 12-23 months old. It is difficult to find the same coverage in other countries. Therefore, we compared the coverage of DPT/Penta3 coverage among 21 member countries in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region using the data by the WHO. We have added a paragraph in the discussion section as follows, “In the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region including 21 member countries, not only Afghanistan but also six other countries did not achieve the target of the DPT/Penta3 coverage among children under one year old in 2018; 87% in Afghanistan, 84% in Djibouti and Iraq, 80% in Yemen, 72% in Pakistan, 69% in Somalia, and 66% in Syrian Arab Republic [37]. These results suggest that living in conflict-affected areas may be a strong risk factor for low DPT/Penta3 coverage in the region by causing cancellation of planned services and missed opportunities. Humanitarian crisis, such as wars and natural disasters, are one of major barriers for improving the vaccine coverage [38]. Identifying children in hard-to-reach areas and expanding vaccine services to children who are older than the target age should be focused on more to improve the coverage.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Orvalho Augusto

16 May 2023

PONE-D-22-30048R1Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yamamoto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 30 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an important manuscript documenting 1) the level of the third dose of the pentavalent vaccine in Afghanistan, and 2) potential factors. Thank you for responding to the reviewers' questions. There still remain some shortcomings to resolve:

1. Please make subdivisions on the abstract as one reviewer points out.

2. Line 68 there is one citation pointing to the World Bank as the source of child mortality estimates. This is incorrect. Please a UN IGME reference for this.

3. About the methods:

- About the AHS 2008 sampling. With the current description, it seems that there is province stratification. How about urban/rural?

- Line 113/114: the last sentence is a repetition of a sentence in 110/112. Please, revise.

- There were 3 provinces that did not reach the desired sample size. What was done for these provinces at the analysis level?

- What languages were used to talk to the mothers? Were the data collectors trained for this?

- In a household with more than 1 child eligible to enter the sample what was done? This is an important detail to describe.

- Did the analysis use survey weights or not? This seems to be ignored in the whole analysis.

- Line 180: The categorization of age obeys quantiles of age. What this means quartiles, quintiles? The below age 29 may include families led by someone under-18 or under-21. This may matter at least for description.

- About the "ethical issues". This report is a result of a secondary data analysis of AHS 2018, correct? If yes, clarify that the ethical approval you got was to access the data not to conduct the data collection.

4. Results:

- Please do not use only p-values on table 1 through table 3 (it would be fine to remove these p-values). In fact, many of these p-values are repeated in the unadjusted analysis of table 4. For tables 1 to 3 do: 1) make the percentages to be by column; 2) add a column for coverage and its 95% confidence interval.

- Table 4 - there is nowhere in the manuscript explaining how the factors were chosen. Is this based on the literature? Please state so. Why not adjust by province?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for allowing me to review this manuscript. Over all the manuscript is well written but I have some concerns and suggestions as stated below.

1. Title: The title is good but why you prefer only coverage of PCV3 vaccine coverage? Why you ignore PCV1, PCV2….???

2. Your source of data is not clear; is it primary data from face to face interview or secondary data from previous records??? Be consistent and revise it throughout the document. If you say it was secondary data how do you get consent from participants?

3. The variables like diarrhea, bipedal edema, vitamin A supplement, smoking of heads of households,… are irrelevant and clinically insignificant variables for vaccine coverage so why you include this factors on multivariable regression? Because inclusion of such irrelevant variables in the analysis might confound the effect of other variables.

4. Variables of the study should better to be summarized under one or two paragraphs and operational definitions should be stated in separate section.

5. How do you check multicollinarity? Better to incorporate it in the manuscript.

6. Almost all tables are mere repetitions of text descriptions, better to avoid redundancy by choosing either of the two.

7. Variables such as; diarrhea, bipedal edema, vitamin A supplement and smoking of heads of households are not strongly justified for its association with vaccine coverage in the discussion section. revise it again

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the invitation to review this paper. This paper worth publishing. However, it has some shortcoming from abstract to reference.

The abstract section lacks sub heading. The abstract section is lengthy.

The introduction section is also too long. It should address the tried effort to decrease the burden of the problem your country, current intervention, and any future directions. Furthermore, you should give a strong gap. Your gap is not convincing.

In the method section, you merged method sub-sections. You need to separate and present in clear way. Data collection method, sampling procedure, Tool.

There are a lot of repetitive ideas. E.g. the study period is presented in page 3 line number 103, 115....

Is your tool valid and reliable? Is it developed by the authors or adopted?

Check the whole document for typo errors. Be consistent with use of grammars. Statistical analyses vs statistical analysis?

In the result section: you need to avoid repetition of data already stated in the table. Make it short and precise.

Strong recommendation: The result section should be written in short and precise way.

Have you checked the model assumptions? if so report the findings.

In the discussion section: please check the typing errors. You need to discuss the implication of the finding.

The declaration section seems incomplete.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Aug 8;18(8):e0289744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289744.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 May 2023

Response to editor’s and reviewers’ comments

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments, which were very helpful. The revised manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker. The revisions have been completed and the responses are as follows.

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

We are very sorry that we did not explain about changing references or adding references when we submitted revised manuscript. It is because we used EndNote (a software for references). When EndNote is used for references, revisions of references and reference numbers cannot be found even if the function of “track change” is used in WORD file. Therefore, we have added underlines for the revised reference numbers in the manuscript and for the revised reference (No. 9) in the reference section.

Additional Editor Comments:

2. Please make subdivisions on the abstract as one reviewer points out.

We have added subheadings in the abstract.

3. Line 68 there is one citation pointing to the World Bank as the source of child mortality estimates. This is incorrect. Please a UN IGME reference for this.

Line 68 and reference No. 9: We have revised the reference (No. 9) for under-five mortality rate in Afghanistan from the World Bank to United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation.

Methods:

4. About the AHS 2018 sampling. With the current description, it seems that there is province stratification. How about urban/rural?

Lines 106, 109-110: We have added the explanation of stratification considering urban and rural areas and the number of households in urban and rural area as follows, “Stratification was achieved by separating each province into urban and rural areas. “ (line 106) and “Therefore, 23,460 households (4,738 households in urban areas and 18,722 households in rural areas) were selected as the survey samples in all 34 provinces.” (lines 109-110).

5. Line 113/114: the last sentence is a repetition of a sentence in 110/112. Please, revise.

We have found that two sentences were repeated in the paragraph and we have erased them.

6. There were 3 provinces that did not reach the desired sample size. What was done for these provinces at the analysis level?

We applied sampling weights when we performed analyses, because sampling weights were calculated according to two types of probability of selection, including selection by design and by factors other than design (affected by non-response of a respondent). Taking into account response rates in the weights, makes it also inevitable to introduce individual weights, in addition to household weights. The fact that the questionnaires were designed to interview different types of respondents for household, eligible women and children under 5, anthropometric, and verbal autopsy sections, requires separate response rates for these types of respondents. In AHS, these response rates are calculated at the stratum level. The combination of these two factors, design and non-response, produces household and different individual weights.

7. What languages were used to talk to the mothers? Were the data collectors trained for this?

Lines116, 186-188: The questionnaire forms were translated to Dari and Pashto. When literacy of mothers/primary caregivers was estimated, the data collectors observed their reading and writing ability of any of the common languages of the country (Pashto, Dari, or Uzbek language). Extensive training was provided to trainers and field staff prior to going into the field. The detail methods of trainings of data collectors are explained in the report of AHS 2018, which is included as a reference in our manuscript (No. 14).

8. In a household with more than 1 child eligible to enter the sample what was done? This is an important detail to describe.

Lines 131-133: All households included in the AHS 2018 had only one eligible child (12-23-month old). We explained as follows, “Of the 19,684 households included in the AHS 2018, 3,040 households had a child aged 12–23 months and there was no household that had two or more children aged 12–23 months.”

9. Did the analysis use survey weights or not? This seems to be ignored in the whole analysis.

Yes, we used sampling weights in the analyses.

10. Line 180: The categorization of age obeys quantiles of age. What this means quartiles, quintiles? The below age 29 may include families led by someone under-18 or under-21. This may matter at least for description.

We divided age of household heads into the four groups and the interval was 15 years. Each category suggests characteristics of people. “≤29 years” means the young generation, “30–44 years” means the generation of reproductive, active, and having experiences, “45–59 years” means “senior but still active”, and “≥60” means “after retirement and grandparents”. It is not so rare in Afghanistan that household heads are under18 years or 21 years because of conflicts or terrorist attacks. In our study, household heads who were under 18 years and 21 years were 8 (0.3%) and 40 (1.3%), respectively. In lines 248-249, we have added a sentence as follows, “There were 8 (0.3%) and 40 (1.3%) household heads who were under 18 and 21 years, respectively.”

11. About the "ethical issues". This report is a result of a secondary data analysis of AHS 2018, correct? If yes, clarify that the ethical approval you got was to access the data not to conduct the data collection.

Lines 138-139, 207-209: This study conducted a secondary analysis of the data of AHS 2018 and we did not do data collection. Our study was approved by IRB of the MoPH in Afghanistan. The first author used to work for the MoPH in Afghanistan. For his PhD study, he requested the AHS dataset to General Directorate of Monitoring & Evaluation and Health Information System, MoPH and it was accepted. In lines 138-139, we have added the following sentence, “The dataset was provided by the MoPH for this study.”

Results:

12. Please do not use only p-values on table 1 through table 3 (it would be fine to remove these p-values). In fact, many of these p-values are repeated in the unadjusted analysis of table 4. For tables 1 to 3 do: 1) make the percentages to be by column; 2) add a column for coverage and its 95% confidence interval.

Tables 1-3: This style of tables and a combination of chi-square test/Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression analysis are commonly used in many papers that were published not only from PLoSOne but also other journals. The coverage of Penta3 in each category is easy to understand in Tables 1-3, because it is written as the percentage of children in the column of Penta 3 “Yes.”

13. Table 4 - there is nowhere in the manuscript explaining how the factors were chosen. Is this based on the literature? Please state so. Why not adjust by province?

Lines 192-193: The variables were chosen according to previous studies on vaccination coverage. We have added the following sentence, “Variables for this study were chosen according to previous studies on the vaccine coverage [2, 5, 12, 18-21].”

There are 34 provinces in Afghanistan. We would like to perform analyses to understand the vaccine coverage and associated factors in the national level but the provincial level. Therefore, province was not included in variables in our study.

Reviewer #2:

14. Title: The title is good but why you prefer only coverage of PCV3 vaccine coverage? Why you ignore PCV1, PCV2….???

It is because three doses of pentavalent vaccine are recommended and scheduled in the EPI schedule in Afghanistan.

15. Your source of data is not clear; is it primary data from face to face interview or secondary data from previous records??? Be consistent and revise it throughout the document. If you say it was secondary data how do you get consent from participants?

Line 102: We have moved the sentence “This study is a secondary analysis of the AHS 2018 data” to the beginning of the method section, to emphasize that this study conducted a secondary analysis.

Lines 207-209: In the AHS, informed consent was obtained from each participant in the AHS. In this study, informed consent was waived due to a secondary analysis of anonymous data of the AHS and the study protocol of this study was approved by IRB. We have revised the sentence as follows, “In this study, written informed consent was waived due to a secondary analysis of the anonymous data of the AHS 2018 and the study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the MoPH in Afghanistan (Approval number: E.1019.0087).”

16. The variables like diarrhea, bipedal edema, vitamin A supplement, smoking of heads of households,… are irrelevant and clinically insignificant variables for vaccine coverage so why you include this factors on multivariable regression? Because inclusion of such irrelevant variables in the analysis might confound the effect of other variables.

In a setting like Afghanistan, children’s nutrition status and immunity level, and parents’ behavior and habits are highly connected with immunization and health status of under five children. These are reported in various studies and reports in Afghanistan and other developing countries. Furthermore, in AHS 2018, the immunization coverage of the children was evaluated and was associated with the vitamin A supplementation, diarrhea history and nutrition status of the children. In various reports and studies, parents’ habits such as smoking were associated with education level, child health statues, immunization, and health practices in the household. Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to include household factors (for example; smoking cigarettes by the head of the household), because the results increase the awareness of improving desirable behavior and habits among the parents and give an alert to the Ministry of Health of the country and legislation authorities. It is easy and cheap to purchase (2 or more boxes of cigarettes cost 1 USD) and smoke cigarettes without considering any public health and community norms. Considering these facts and results, we included diarrhea, bipedal edema, vitamin A supplement, smoking of heads of households in this study.

17. Variables of the study should better to be summarized under one or two paragraphs and operational definitions should be stated in separate section.

We used four groups of variables, namely variables of children, variables of households, variables of household heads, and variables of mothers/primary caregivers. We made three paragraphs with titles of variable groups. In each paragraph, variables are listed and definitions or categories are explained. Before starting explanation about variables, we wrote “The characteristics of the 12–23-month-old children, the characteristics of their households, and the characteristics of their household-heads and mothers/caregivers were taken from the AHS dataset.” Therefore, we think that our writing in the method section is also understandable for readers.

18. How do you check multicollinearity? Better to incorporate it in the manuscript.

Lines 199-202: We have checked multicollinearity and added the following sentences as follows, “Multivariate logistic regression analysis on Penta3 included 18 variables that showed significant differences by a Chi-square test. Multicollinearity was not found between the variables according to the variance inflation factor values for each of variables.”

19. Almost all tables are mere repetitions of text descriptions, better to avoid redundancy by choosing either of the two.

We think that the result section is a part to explain results of analysis (tables), therefore, we explained the results in tables in the section.

20. Variables such as; diarrhea, bipedal edema, vitamin A supplement and smoking of heads of households are not strongly justified for its association with vaccine coverage in the discussion section. revise it again.

No diarrhea in the last 2 weeks (P=0.005), presence of bipedal edema (P=0.019), vitamin A supplement (P<0.001), and no smoking of heads of households (P=0.017) were significantly associated with having Penta3, because the P-value was less than 0.05. Therefore, we included these variables in the discussion section.

Reviewer #3:

21. The abstract section lacks sub heading. The abstract section is lengthy.

We have included subheadings in the abstract.

22. The introduction section is also too long. It should address the tried effort to decrease the burden of the problem your country, current intervention, and any future directions. Furthermore, you should give a strong gap. Your gap is not convincing.

We revised the introduction section in order to response to the comments from Reviewer 1, therefore, the section may be long. We would like reviewers and the editor to understand how we revised according to the comments from Reviewer 1.

23. In the method section, you merged method sub-sections. You need to separate and present in clear way. Data collection method, sampling procedure, Tool.

We explained the AHS 2018 in the first paragraph of the method section. Therefore, data collection method, sampling procedure, and the tool of the AHS 2018 were explained in this paragraph. After the first paragraph in the method section, we explained study participants and variables of our study separately in each paragraph.

24. There are a lot of repetitive ideas. E.g. the study period is presented in page 3 line number 103, 115....

We have erased some sentences to avoid repetition.

25. Is your tool valid and reliable? Is it developed by the authors or adopted?

This study is a secondary analysis of the AHS data and the tool was developed and validated in the AHS but not us.

26. Check the whole document for typo errors. Be consistent with use of grammars. Statistical analyses vs statistical analysis?

We have carefully checked typo errors and revised from “analyses” to “analysis” in the three parts.

27. In the result section: you need to avoid repetition of data already stated in the table. Make it short and precise.

The result section is the part to explain the results of analysis (tables), therefore, we explained the results in tables in the section.

28. Strong recommendation: The result section should be written in short and precise way.

We have revised the result section and tried to make shorter.

29. Have you checked the model assumptions? if so report the findings.

Lines 199-202: We have checked multicollinearity and added the following sentences as follows, “Multivariate logistic regression analysis on Penta3 included 18 variables that showed significant differences by a Chi-square test. Multicollinearity was not found between the variables according to the variance inflation factor values for each of variables.”

30. In the discussion section: please check the typing errors. You need to discuss the implication of the finding.

We have checked typo errors throughout the manuscript. We discussed the implication of the findings (Pent 3 coverage and factors associate with Penta 3) in the discussion section.

31. The declaration section seems incomplete.

We have revised “Ethics Statement” in the submission process. We will follow the guidance by the journal office if any revision is required.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Orvalho Augusto

9 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-30048R2Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yamamoto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 24 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This is the 3rd revision of this manuscript. The authors responded partially to the questions raised by the reviewer and the academic editor. At times presented unsatisfactory excuses for not taking the suggestions to improve the manuscript.

I. Particularly this question:

- Please do not use only p-values on table 1 through table 3 (it would be fine to remove these p-values). In fact, many of these p-values are repeated in the unadjusted analysis of table 4. For tables 1 to 3 do: 1) make the percentages to be by column; 2) add a column for coverage and its 95% confidence interval.

The authors state that it is a matter of style. This is a serious misconception. This is a succinct presentation of the current results in this manuscript. The reader would benefit if the row percentages was presented as coverage [the column I am suggesting to add]; and the characteristics were presented in column percentages. The p-values have no role here.

II. Also, pay attention to reviewer 3 in the last revision comments (as per his/hers recommendation). Particularly, please, respond fully to the following questions:

• The question about model assumption was not fully responded to. At least please state how did you check model fit which is closer to model assumptions check requested by the reviewer. Yes, checking multicollinearity is important but it is not enough.

• Change the term multivariate to multivariable

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Dear authors thank you for your effort in addressing the previous comments. However, all of my comments not addressed satisfactorily.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Aug 8;18(8):e0289744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289744.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


4 Jul 2023

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments, which were very helpful. The revisions have been completed and the responses are as follows.

1. Please do not use only p-values on table 1 through table 3 (it would be fine to remove these p-values). In fact, many of these p-values are repeated in the unadjusted analysis of table 4. For tables 1 to 3 do: 1) make the percentages to be by column; 2) add a column for coverage and its 95% confidence interval. The authors state that it is a matter of style. This is a serious misconception. This is a succinct presentation of the current results in this manuscript. The reader would benefit if the row percentages was presented as coverage [the column I am suggesting to add]; and the characteristics were presented in column percentages. The p-values have no role here.

According to the editor’s comment, we have revised Tables 1-3 by erasing p-values by chi-square test and adding the number and percentage (and 95%CI) of children who completed Penta3.

2. Also, pay attention to reviewer 3 in the last revision comments (as per his/hers recommendation). Particularly, please, respond fully to the following questions: The question about model assumption was not fully responded to. At least please state how did you check model fit which is closer to model assumptions check requested by the reviewer. Yes, checking multicollinearity is important but it is not enough.

We have checked the model assumption by Hosmer-Lemeshow test and it showed that the force-entry method was not a good fit. Therefore, we performed multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis with forward-selection and backward-selection and Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed that these two models were a good fit. In Table 4, we have erased the results of the force entry method and added the results of stepwise forward-selection and backward-selection methos. We have also added the results of Hosmer-Lemeshow test in the footnote of Table 4. We have revised the abstract, method, result, and discussion sections according to the change of multivariable analysis.

3. Change the term multivariate to multivariable.

We have revised “multivariate” to “multivariable” in the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Orvalho Augusto

26 Jul 2023

Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-22-30048R3

Dear Dr. Yamamoto,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: All of my comments are well addressed. Now, the article is suitable for publication after careful gramer edition and proof reading.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Orvalho Augusto

31 Jul 2023

PONE-D-22-30048R3

Factors associated with pentavalent vaccine coverage among 12–23-month-old children in Afghanistan: A cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Yamamoto:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Orvalho Augusto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of a property of the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) of Afghanistan. MoPH of Afghanistan has the ownership and authority to manage the AHS 2018 data. Only authorized and permitted researchers by MoPH are allowed to access and use the data for research and analytical purposes. Data are available from the Ministry of Public Health of Afghanistan (General Directorate of Monitoring & Evaluation and Health Information System; Tel +93-20-231-3688 | Emails ehis.moph@gmail.com, mehis.moph@gmail.com) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES