Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0342501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342501

Second-dose measles vaccination coverage and associated factors among children aged 19 to 35 months in Debre Birhan city, Ethiopia, 2024: A community-based cross-sectional study

Tebabere Moltot 1,*, Zenebe Abebe Gebreegziabher 2, Agmasie Damtew Walle 2, Mistire Nigussie 3, Micheal Amera Tizazu 2, Addisalem Workie Demsash 2, Eyosias Yeshialem 2
Editor: Tebelay Dilnessa4
PMCID: PMC12944772  PMID: 41746932

Abstract

Background

Achieving high coverage of both measles vaccine doses is essential for herd immunity. Despite high first-dose coverage, measles outbreaks persist in Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aimed to assess second-dose measles vaccine coverage.and its associated factors among children aged 19–35 months in Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia.

Methods

A community-based cross-sectional study was carried out in Debre Birhan City from May 10–30, 2024. Systematic random sampling method was used to recruit 626 children aged 19–35 months. Data were collected through a pre-tested, interviewer-administered questionnaire using Kobo Toolbox and later analyzed with SPSS-25. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed, with statistically significant factors identified at a 95% confidence interval and a p-value of less than 0.05 in the multivariable analysis.

Results

A total of 626 children participated in the study, achieving a 98.7% response rate. The second-dose measles vaccination coverage among children aged 19–35 months in Debre Birhan City was 57.3% (95% CI: 53.5–61.2). Significant factors associated with the second-dose of measles vaccination coverage were: father’s education level: primary (AOR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.17–3.69), secondary (AOR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.83–7.01), and college or above (AOR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.5–6.95). Other significant predictors were the child being vaccinated for any vaccine (AOR: 3.04; 95% CI: 1.33–6.98), having canceled or postponed vaccination schedules (AOR: 4.9; 95% CI: 2.62–9.32), good level of awareness (AOR: 3.3; 95% CI: 2.12–5.17), and high level of perception (AOR: 5.1; 95% CI: 3.16–8.20).

Conclusion

Second-dose measles vaccination coverage in Debre Birhan City is lower than the national and global target. Key factors influencing coverage include the father’s educational level, canceled or postponed vaccination schedules and caregivers’ awareness and perception of measles vaccination. Therefore, to improve coverage, it is essential to strengthen health education, streamline vaccination schedules, and enhance communication with parents.

Introduction

Despite the existence of a safe and affordable vaccine, measles continues to be a major contributor to global morbidity and mortality. According to the latest WHO estimates, in 2023 there were approximately 10.3 million measles cases and 107,500 deaths, primarily among unvaccinated or under-vaccinated children under the age of five. These modelled figures reflect a 20% increase in global measles cases compared to previous years [1,2]. The measles-containing vaccine (MCV) is one of the most cost-effective public health interventions. Globally between 2000 and 2021, an estimated 56 million deaths were prevented by MCV [3]. Unfortunately, 2020 saw the largest increase in unvaccinated children since 2000, reversing progress in measles elimination efforts [2]. Achieving 95% coverage for both the first (MCV1) and second (MCV2) doses is critical to halting measles transmission. However, maintaining high vaccination coverage among children, especially in low-income countries, remains a significant challenge [4].

Low-income countries, where the risk of measles mortality is highest, also have the lowest vaccination rates, at just 66% [5], and have not yet recovered from the setbacks caused by the pandemic [6]. Over half of the 22 million children who missed their first measles vaccine in 2022 come from 10 countries, including Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, and Indonesia [5,7].

Ethiopia is one of the top five countries with the highest number of unimmunized children, with 1.2 million missing the first dose of the measles vaccine in 2018 [8]. In early 2019, the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) began administering the MCV2 vaccine at 15 months to ensure adequate protection [9]. A 95% coverage rate for both MCV1 and MCV2 is needed to eliminate measles circulation. However, achieving and maintaining high vaccination rates, particularly among children aged 19–35 months, continues to be a challenge in many communities [4]. By late 2019, only about 9.1% of children had received the MCV2 dose nationally [10]. According to WHO and UNICEF estimates, MCV2 coverage in Ethiopia was 46% in both 2020 and 2021, and 48% in 2022 [11].

In late 2023 and early 2024, Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, experienced two measles outbreaks, despite high reported MCV1 vaccination coverage of 90–95% among children aged 19–35 months [12]. These outbreaks underscore the health inequities and gaps in immunization programs and primary healthcare systems [13]. This raises concerns about the coverage, timing, and factors affecting MCV2 administration [14]. Socio-demographic factors, access to healthcare, cultural beliefs, vaccine misconceptions, and mistrust in the healthcare system may contribute to low vaccination coverage [15,16]. This study aims to assess MCV2 coverage and its associated factors among children aged 19–35 months in Debre Birhan City to guide strategies for enhancing immunization and preventing future outbreaks.

Method and materials

Study setting, study design, and period

A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Debre Birhan City, North Shewa Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia, from May 10–30, 2024. Located 130 km from Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, and 696 km from Bahir Dar, the capital of the Amhara Region. Debre Birhan is situated at an elevation of 2,840 meters above sea level, covering an area of 14.71 km2. The city is divided into five sub-cities and has a population of 174,245, with 23,982 residents under the age of three [17]. Debre Birhan is served by three hospitals and eight health centers.

Population

The source population for this study consisted of all children aged 19–35 months (birth cohort born between May 2021 to December 2022), along with their mothers or caregivers, residing in Debre Birhan City. The study population comprised randomly selected children within the same age range and their mothers or caregivers residing in this area. To be eligible for inclusion, children had to be within the specified age range (19–35 months) and have vaccination cards with recorded vaccination dates or rely on maternal recall of vaccination. Mothers or caregivers who were seriously ill and unable to participate, as well as those who had lived in the study area for less than six months, were excluded from the study.

Sample size determination

The sample size is determined based on a single population proportion formula with a 95% level of confidence, a 5% marginal error, and P = 0.48 [18].

n=(Zα2)2p(1−p)d2, Where n= required sample size, therefore, n=(1.96)2*0.48(1−0.48(0.05)2= 384.

By considering a 1.5 design effect and 10% non-response rate, the final sample size was 634.

Sampling technique and procedure

A stratified sampling method, followed by systematic random sampling, was employed to select the study participants. First, two sub-cities were chosen from the available five. From these, eight kebeles (four per sub-city) were randomly selected. The sample size was allocated proportionally to each kebele based on its number of households with children aged 19–35 months.

Within each selected kebele, households with a child in this age group were chosen by systematic random sampling. The sampling interval (k) was calculated as 9 (derived from 6021 total households/ 634 required samples). In households with more than one eligible child, the youngest was selected to minimize recall bias (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Sampling procedure, 2024.

Fig 1

Variables

Dependent variable: The MCV2 vaccination status of the child (vaccinated/not vaccinated).

Independent variables: The independent variables in this study included socio-demographic factors such as child age, maternal age, maternal education, marital status, maternal occupation, paternal education, paternal occupation, monthly income, family size, access to mass media, head of household, and place of residence. Maternal and child-related factors considered were antenatal care (ANC) and postnatal care (PNC) visits, tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccine uptake, birth order, place of delivery, number of children, pentavalent 3, and vitamin A uptake. Additionally, health service- and access-related factors such as travel time to the nearest facility, vaccination schedule cancellations or postponements, waiting time at the vaccination center, and vaccine availability were included. Finally, the study also considered the awareness and perception of caregivers.

Operational definition

MCV2 coverage: The proportion of children aged 19–35 months who had received MCV2, regardless of when they received the MCV1, was considered to have received MCV2 [18–20].

Information on vaccination coverage: was obtained in two ways; for each child aged 19–35 months, caregivers were asked to show the child’s immunization card or health card used to record the child’s immunizations. If vaccination was not recorded on the infant immunization card or the health card, the caregiver was asked to recall whether MCV2 vaccination had been given or not [21]. In this study, parental recall was used for 12 out of 626 children (1.9%).

Perception: A set of seven perception questions were asked, and participants who scored at or above the mean were classified as having a good perception [22].

Awareness: Participants who scored above or equal to the median on the seven awareness questions were considered to have a high level of awareness [20].

Data collection method and procedures

Data were collected using Kobo Toolbox through a structured, interviewer-administered questionnaire that was adapted from prior studies [18,20,22]. The questionnaire included sections on socio-demographic characteristics, maternal and child-related factors, health service and access factors, vaccination status, and caregivers’ awareness and perception of measles and its vaccine. The questionnaire initially prepared in English, and translated into the local language, Amharic, and then back into English by different translators to ensure consistency. Prior to the main data collection, a pretest was conducted on 5% of the sample size outside the study sites. Face validity was assessed by local experts (three pedatrcians), and necessary revisions were made based on their feedback. Eight BSc nurses were hired for data collection, and two MPH (Master of Public Health) supervisors were designated to oversee the process. Both data collectors and supervisors participated in a one-day training to ensure they shared a common understanding of the study’s objectives, methodologies, data collection techniques, and strategies for engaging with participants. The investigators and supervisors checked the day-to-day activities of data collectors regarding the completion of questionnaires.

Data processing and analysis

The data collected using Kobo Toolbox were subsequently exported to SPSS version 25 for coding, cleaning, and analysis. To describe the study population’s characteristics, descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, means, medians, standard deviations, and interquartile ranges were used. Prior to performing regression analysis, multicollinearity among independent variables was evaluated using the variance inflation factor (VIF). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess the adequacy of the regression model (p-value of 0.83). Variables with a p-value of ≤0.2 in the bivariable analysis at a 95% confidence interval (CI) were included in the multivariable logistic regression model to account for potential confounding factors. Statistical significance was established at a p-value of <0.05. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to determine the strength of associations between the outcome variable and the independent variables.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Debre Berhan University, Asrat Woldeyes Health Science Campus, in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont report. The IRB approval reference number is 01/151/2024. Due to the low-risk nature of the study and contextual considerations, the IRB approved the use of verbal informed consent. Prior to participation, all caregivers were provided with clear and comprehensive information about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, the voluntary nature of participation, the right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and the confidentiality of their responses.

Verbal consent was documented by the data collectors on the electronic data collection platform (KoboToolbox), with a designated field to confirm that verbal consent had been obtained. In addition, the process was witnessed by a neutral third party (i.e., a community health worker) who verified and confirmed that the participant had understood the information and voluntarily agreed to participate. Permission to conduct the study was also obtained from the relevant city administration office prior to data collection.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of mother-child pairs

A total of 626 children aged 19–35 months participated in the study, with a response rate of 98.7%. The children had an mean age of 26.5 months (SD ± 4.7). Most respondent caregivers were married (580, 92.7%), identified as followers of the Orthodox religion (568, 90.7%), and had access to at least one functional device of TV, radio, or smartphone (496, 79.2%). Furthermore, the father was the head of the household in the majority of cases (576, 92%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of mother-child pairs included in a study of second-dose measles vaccination coverage, Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, 2024 (N = 626).

Variables Categories N %
Sex of child Male 302 48.2
Female 324 51.8
Residence Urban 306 48.9
Rural 320 51.1
Marital status of mother Single 13 2.1
Married 580 92.7
Divorced 32 5.1
Widowed 1 0.2
Mothers/caregiver Age 19-24 39 6.2
25-29 191 30.5
30-35 250 39.9
>36 146 23.3
Religion Muslim 42 6.7
Orthodox 568 90.7
Other 16 2.6
Maternal educational status Unable to read & write 77 12.3
Able to read & write 88 14.1
Primary 246 39.3
Secondary 145 23.2
College &above 70 11.2
Mother occupation Housewife 418 66.8
Farmer 28 4.8
Business 115 18.4
Gov’t employee 49 7.8
Others 16 2.6
Father educational status Unable to read & write 46 7.3
Able to read & write 93 14.9
Primary 192 30.7
Secondary 182 29.1
College &above 113 18.1
Father occupation Farmer 236 37.7
Business 220 35.1
Gov’t employee 119 19
Causal labourer 46 7.3
Others 5 0.8
Average monthly income in Ethiopian Birr <5000 184 29.4
5000-10000 334 53.4
>10000 108 17.3
Head of household Mother 50 8
Father 576 92
Family size ≤4 355 56.7
>4 271 43.3
Parity Primipara 149 23.8
Multipara 403 64.4
Grandmultipara 74 11.8
Birth order First 164 26.2
Second to fourth 385 61.5
≥Fifth birth order 77 12.3
The child lives with whom Both parents 576 92
Mother only 48 7.7
Father only 2 0.3
Pregnancy status Planned 517 82.6
Unplanned 109 17.4
Functional radio/television./Smartphone Yes 496 79.2
No 130 20.8

Maternal and children’s vaccination status

Of the 626 caregiver respondents (mothers), 565 (90.3%) had received at least two doses of the tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccine during their pregnancy with the current child. Regarding the children’s basic vaccination status, 97.4% (610) had received the BCG vaccine, 98.3% (615) had been given the Penta-3 vaccine, and 87.2% (546) had received the MCV1 vaccine (Table 2).

Table 2. Maternal and childhood vaccination-related characteristics of mother-child pairs included in a study of second-dose measles vaccination coverage, Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, 2024 (N = 626).

Variables Categories N %
TT vaccine status Received (two times) 565 90.3
Not received 22 3.5
I don’t know 39 6.2
BCG Vaccinated 610 97.4
Not vaccinated 16 2.6
Penta-3 Vaccinated 615 98.2
Not vaccinated 11 1.8
MCV-1* Vaccinated 545 87.1
Not vaccinated 81 13
Vitamin A at 24 months Not received 234 37.4
At least one dose 226 36.1
NA** 166 26.5

* All children recorded as MCV1-negative were also MCV2-negative; thus, no inconsistencies in the MCV1–MCV2 sequence were present in the dataset. NA** = not applicable meaning age 19 to less than 24 months.

Health service and access-related characteristics

Among the 626 child caregivers (mothers), 408 (65.1%) had attended at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits, while 23 (3.7%) had no ANC visits at all. Approximately two-thirds (67.4%) of the children were delivered at health centers. Only 222 (35.5%) of the mothers accessed postnatal care (PNC) services at least once. The median waiting time at vaccination sites was 30 minutes, with an interquartile range (IQR) of 25–35 minutes. Additionally, 89 respondents (14.2%) mentioned that their vaccination appointments had been delayed or canceled by health workers. A majority (74.1%) of the caregivers reported walking for more than 30 minutes to reach the nearest vaccination center (Table 3).

Table 3. Health service and access-related characteristics of mother-child pairs included in a study of second-dose measles vaccination coverage, Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, 2024 (N = 626).

Variables Categories N %
ANC contact No contact 23 3.7
1-3 contact 195 31.2
≥ 4 contacts 408 65.1
PNC service utilization Not received 404 64.5
At least one 222 35.5
Place of delivery Home 16 2.6
Hospital 186 29.7
Health center 422 67.4
Private institution 2 0.4
Time of arrival at the nearest vaccination center on foot <30 minute 162 25.9
≥30 minute 464 74
Waiting time for vaccination at the vaccination center <30 minute 264 42.2
≥30 minute 362 57.8
Ever had a vaccination postponed or cancelled Yes 89 14.2
No 537 85.8

MCV2 coverage

The overall coverage of MCV2 among children aged 19–35 months in Debre Berhan city was 57.3% (95% CI: 53.5–61.2) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Measles second-dose coverage among children aged 19–35 months in Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, 2024.

Fig 2

Reasons for not vaccinated

Out of 267 children who were unvaccinated for MCV2, more than two-thirds of the mothers (199, 74.5%) reported being unaware of the need for the vaccine, while 90 mothers (33.7%) cited being too busy as the reason (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Reasons for not vaccinating second dose of measles among children aged 19–35 months in Debre Birhan City, 2024.

Fig 3

Factors associated with MCV2 coverage among children

In the bivariable logistic regression analysis, twelve variables were identified with a p-value < 0.2: residence, maternal education level, father’s education level, father’s occupation, household headship, pregnancy status for the index child, antenatal care attendance during the current pregnancy, TT vaccination during the index pregnancy, child vaccination status, history of postponed or canceled schedules, level of awareness, and level of perception. Among these, five factors remained independently associated with having received MCV2 in the multivariable logistic regression analysis’ at p < 0.05. These included the father’s educational status, with those able to read and write (AOR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.17–3.69), those with primary education (AOR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.83–7.01), and those with college education or above (AOR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.5, 6.95); children vaccinated for any vaccine (AOR: 3.04; 95% CI: 1.33–6.98); postponed or canceled vaccination schedules (AOR: 4.9; 95% CI: 2.62–9.32); level of awareness (AOR: 3.3; 95% CI: 2.12–5.17); and level of perception (AOR: 5.1; 95% CI: 3.16–8.20)

In comparison to children whose fathers who had not received formal education, children whose father’s educational status was primary, secondary, and college & above had an increased odds of receiving MCV2. The odds of receiving an MCV2 were 3 times higher for children who were vaccinated for any vaccine (AOR:3.04 (95% CI: 1.33–6.98)). In comparison to children who had a vaccination postponed or cancelled, children who had not had a previous vaccination postponed or cancelled had an increased odds of receiving MCV2 (AOR:4.9 (95% CI: 2.62–9.32)). In comparison to children whose mothers/caregiver had low awareness regarding measles vaccination, children whose mothers had high awareness had an increased odds of receiving MCV2 (AOR:3.3 (95% CI: 2.12–5.17)). In comparison to the children of mothers with a poor perception of measles vaccination, the children of mothers with a good perception of measles vaccination had an increased odds of receiving MCV2 (AOR: 5.1; 95% CI: 3.16–8.20) (Table 4).

Table 4. Factors associated with second-dose measles vaccination coverage among children aged 19–35 months, in Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, 2024 (N = 626).

Variable Categories MCV-2 status COR (95% CI) AOR (95%CI) P-Value
Vaccinated Not vaccinated
Residence Urban 188 118 1.38 (1.01,1.9) 0.65(0.38,1.12) 0.12
Rural 171 149 1 1
Maternal education Unable to read &write 50 27 1 1
Able to read and write 54 34 1.16 (0.61,2.2) 1.43(0.53, 3.83) 0.479
Primary 101 145 2.60 (1.6,4.5) 0.93(0.40, 2.15) 0.861
Secondary 45 100 4.10 (2.3,7.39) 1.15(0.44, 2.98 0.77
College and above 17 53 5.8 (2.8,11.8) 1.04(0.33, 3.21) 0.95
Father educational status Unable to read & write 14 32 1 1
Able to read & write 26 67 0.89 (0.40, 1.9) 2.1 (0.9, 2.6) 0.053
Primary 117 75 3.56 (1.9, 7.1) 1.63(1.17, 3.69) 0.024
Secondary 116 66 4.01 (2.1, 8.1) 2.04(1.83, 7.01) 0.01
College and above 86 27 7.2 (3.39, 15.6) 3.2 (1.5, 6.95) 0.034
Father occupation Farmer 111 125 1 1
Business 132 88 1.7 (1.165, 2.5) 1.32(0.75, 2.31) 0.335
Government employed 94 25 4.2 (2.5,7.05) 2.07(0.75, 5.70) 0.157
Causal labour 22 29 0.72 (0.38,1.4) 0.35(0.16, 1.78) 0.053
Head of household Mother 20 30 1 1
Father 339 237 2.15 (1.19,3.9) 1.70(0.80, 3.62) 0.169
Pregnancy status Planned 304 213 1.40 (0.92,2.1) 1.25(0.79, 2.30) 0.278
Unplanned 55 54 1 1
ANC follow up Yes 357 246 14.4 (3.4,62.3) 1.9(0.35, 10.15) 0.456
No 2 21 1 1
TT Vaccination Yes 343 222 4.3 (2.34, 7.9) 0.99(0.40, 2.39) 0.958
No 16 45 1 1
Child received any vaccination Yes 348 239 3.7 (1.8, 7.59) 3.04(1.33, 6.98) 0.009
No 11 28 1 1
Schedules cancelled/postponed Yes 25 64 1 1
No 334 203 4.2 (2.57, 6.9) 4.9 (2.62, 9.32) <0.001
Level of awareness low 79 172 1 1
High 280 95 6.42 (4.5, 9.1) 3.3 (2.1, 5.17) <0.001
Level of perception Poor 47 147 1 1
Good 312 120 8.13(5.50, 12) 5.1 (3.1, 8.20) <0.001

Discussion

Achieving measles eradication requires maintaining high levels of population immunity, which depends on ensuring the administration of two doses of the measles vaccine [23]. This study focused on assessing the coverage of the second dose of measles vaccine and identifying factors associated with it among children aged 19–35 months in Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia.

The coverage of the second dose of the measles vaccine (MCV2) among children aged 19–35 months in Debre Birhan was 57.3% (95% CI: 53.5–61.2). This percentage is similar to those found in related studies in Indonesia, which noted a coverage rate of 54% [24] and in Kenya (56.2%) [25]. However, it is lower than the rates recorded in Gondar, Ethiopia (75.68%) [26], Zimbabwe (74%) [27], Malawi (77%) [28], China (93.9%) [29] and Japan (91%) [30].

The disparities noted, especially in comparison to China and Japan, could be attributed to differences in caregiver awareness and perceptions regarding MCV2, which may have been shaped by the timing of its integration into routine vaccination schedules. Additionally, variations in access to healthcare services and socio-demographic factors such as maternal education, employment status, and income may also play a role in these differences.

In contrast, the coverage reported in this study exceeds the rates observed in other regions of Ethiopia, including the North Shewa Zone, Oromia Region (42.5%) [31], Jabitehnan district (48.1%) [18], Gondar City (12.36%) [32], and Kakamega district in Kenya (17.9%). This difference may be attributed to increased awareness over time, improved healthcare services, and demographic changes [19]. The lower coverage reported in North Shewa and Jabitehnan districts might be due to their predominantly rural study populations, where mothers and caregivers may have limited awareness and differing perceptions about the importance of child vaccination [18,20]. Similarly, the lower coverage observed in Gondar City in Ethiopia could be linked to the reliance on secondary data from the Ethiopian Mini Demographic and Health Survey 2019, conducted shortly after the introduction of the MCV2 vaccine [32].

The likelihood of a child receiving the MCV2 vaccination increased as the father’s education level improved. Children whose fathers had a primary, secondary, or college and above education were 1.65 times (AOR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.17–3.69), 2 times (AOR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.83–7.01), and 3 times (AOR: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.5–6.95) more likely to be vaccinated for MCV2 compared to children of fathers who were unable to read and write. This finding aligns with survey data from six countries and a study conducted in Turkey, both of which demonstrated a positive correlation between fathers’ formal education and the likelihood of their children being vaccinated for measles [33,34]. This association may be explained by the fact that fathers are the heads of most households in the study area (92%). Notably, this study found no significant association between mothers’ education and MCV2 vaccination, whereas other studies have demonstrated a strong link between higher maternal education levels and improved MCV2 immunization rates [35,36].

Children who had previously received any vaccine were three times more likely to receive MCV2 compared to their counterparts (AOR: 3.04; 95% CI: 1.33–6.98). This finding aligns with studies conducted in Ethiopia, including Gondar, and Kenya [22,37]. A possible explanation is that children who are already vaccinated may have better access to healthcare, and their parents may be more knowledgeable about the vaccination schedule and the importance of the MCV2 vaccine [22,37,38]. Regular interactions with healthcare professionals during vaccination services likely encourage caregivers to complete their children’s vaccinations. Additionally, frequent visits to health facilities for vaccinations may expose caregivers to positive examples of others vaccinating their children, further reinforcing the practice [39,40].

Furthermore, mothers or caregivers who did not have any vaccination schedules canceled or postponed were nearly five times more likely to vaccinate their children for MCV2 compared to those who experienced schedule disruptions (AOR: 4.9; 95% CI: 2.62–9.32). This result is consistent with studies from the West Gojjam zone in Ethiopia and Ballabgarh in India [41,42].

Mothers or caregivers with a high level of awareness about measles vaccination were three times more likely to vaccinate their children with MCV2 than those with low awareness (AOR: 3.3 (95% CI: 2.12–5.17)). Similarly, the likelihood of vaccinating their children with MCV2 was five times higher (AOR:5.1, 95% CI:3.16–8.20) among children of mothers or caregivers who had a good perception of measles vaccination compared to those with a poor perception. This finding aligns with studies conducted in Ethiopia; Gondar, Jabitehnan district, Ormia region North shewa and Kenya [18,26,31,43]. The increased likelihood may be attributed to mothers or caregivers who have a better understanding of vaccine-preventable diseases, the number of recommended measles doses, and the timing of each vaccination, leading to a greater commitment to vaccinating their children [44]. Furthermore, if the mother or caregiver perceives the severity of measles and the benefits of the measles vaccine positively, she is more likely to intend to vaccinate her child [35].

Beyond the above factors, to improve the coverage of the second dose of measles vaccination among children aged 19–35 months, it is essential to implement context-specific, evidence-based strategies. One key approach is to enhance community awareness through regular outreach activities and caregiver education programs and locally tailored media campaigns. Studies in Ethiopia and other low-resource settings have shown that community-based health education significantly increases vaccine uptake by improving caregiver knowledge and attitudes toward immunization [45] Additionally, introducing or strengthening reminder systems, either electronic (e.g., mobile phone text messages) or follow-up visits by community health workers further reduce dropout rates by addressing forgetfulness or access barriers [46].

Limitations of the study

A key limitation of this study is that vaccination status for some children was determined based on caregiver recall due to the absence of vaccination cards, which may introduce recall bias. Furthermore, verification of vaccination records at the facility level was not conducted, and such verification could have enhanced the accuracy and reliability of the reported vaccination status.

Conclusion and recommendation

The coverage of MCV2 in the study area is significantly lower than the World Health Organization and the national target. Key factors influencing coverage include the father’s educational status, prior vaccination, uninterrupted vaccination schedules, and caregiver awareness and perception. These findings suggest that health workers should focus on awareness creation about MCV2 vaccine schedules.. Also, efforts should be made to reduce possible obstacles such as cancellation/postponement of the vaccination schedule.

Supporting information

S1 Data set. Dataset for cross-checking the analysis.

Excel file containing the underlying dataset used for the analyses in this study; provided in response to reviewer request for verification purposes.

(CSV)

pone.0342501.s001.csv (92.3KB, csv)

Abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal care

MCV1

Measles containing vaccine one

MCV2

Measles containing vaccine two

PNC

Post-natal care

TT

Tetanus toxoid

Data Availability

Yes - all data are fully available without restriction; “All relevant data are within the paper and its supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Minta AA. Progress toward measles elimination—worldwide, 2000–2023. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2024;73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Measles cases surge worldwide, infecting 10.3 million people in 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/history-of-vaccination/history-of-measles-vaccination?topicsurvey=ht7j2q)&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwrcKxBhBMEiwAIVF8rAbo5FcJv8LMCMCRDAA4pMHO_PRAVgJw9UlxUxoX3cO_0qQQVSfo3xoCdeAQAvD_BwE. Accessed 2023 October 1. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 3.WHO. Measles. Key facts. https://www.who.int/news-room/factsheets/
  • 4.WHO. Disease outbreak news, measles - Ethiopia. https://www.who.int. 2023.
  • 5.WHO. Global measles threat continues to grow as another year passes with millions of children unvaccinated. https://www.who.int/news/item/16-11-2023-global-measles-threat-continues-to-grow-as-another-year-passes-with-millions-of-children-unvaccinated. 2023.
  • 6.Minta AA, Ferrari M, Antoni S, Portnoy A, Sbarra A, Lambert B, et al. Progress Toward Measles Elimination - Worldwide, 2000-2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(46):1262–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Anderson S. Measles outbreaks surge as millions of children remain unvaccinated. Health Policy Watch. https://healthpolicy-watch.news/measles-outbreaks-surge-as-millions-of-children-remain-unvaccinated/#:~:text=Over%20half%20of%20the%2022,%2C%20Pakistan%2C%20and%20the%20Philippines
  • 8.Zerihun S, Sewunet SSU. For every child, Ethiopia: More than 870,000 children in Ethiopia miss out on lifesaving measles, diphtheria and tetanus vaccines in 2018. Ethiopia: UNICEF. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Federal Minister of Health, Ethiopia. Federal Minister of Health, Ethiopia - Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI). https://www.moh.gov.et/Expanded_Program_on_Immunization_%28EPI%29
  • 10.Ethiopian mini demographic and health survey. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CSA. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.WHO/UNICEF estimates of national immunization coverage. WHO/UNICEF. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Health Center AT: A six month report of measles dropout rate. Ayerten Health Center. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rizwan Akhtar, Akhtar F, Saba Shamim, Farheen Ansari, Aroosh Shabbir, Muhammad Zahid Mumtaz, et al. Measles: Global Indicators and Progress on the road for Achieving and Sustaining Virus Eradication: A Review. Pak Euro J Med & LS. 2022;5(2):325–32. doi: 10.31580/pjmls.v5i2.2541 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Machado AA, Edwards SA, Mueller M, Saini V. Effective interventions to increase routine childhood immunization coverage in low socioeconomic status communities in developed countries: A systematic review and critical appraisal of peer-reviewed literature. Vaccine. 2021;39(22):2938–64. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hailu C, Fisseha G, Gebreyesus A. Determinants of measles vaccination dropout among 12 - 23 months aged children in pastoralist community of Afar, Ethiopia. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):376. doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07350-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nuwarda RF, Ramzan I, Weekes L, Kayser V. Vaccine Hesitancy: Contemporary Issues and Historical Background. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(10):1595. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10101595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ethiopian statistical service. Population of zones and weredas projected as of July 2023. 2023.
  • 18.Demewoz A, Wubie M, Mengie MG, Kassegn EM, Jara D, Aschale A, et al. Second dose measles vaccination utilization and associated factors in Jabitehnan District, Northwest Ethiopia. Dose Response. 2023;21(1):15593258231164042. doi: 10.1177/15593258231164042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Makokha F, Wanjala P, Githuku J, Kutima H. Uptake of second dose of measles-containing vaccine among children in Kakamega County, Kenya. International J Scientific Res Publications. 2015;5(7):1–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tadesse AW, Sahlu D, Benayew M. Second-dose measles vaccination and associated factors among under-five children in urban areas of North Shoa Zone, Central Ethiopia, 2022. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1029740. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1029740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ethiopian Public Health Institute FMoH, DHS Program ICF. Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Public Health Institute FMoH. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Adisu MA, Bogale WA, Alemu TG. Second dose of measles-containing vaccine coverage and associated factors among children aged 24-36 months in Gondar city, Central Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia, 2023. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1364865. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1364865 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Organization WH. India: WHO and UNICEF estimates of immunization coverage: 2019 revision. India: WHO and UNICEF. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Maulida R, Rahmartani LD, Hairani LK, Wahyono TYM. Coverage and determinants of second-dose measles vaccination among under-five children in Aceh Jaya District, Aceh Province, Indonesia. Jurnal Epidemiologi Kesehatan Indonesia. 2018;2(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mamuti S, Tabu C, Marete I, Opili D, Jalang’o R, Abade A. Measles containing vaccine coverage and factors associated with its uptake among children aged 24-59 months in Cherangany Sub County, Trans Nzoia County, Kenya. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0263780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263780 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Adisu MA, Bogale WA, Alemu TG. Second dose of measles-containing vaccine coverage and associated factors among children aged 24–36 months in Gondar city, Central Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia. Frontiers in Public Health. 2024;12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wariri O, Nkereuwem E, Erondu NA, Edem B, Nkereuwem OO, Idoko OT, et al. A scorecard of progress towards measles elimination in 15 west African countries, 2001–19: a retrospective, multicountry analysis of national immunisation coverage and surveillance data. The Lancet Global Health. 2021;9(3):e280–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chirwa G, Wilkins KA, Mercer DJ. Descriptive study of measles vaccination second dose reporting and barriers to improving coverage in six districts in Malawi. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;35(Suppl 1):5. doi: 10.11604/pamj.supp.2020.35.1.19096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hu Y, Wang Y, Chen Y, Liang H, Chen Z. Measles vaccination coverage, determinants of delayed vaccination and reasons for non-vaccination among children aged 24-35 months in Zhejiang province, China. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1298. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6226-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sugishita Y, Kurita J, Akagi T, Sugawara T, Ohkusa Y. Determinants of Vaccination Coverage for the Second Dose of Measles-Rubella Vaccine in Tokyo, Japan. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2019;249(4):265–73. doi: 10.1620/tjem.249.265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tadesse AW, Sahlu D, Benayew M. Second-dose measles vaccination and associated factors among under-five children in urban areas of North Shoa Zone, Central Ethiopia, 2022. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1029740. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1029740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Goshu Muluneh A, Woldemariam Merid M, Tigabu B, Getie Ferede M, Molla Kassa G, Animut Y. Less than one-fifth of Ethiopian children were vaccinated for measles second dose; evidence from the Ethiopian mini demographic and health survey 2019. Vaccine X. 2022;12:100217. doi: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2022.100217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rammohan A, Awofeso N, Fernandez RC. Paternal education status significantly influences infants’ measles vaccination uptake, independent of maternal education status. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:336. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Torun SD, Bakirci N. Vaccination coverage and reasons for non-vaccination in a district of Istanbul. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:125. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Brownwright TK, Dodson ZM, van Panhuis WG. Spatial clustering of measles vaccination coverage among children in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):957. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4961-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kantner AC, van Wees SH, Olsson EMG, Ziaei S. Factors associated with measles vaccination status in children under the age of three years in a post-soviet context: a cross-sectional study using the DHS VII in Armenia. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):552. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10583-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kanyiru RW. Factors associated with uptake of measles rubella vaccine among children age 9-18 months in Eastleigh North Ward Nairobi County, Kenya. JKUAT-COHES. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lifalaza A, Stern R, Ashipala DO. Perceptions of Mothers and Caregivers Regarding the Factors Affecting Low Uptake of Measles Immunisation Among Children Under 5 Years in Nyangana District, Namibia. GJHS. 2018;10(10):74. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v10n10p74 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tamirat KS, Sisay MM. Full immunization coverage and its associated factors among children aged 12-23 months in Ethiopia: further analysis from the 2016 Ethiopia demographic and health survey. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1019. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7356-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fenta SM, Biresaw HB, Fentaw KD, Gebremichael SG. Determinants of full childhood immunization among children aged 12-23 months in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis using Demographic and Health Survey Data. Trop Med Health. 2021;49(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s41182-021-00319-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Asichalew A. Utilization of measles conjugated vaccine 2 and associated factors among children aged 24-35 months in North Mecha District, West Gojjam Zone, North West Ethiopia. 2021.
  • 42.Yadav K, Srivastava R, Kumar R, Chinnakal P, Rai SK, Krishnan A. Significant vaccination delay can occur even in a community with very high vaccination coverage: evidence from Ballabgarh, India. J Trop Pediatr. 2012;58(2):133–8. doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmr059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ogutu JO, Francis GM, Kamau DM, Omondi M, Oyugi EO, Ettyang GK. Factors associated with low coverage of the second dose of measles containing vaccine among children aged 19–59 months, Alego-Usonga Sub-County, Kenya, 2020. J Interv Epidemiol Public Health. 2023;6(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tagbo BN, Eke CB, Omotowo BI, Onwuasigwe CN, Onyeka EB, Mildred UO. Vaccination coverage and its determinants in children aged 11-23 months in an urban district of Nigeria. 2014.
  • 45.Tsawe M, Susuman AS. Determinants of access to and use of maternal health care services in the Eastern Cape, South Africa: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:723. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Domek GJ, Contreras-Roldan IL, O’Leary ST, Bull S, Furniss A, Kempe A, et al. SMS text message reminders to improve infant vaccination coverage in Guatemala: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Vaccine. 2016;34(21):2437–43. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Edison Mworozi

18 Jun 2025

Dear Dr. Moltot,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 02 2025 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.

  • 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,

Edison Arwanire Mworozi, M.D

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. In the ethics statement in the Methods, 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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows:

“All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The Discussion section should present the evidence obtained, as well as exploring and showing possible strategies to increase coverage of two-dose measles vaccination (19 and 35 months). These strategies should be based on data from other literature sources, as well as the findings from this study.

The Conclusion section presents recommendations based solely on the data from this study. The study would have been more comprehensive if the factors affecting vaccination coverage had been categorised, clearly listed, systematised and described in terms of practical guidance for the health worker.

For instance, Group 1 encompasses priority factors that were identified on the basis of the study conducted, with consideration given to reliable results on coverage with two doses of measles vaccination.

Group 2 - secondary (unreliable results from work) factors that require the development of strategies to adjust and modify them in order to positively influence vaccination coverage. In particular, this could be the promotion of conclusions about the positive effects of vaccination during pregnancy planning consultations, antenatal care and postnatal care; communication with patients seeking counselling for any medical intervention related to the child, and so on.

This will improve the quality of the study and expand potential interventions to increase vaccination coverage in real-world practice, including in the context of later timing of vaccination against other infectious diseases.

Reviewer #2: 1. The authors present an interesting topic but there are a couple of issues in the submitted manuscript. These relate mainly to sampling design, analysis and discussion sections. These should be addressed before it can be recommended for publication.

2. BACKGROUND: L61 - the mortality numbers quoted are modelled estimates. They are NOT reported deaths. And authors should quote the latest estimates published Nov 2024. L64 - Number of deaths prevented by MCV between 2000 and 2021 is based on a comparator of NO VACCINATIOn not at existing rates of vaccination between 2000 and 2021. L75-76 -- The sentence reads as if ETH Ethiopia introduced the first dose of the measles vaccine in 2019. In fact, ETH introduced (MCV1) in 1980 and the second dose (MCV2) in February 2019.

3. METHODS: L105 7 ff -- Population universe - It is unusual to have a population based listing of all 19-35 month old children by household. How was this last made available to the authors? Was it from a special service area of a model health centre or medical college? In that case, this population may not be representative of general population of ETH for this age group and the conclusions may not be generalizable. How was the base population list by household generated in the first place? Was it done through periodic community census or was it done through attendance at immunization clinics by the pregnant mother or the infant? If done by the latter method, this could introduce a serious selection bias to the results as the infants/children who did not attend immunization clinics could have been missed from the base population list and result in higher than true proportion of children immunized.

L105-106: The authors studied 19-35 month old children in May 2024. Then the authors were studying the birth cohort born between May 2021 to Dec 2022. Authors should clearly state this and mention the date cut-offs if applied.

L127: Definition of dependent variable MCV2 - By definition all MCV2 positive children must have received MCV1. The authors should clearly state that they ascertained MCV1 status too when they categorized a child as MCV2 or if they followed some other methods to determine MCV2 status.

L133: Of all the independent or explanatory variables, MCV1 is unique as it is on direct pathway to MCV2+ status, and hence could be a confounder. Hence MCV1 cannot be considered an explanatory variable as an MCV1-negative status would preclude MCV2+ status. Also L140: Authors do not state clearly that they verified that every MCV2 positive child had indeed received the second dose of MCV and not just a delayed first dose of MCV. Please see more on this in RESULTS.

L146 and L154-55: Perception and awareness scores: What was the value of scores that were used to determine "good perception" and "high awareness"?

4. RESULTS: Table-1 - Income currency to be mentioned.

Table 2: MCV1 status - 13% of MCV2 children are stated to be MCV1 negative. By definition they cannot be MCV2+, at most they would be delayed MCV1. These children should have been excluded from all further analysis or replacement samples collected.

L238-239: Children vaccinated for any vaccine (YES/NO) - By definition no MCV1 negative child can be MCV2 positive and therefore including them in the analysis biases all estimates. The entire analysis should be redone after excluding these MCV1 negative children.

T5: Rows comparing Child received any vaccination vs. MCV2 status actually shows that a child not receiving any vaccine had higher odds (28/11) of getting MCV2 than those with any vaccine (239/348). The AOR would therefore be the inverse of 3.04. However, as stated above including MCV0 children in prior vaccination status in the sample is erroneous as they can never become MCV2. The analysis should be redone.

5: DISCUSSION: L265: Please mention country of GONDAR. Please rewrite the discussion section in light of revised analysis.

**********

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: Yes: Mikhail P. Kostinov

Reviewer #2: 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. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0342501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342501.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Jul 2025

Response to Reviewers

1. Journal Requirements:

1.1 Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: Thank you, after reviewing the PLOS ONE style templates, we revise the whole document, e.g., we use Level 1 heading for all major sections (Abstract, Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, etc.) with bold type, 18pt font. We also Cite figures as “Fig 1”, “Fig 2”. We use bold type for the figure titles.

1.2 In the ethics statement in the Methods, 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

Response: Thank you, we provide an additional detail regarding how the verbal consent was documented and witnessed (see the Ethics approval and consent to participate on page 6 and 7)

1.3 We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.” Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

Response: Thank you, we share the data set.

1.4 Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Response: Ok thanks we edit during submission

2. Response to reviewers' comments:

2.1 Response to Reviewer #1 comments

2.1.1 The discussion section should present the evidence obtained, as well as exploring and showing possible strategies to increase coverage of two-dose measles vaccination (19 and 35 months). These strategies should be based on data from other literature sources, as well as the findings from this study.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your insightful and helpful comments. We revise the discussion part as your recommendation, see line 324 to 332

2.1.2 The Conclusion section presents recommendations based solely on the data from this study. The study would have been more comprehensive if the factors affecting vaccination coverage had been categorized, clearly listed, systematized and described in terms of practical guidance for the health worker. For instance, Group 1 encompasses priority factors that were identified on the basis of the study conducted, with consideration given to reliable results on coverage with two doses of measles vaccination. Group 2 - secondary (unreliable results from work) factors that require the development of strategies to adjust and modify them in order to positively influence vaccination coverage. In particular, this could be the promotion of conclusions about the positive effects of vaccination during pregnancy planning consultations, antenatal care and postnatal care; communication with patients seeking counselling for any medical intervention related to the child, and so on.

This will improve the quality of the study and expand potential interventions to increase vaccination coverage in real-world practice, including in the context of later timing of vaccination against other infectious diseases.

Response: Thanks for your comments, we revise it as recommended, see the conclusion section from line 339 to 345.

2. 2 Response to reviewer #2 comments

1. The authors present an interesting topic but there are a couple of issues in the submitted manuscript. These relate mainly to sampling design, analysis and discussion sections. These should be addressed before it can be recommended for publication.

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and for your insightful comments, and recommendations. We see it critically and revise accordingly.

2. BACKGROUND:

a. L61 - the mortality numbers quoted are modelled estimates. They are NOT reported deaths. And authors should quote the latest estimates published Nov 2024.

Response: Thank you very much, we use the latest estimate published on 14, Nov, 2024, see line 59 to 63.

b. L64 - Number of deaths prevented by MCV between 2000 and 2021 is based on a comparator of NO Vaccination not at existing rates of vaccination between 2000 and 2021.

Response: We correct it as your recommendation, see line 64 and 65.

c. L75-76 -- The sentence reads as if ETH Ethiopia introduced the first dose of the measles vaccine in 2019. In fact, ETH introduced (MCV1) in 1980 and the second dose (MCV2) in February 2019.

Response: Thank you for your comment, and we rewrite it as “In early 2019, the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) began administering the measles two vaccine at 15 months to ensure adequate protection.”

3. METHODS:

a. L105 7 ff -- Population universe - It is unusual to have a population-based listing of all 19–35-month-old children by household. How was this last made available to the authors? Was it from a special service area of a model health center or medical college? In that case, this population may not be representative of general population of ETH for this age group and the conclusions may not be generalizable. How was the base population list by household generated in the first place? Was it done through periodic community census or was it done through attendance at immunization clinics by the pregnant mother or the infant? If done by the latter method, this could introduce a serious selection bias to the results as the infants/children who did not attend immunization clinics could have been missed from the base population list and result in higher than true proportion of children immunized.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. As described in our background, “In late 2023 and early 2024, Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, experienced two measles outbreaks, despite a reported MCV1 vaccination coverage of 90–95% among children aged 19–35 months.” In response to these outbreaks, the Debre Berhan City Health Bureau conducted a census in each Kebele through health extension workers. The gross data, specifically the number of children aged 19–35 months, were obtained from this census.

b. L105-106: The authors studied 19–35-month-old children in May 2024. Then the authors were studying the birth cohort born between May 2021 to Dec 2022. Authors should clearly state this and mention the date cut-offs if applied.

Response: We accept the comment and we state it, see line 103-104

c. L127: Definition of dependent variable MCV2-By definition all MCV2 positive children must have received MCV1. The authors should clearly state that they ascertained MCV1 status too when they categorized a child as MCV2 or if they followed some other methods to determine MCV2 status.

Response: Thank you for your comment, even if we didn’t state it under dependent variable as you stated above, we include MCV1 as a prerequisite for MCV2 under the operational definition of MCV2- see line 139 and 140

d. L133: Of all the independent or explanatory variables, MCV1 is unique as it is on direct pathway to MCV2+ status, and hence could be a confounder. Hence MCV1 cannot be considered an explanatory variable as an MCV1-negative status would preclude MCV2+ status. Also, L140: Authors do not state clearly that they verified that every MCV2 positive child had indeed received the second dose of MCV and not just a delayed first dose of MCV. Please see more on this in RESULTS.

Response: Thank you very much for your insightful comments. We apologize for the technical oversight. We included MCV1 as an independent variable based on the conceptual framework principle—where variables are aligned with questionnaire items. However, in practice, MCV1 was not analyzed as an independent variable in the bivariable logistic regression. To prevent any potential misinterpretation, we have now removed MCV1 from the list of independent variables.

e. L146 and L154-55: Perception and awareness scores: What was the value of scores that were used to determine "good perception" and "high awareness"?

Response: Thank you, as we describe on operational definition “participants who scored at or above the mean were classified as having a good perception and participants who scored above or equal to the median on the seven awareness questions were considered to have a high level of awareness.

4. RESULTS:

a. Table-1 - Income currency to be mentioned.

Response: Thank you, corrected-see table 1

b. Table 2: MCV1 status - 13% of MCV2 children are stated to be MCV1 negative. By definition they cannot be MCV2+, at most they would be delayed MCV1. These children should have been excluded from all further analysis or replacement samples collected.

Response: Thank you for your insightful observation. We fully agree that, under routine immunization guidelines, a child should not receive MCV2 without first receiving MCV1. We also acknowledge that, based on this standard, these children could have been excluded from the analysis.

However, in our study, we intentionally included them for the following reasons:

• They were eligible for MCV2 by age, regardless of their reported MCV1 status.

• We assumed that excluding them might underestimate the real-world coverage gap of MCV2 and would not reflect programmatic realities.

• Including them provides a more accurate picture of operational challenges, such as documentation gaps, caregiver recall issues, and deviations in service delivery, which are common in low-resource settings.

• Furthermore, during our proposal development and literature review, we found that other studies had taken a similar approach by including children reported as MCV1-negative in MCV2 coverage analyses. For example:

1. Second dose measles vaccination coverage and associated factors among children aged 24–35 months in Sub-Saharan Africa – Frontiers in Public Health, 2022

2. Assessment of second dose measles vaccination coverage using the 2016 Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey – Pan African Medical Journal, 2023

3. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/713b/74af62b0e5206efd6ac8eede268d4cd6408d.pdf

Nonetheless, we sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comment and insights. If re-analysis is strongly recommended, we are willing to proceed accordingly

c. L238-239: Children vaccinated for any vaccine (YES/NO) - By definition no MCV1 negative child can be MCV2 positive and therefore including them in the analysis biases all estimates. The entire analysis should be redone after excluding these MCV1 negative children.

Response: Thank you very much for your insightful comment. We agree with your observation that, by definition, a child who did not receive MCV1 cannot receive MCV2. In our dataset, all children who were marked as MCV1-negative were also MCV2-negative. Therefore, no MCV1-negative and MCV2-positive cases were included in the analysis. We have now clarified this point in the manuscript under table -2 by stating “All children recorded as MCV1-negative were also MCV2-negative; thus, no inconsistencies in the MCV1–MCV2 sequence were present in the dataset” to avoid any misinterpretation.

d. T5: Rows comparing Child received any vaccination vs. MCV2 status actually shows that a child not receiving any vaccine had higher odds (28/11) of getting MCV2 than those with any vaccine (239/348). The AOR would therefore be the inverse of 3.04. However, as stated above including MCV0 children in prior vaccination status in the sample is erroneous as they can never become MCV2. The analysis should be redone.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your observation. The issue you noted was due to a typographical error that occurred when transferring the multivariable table output. Specifically, the categories for MCV2 vaccination status were inadvertently reversed: MCV2 vaccinated was labeled as not vaccinated, and vice versa. To clarify, based on the correct cross-tabulation from our dataset, children who did not receive any vaccine had a lower odds of receiving MCV2 (11/28 = 0.393) compared to those who had received at least one vaccine (348/239 = 1.456). The correct cross tab output table is provided below for reference and we correct in revised manuscript (see Table -5).

Does your child had vaccinated for any vaccine? * 604. MCV2 Crosstabulation

Count

604. MCV2 Total

No Yes

303.Does your child had vaccinated for any vaccine? Yes 239 348 587

No 28 11 39

Total 267 359 626

4: DISCUSSION:

5.1 L265: Please mention country of GONDAR. Please rewrite the discussion section in light of revised analysis.

Response: Thank you for your comments we correct accordingly (see Discussion section Line 270, 284,301).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0342501.s002.docx (26.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Edison Mworozi

13 Aug 2025

Dear Dr. Moltot,

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 Sep 27 2025 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.

  • 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 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,

Edison Arwanire Mworozi, M.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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:

Please address comments by the third reviewer.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #1: During the initial review of the paper, comments were raised regarding the "Discussion" and "Conclusions" sections. The authors have taken these comments into consideration and made the required revisions and improvements to the manuscript. As a result, the paper is now ready for further editing and publication.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for asking us to receive this manuscript. It presents important data that should be published. We have reviewed the revised manuscript and made some editorial suggestions that are needed before publication. We believe it meets the criteria for publication in PLOS One.

We believe the authors have responded to the previously reviewers suggestions appropriately but we have not reviewed the text description of the changes in any detail.

Comments from reviewing the manuscript:

Abstract: Please specify that the adjusted odds ratios were those associated with having received the second dose of measles vaccine

Significant factors associated with the second measles vaccine dose were ….

Need a little more work to clarify language in the results section of the abstract

Introduction: this describes the issue clearly and presents an excellent rationale for this research.

Methods: Excellent description of study setting and the study sampling methodology is very sound and clearly described.

Specific comments:

If vaccination was not recorded on the infant immunization card or the health card, the parent was asked to recall whether measles two vaccination had been given or not.(Line 144)

• Can such parental recall be justified? For what proportion was this the method used to determine receipt of vaccine.

• Was there a way that vaccination status was verified with the concerned health authorities?

Results

• Good clear description of socio-demographic characteristics of mother-child pairs. Table, change ‘Categoties’ to ‘Categories’

• Table 2: Move the variables reporting parity and birth order and where child living to Table 1.

• Figure 2 legend: change ‘Figure 2: Measles two overage among children’ to ’ Figure 2: Measles two coverage among children’

• Table 3 change ‘Ever has been post-pond or cancelled for vaccination’ to ‘Ever had a vaccination postponed or cancelled’

• Change ‘Among these, five factors remained significant in the multivariable logistic regression analysis’ to ‘Among these, five factors remained independently associated with having received MCV2 in the multivariable logistic regression analysis’

• Change ‘Those children whose father’s educational status was primary, secondary, and college & above increased their odds of vaccinating’ to ‘In comparison to children whose fathers who had not received formal education, children whose father’s educational status was primary, secondary, and college & above had an increased odds of receiving MCV2’

• Change ‘Mothers who had no schedules cancelled/postpone increased their odds of vaccinating their children for MCV2 by five times compared to mothers who had schedules cancelled/postpone (AOR: 4.9 (95% CI: 2.62, 9.32)).’ to ‘In comparison to children who had a vaccination postponed or cancelled, children who had not had a previous vaccination postponed or cancelled had an increased odds of receiving MCV2 (95% CI: 2.62, 9.32)).’

• Change ‘In comparison to children whose mothers had low awareness regarding measles vaccination, children whose mothers had high awareness had an increased odds of receiving MCV2 (AOR:3.3 (95% CI: 2.12, 257 5.17)).’

• Change ‘Similarly, the odds of vaccinating their children for MCV2 were 5 times (AOR: 2.62, 9.32) higher among children of mothers who had a good perception of measles vaccination compared to mothers with a poor perception (Table 5).’ to ‘In comparison to the children of mothers with a poor perception of measles vaccination, the children of mothers with a good perception of measles vaccination had an increased odds of receiving MCV2 (AOR: 2.62, 9.32)’.

Discussion

• Change ‘However, it is lower than the rates recorded Gondar in Ethiopia’ to ‘However, it is lower than the rates recorded in Gondar, Ethiopia’

• Start a new paragraph at ‘The disparities noted, especially in China and Japan,’ and change text to ‘The disparities noted, especially in comparison to China and Japan,’

• Start a new paragraph at ‘In contrast, the coverage reported in this study’

• Limitations of study: can the number and % of children who did not have vaccination cards be described. The authors note that relying on parental recall may introduce bias which is true. To estimate the size of what effect of this bias we need to know for how many children the vaccination card was not available.

Figures

• Figure 2 is unnecessary. This data can be presented in one sentence.

• Figure 3. Correct the spelling errors in the title

Response to Reviewers 1.Journal Requirements:

1.1 Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: Thank you, after reviewing the PLOS ONE style templates, we revise the whole document, e.g., we use Level 1 heading for all major sections (Abstract, Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, etc.) with bold type, 18pt font. We also Cite figures as “Fig 1”, “Fig 2”. We use bold type for the figure titles.

I will not comment on any template or style issues

1.2 In the ethics statement in the Methods, 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

Response: Thank you, we provide an additional detail regarding how the verbal consent was documented and witnessed (see the Ethics approval and consent to participate on page 6 and 7)

This description is appropriate

1.3 We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.” Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. Response:

Thank you, we share the data set.

1.4 Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Response: Ok thanks we edit during submission

2. Response to reviewers' comments:

2.1 Response to Reviewer #1 comments

2.1.1 The discussion section should present the evidence obtained, as well as exploring and showing possible strategies to increase coverage of two-dose measles vaccination (19 and 35 months). These strategies should be based on data from other literature sources, as well as the findings from this study.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your insightful and helpful comments. We revise the discussion part as your recommendation, see line 324 to 332

* Look at Line 270…..: Gondar

*Look at Line 278, reference #32 talks about Ethiopia in general

2.1.2 The Conclusion section presents recommendations based solely on the data from this study. The study would have been more comprehensive if the factors affecting vaccination coverage had been categorized, clearly listed, systematized and described in terms of practical guidance for the health worker. For instance, Group 1 encompasses priority factors that were identified on the basis of the study conducted, with consideration given to reliable results on coverage with two doses of measles vaccination. Group 2 - secondary (unreliable results from work) factors that require the development of strategies to adjust and modify them in order to positively influence vaccination coverage. In particular, this could be the promotion of conclusions about the positive effects of vaccination during pregnancy planning consultations, antenatal care and postnatal care; communication with patients seeking counselling for any medical intervention related to the child, and so on. This will improve the quality of the study and expand potential interventions to increase vaccination coverage in real-world practice, including in the context of later timing of vaccination against other infectious diseases.

Response: Thanks for your comments, we revise it as recommended, see the conclusion section from line 339 to 345.

2. 2 Response to reviewer #2 comments

1.The authors present an interesting topic but there are a couple of issues in the submitted manuscript. These relate mainly to sampling design, analysis and discussion sections. These should be addressed before it can be recommended for publication.

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and for your insightful comments, and recommendations. We see it critically and revise accordingly.

2.BACKGROUND: a.L61 - the mortality numbers quoted are modelled estimates. They are NOT reported deaths. And authors should quote the latest estimates published Nov 2024.

Response: Thank you very much, we use the latest estimate published on 14, Nov, 2024, see line 59 to 63.

b.L64 - Number of deaths prevented by MCV between 2000 and 2021 is based on a comparator of NO Vaccination not at existing rates of vaccination between 2000 and 2021.

Response: We correct it as your dose (MCV2) in February 2019.

Response: Thank you for your comment, and we rewrite it as “In early 2019, the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) began administering the measles two vaccine at 15 months to ensure adequate protection.”

3.METHODS:

a. L105 7 ff -- Population universe - It is unusual to have a population-based listing of all 19–35-month-old children by household. How was this last made available to the authors? Was it from a special service area of a model health center or medical college? In that case, this population may not be representative of general population of ETH for this age group and the conclusions may not be generalizable. How was the base population list by household generated in the first place? Was it done through periodic community census or was it done through attendance at immunization clinics by the pregnant mother or the infant? If done by the latter method, this could introduce a serious selection bias to the results as the infants/children who did not attend immunization clinics could have been missed from the base population list and result in higher than true proportion of children immunized.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. As described in our background, “In late 2023 and early 2024, Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, experienced two measles outbreaks, despite a reported MCV1 vaccination coverage of 90–95% among children aged 19–35 months.” In response to these outbreaks, the Debre Berhan City Health Bureau conducted a census in each Kebele through health extension workers. The gross data, specifically the number of children aged 19–35 months, were obtained from this census.

b.L105-106: The authors studied 19–35-month-old children in May 2024. Then the authors were studying the birth cohort born between May 2021 to Dec 2022. Authors should clearly state this and mention the date cut-offs if applied.

Response: We accept the comment and we state it, see line 103-104

c.L127: Definition of dependent variable MCV2-By definition all MCV2 positive children must have received MCV1. The authors should clearly state that they ascertained MCV1 status too when they categorized a child as MCV2 or if they followed some other methods to determine MCV2 status.

Response: Thank you for your comment, even if we didn’t state it under dependent variable as you stated above, we include MCV1 as a prerequisite for MCV2 under the operational definition of MCV2- see line 139 and 140 d.

L133: Of all the independent or explanatory variables, MCV1 is unique as it is on direct pathway to MCV2+ status, and hence could be a confounder. Hence MCV1 cannot be considered an explanatory variable as an MCV1-negative status would preclude MCV2+ status. Also, L140: Authors do not state clearly that they verified that every MCV2 positive child had indeed received the second dose of MCV and not just a delayed first dose of MCV. Please see more on this in RESULTS.

Response: Thank you very much for your insightful comments. We apologize for the technical oversight. We included MCV1 as an independent variable based on the conceptual framework principle—where variables are aligned with questionnaire items. However, in practice, MCV1 was not analyzed as an independent variable in the bivariable logistic regression. To prevent any potential misinterpretation, we have now removed MCV1 from the list of independent variables.

e.L146 and L154-55: Perception and awareness scores: What was the value of scores that were used to determine "good perception" and "high awareness"?

Response: Thank you, as we describe on operational definition “participants who scored at or above the mean were classified as having a good perception and participants who scored above or equal to the median on the seven awareness questions were considered to have a high level of awareness.

4.RESULTS:

a.Table-1 - Income currency to be mentioned.

Response: Thank you, corrected-see table 1

b.Table 2: MCV1 status - 13% of MCV2 children are stated to be MCV1 negative. By definition they cannot be MCV2+, at most they would be delayed MCV1. These children should have been excluded from all further analysis or replacement samples collected.

Response: Thank you for your insightful observation. We fully agree that, under routine immunization guidelines, a child should not receive MCV2 without first receiving MCV1. We also acknowledge that, based on this standard, these children could have been excluded from the analysis. However, in our study, we intentionally included them for the following reasons recommendation, see line 64 and 65.

c. L75-76 -- The sentence reads as if ETH Ethiopia introduced the first dose of the measles vaccine in 2019.

In fact, ETH introduced (MCV1) in 1980 and the second

•They were eligible for MCV2 by age, regardless of their reported MCV1 status.

•We assumed that excluding them might underestimate the real-world coverage gap of MCV2 and would not reflect programmatic realities.

•Including them provides a more accurate picture of operational challenges, such as documentation gaps, caregiver recall issues, and deviations in service delivery, which are common in low-resource settings.

•Furthermore, during our proposal development and literature review, we found that other studies had taken a similar approach by including children reported as MCV1-negative in MCV2 coverage analyses. For example: 1.Second dose measles vaccination coverage and associated factors among children aged 24–35 months in Sub-Saharan Africa – Frontiers in Public Health, 2022

2.Assessment of second dose measles vaccination coverage using the 2016 Ethiopia

Demographic and Health Survey – Pan African Medical Journal, 2023

3.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/713b/74af62b0e5206efd6ac8eede268d4cd6408d.pdf

Nonetheless, we sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comment and insights. If reanalysis is strongly recommended, we are willing to proceed accordingly

c.L238-239: Children vaccinated for any vaccine (YES/NO) –

By definition no MCV1 negative child can be MCV2 positive and therefore including them in the analysis biases all estimates. The entire analysis should be redone after excluding these MCV1 negative children.

Response: Thank you very much for your insightful comment. We agree with your observation that, by definition, a child who did not receive MCV1 cannot receive MCV2.

In our dataset, all children who were marked as MCV1-negative were also MCV2-negative. Therefore, no MCV1-negative and MCV2-positive cases were included in the analysis. We have now clarified this point in the manuscript under table -2 by stating

“All children recorded as MCV1-negative were also MCV2-negative; thus, no inconsistencies in the MCV1–MCV2 sequence were present in the dataset” to avoid any misinterpretation.

d.T5: Rows comparing Child received any vaccination vs. MCV2 status actually shows that a child not receiving any vaccine had higher odds (28/11) of getting MCV2 than those with any vaccine (239/348). The AOR would therefore be the inverse of 3.04.

However, as stated above including MCV0 children in prior vaccination status in the sample is erroneous as they can never become MCV2. The analysis should be redone.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your observation. The issue you noted was due to a typographical error that occurred when transferring the multivariable table output. Specifically, the categories for MCV2 vaccination status were inadvertently reversed: MCV2 vaccinated was labeled as not vaccinated, and vice versa. To clarify, based on the correct cross-tabulation from our dataset, children who did not receive any vaccine had a lower odds of receiving MCV2 (11/28 = 0.393) compared to those who had received at least one vaccine (348/239 = 1.456). The correct cross tab output table is provided below for reference and we correct in revised manuscript (see Table -5).

Does your child had vaccinated for any vaccine? * 604. MCV2 Crosstabulation Count

604. MCV2Total NoYes

303.Does your child had vaccinated for any vaccine?Yes239348587 No 281139 Total267359626

4: DISCUSSION:

5.1 L265: Please mention country of GONDAR. Please rewrite the discussion section in light of revised analysis.

Response: Thank you for your comments we correct accordingly (see Discussion section Line 270, 284,301) .

**********

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: Yes: Mikhail P. Kostinov

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

PLoS One. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0342501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342501.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


2 Sep 2025

Response to Reviewers

Title: Second-dose measles vaccination coverage and associated factors among children aged 19 to 35 months in Debre Birhan city, Ethiopia, 2024: a community-based cross-sectional study: PONE-D-24-57768R1

Reviewer #3:

1. Abstract: Please specify that the adjusted odds ratios were those associated with having received the second dose of measles vaccine. Significant factors associated with the second measles vaccine dose were …. Need a little more work to clarify language in the results section of the abstract

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment and suggestions, we correct it as Significant factors associated with the second dose of measles vaccination were…….

2. Introduction: this describes the issue clearly and presents an excellent rationale for this research.

Response: Thank you for acknowledging our rationale, which clearly reflects the motivation that led us to conduct this research.

3. Methods: Excellent description of study setting and the study sampling methodology is very sound and clearly described.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of our description of the study setting and the methodological rigor of our sampling approach.

Specific comments:

1. If vaccination was not recorded on the infant immunization card or the health card, the parent was asked to recall whether measles two vaccination had been given or not (Line 144)

1.1 Can such parental recall be justified? For what proportion was this the method used to determine receipt of vaccine.

Response: Thank you for raising this important point. In our study, vaccination status was primarily verified using the infant immunization card or health card. However, in cases where these records were not available, parental recall was used as an alternative source of information. Parental recall has been commonly employed in similar population-based surveys, including the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), and has been shown to provide reasonably reliable estimates in the absence of written records. Even though this we acknowledge it in limitation section. In our study, parental recall accounted for -12/626=1.917 % of responses, we have now clarified this in the Methods section, Line 145. “In this study, parental recall was used for 12 out of 626 children (1.9%).

1.2 Was there a way that vaccination status was verified with the concerned health authorities?

Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. In our study, vaccination status was assessed using immunization/health cards and, when unavailable, caregiver recall. Direct verification with health facility or health authority records was not conducted, as our study was community-based and designed to capture information at the household level, similar to the methodology used in national Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and WHO immunization coverage surveys. We accept it, we put as limitation of this study and we state under limitation of the study as facility-level verification could have further strengthened the accuracy of vaccination status, see line 334-339.

Results

1. Good clear description of socio-demographic characteristics of mother-child pairs. Table, change ‘Categoties’ to ‘Categories’

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback on the description of the socio-demographic characteristics of mother–child pairs. We have corrected the typo in the table header, changing “Categoties” to “Categories.”

2. Table 2: Move the variables reporting parity and birth order and where child living to Table 1

Response: Thanks for your comment we move it to Table 1

3. Figure 2 legend: change ‘Figure 2: Measles two overage among children’ to’ Figure 2: Measles two coverage among children’

Response: thanks, we correct the error

4. Table 3 change ‘Ever has been post-pond or cancelled for vaccination’ to ‘Ever had a vaccination postponed or cancelled’

Response: thank you for your comment and we change it to “Ever had a vaccination postponed or cancelled”.

5. Change ‘Among these, five factors remained significant in the multivariable logistic regression analysis’ to ‘Among these, five factors remained independently associated with having received MCV2 in the multivariable logistic regression analysis’

Response: Thank you for your comment we correct it as ‘Among these, five factors remained independently associated with having received MCV2 in the multivariable logistic regression analysis….’

6. Change ‘Those children whose father’s educational status was primary, secondary, and college & above increased their odds of vaccinating’ to ‘In comparison to children whose fathers who had not received formal education, children whose father’s educational status was primary, secondary, and college & above had an increased odds of receiving MCV2’

Response: Thanks, we correct it accordingly, see line 248 to 250

7. Change ‘Mothers who had no schedules cancelled/postpone increased their odds of vaccinating their children for MCV2 by five times compared to mothers who had schedules cancelled/postpone (AOR: 4.9 (95% CI: 2.62, 9.32)).’ to ‘In comparison to children who had a vaccination postponed or cancelled, children who had not had a previous vaccination postponed or cancelled had an increased odds of receiving MCV2 (95% CI: 2.62, 9.32)).’

Response: Thank you, we correct it, see line 251 to 254

8. Change ‘In comparison to children whose mothers had low awareness regarding measles vaccination, children whose mothers had high awareness had an increased odds of receiving MCV2 (AOR:3.3 (95% CI: 2.12, 257 5.17)).’

Response: Thank you we correct it as you stated above, see line 254 to 256

9. Change ‘Similarly, the odds of vaccinating their children for MCV2 were 5 times (AOR: 2.62, 9.32) higher among children of mothers who had a good perception of measles vaccination compared to mothers with a poor perception (Table 5).’ to ‘In comparison to the children of mothers with a poor perception of measles vaccination, the children of mothers with a good perception of measles vaccination had an increased odds of receiving MCV2 (AOR: 2.62, 9.32)’.

Response: Thank you more, we also correct it as you stated above, see line 256 to 258

Discussion

1. Change ‘However, it is lower than the rates recorded Gondar in Ethiopia’ to ‘However, it is lower than the rates recorded in Gondar, Ethiopia’

1. Response: Thank for your critical insight, we correct as ‘However, it is lower than the rates recorded in Gondar, Ethiopia.’ See line 269

2. Start a new paragraph at ‘The disparities noted, especially in China and Japan,’ and change text to ‘The disparities noted, especially in comparison to China and Japan,’

Response: Thanks, corrected, as your recommendation

3. Start a new paragraph at ‘In contrast, the coverage reported in this study’

Response: Thank you, we start a new paragraph at ‘In contrast, the coverage reported in this study…’ See line 276

Limitations of study:

1. Can the number and % of children who did not have vaccination cards be described. The authors note that relying on parental recall may introduce bias which is true. To estimate the size of what effect of this bias we need to know for how many children the vaccination card was not available.

Response: Thank you, we describe it in % now under the methods section, see line 145

Figures

1. Figure 2 is unnecessary. This data can be presented in one sentence.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We included Figure 2 because presenting the overall coverage of MCV2 was one of our study objectives, and we felt that the figure would provide a visual emphasis. While the coverage is also summarized in the text “The overall coverage of MCV2 among children aged 19–35 months in Debre Berhan city was 57.3% (95% CI: 53.5–61.2)”, we believe the figure enhances reader understanding. Nevertheless, we are willing to remove it if the you still consider it unnecessary.

2. Figure 3. Correct the spelling errors in the title

Response: Thank you for your comment, I correct it accordingly.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0342501.s003.docx (26.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Tebelay Dilnessa

26 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. Moltot,

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 2026 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.

  • A 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 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,

Tebelay Dilnessa, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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:

  • Line 30 and 31: The objective should be ‘SMART’.

  • Line 93: Materials and methods

  • Line 125: The table legend should be explanatory in terms of person, place and time.

  • The’ Authors’ contributions’ should be similar to the one generated during the first submission of the manuscript.

  • The reference should be written based on Vancouver style of referencing together with PLOS ONE guideline for manuscript preparation.

  • References 1-10 should be standardized.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The manuscript addresses a relevant points and public health issue, but the title is repeatedly reported in Ethiopia. I have reviewed this cross-sectional study and provided my suggestions and comments, and the detailed suggestions and Comments are attached below.

� Abstract

• The abstract needs grammatical, punctuation

• How you understand the herd immunity in Debre Birhan? And how do measure herd immunity?

• Significant factors associated with the second dose of measles vaccination were; father’s education level: primary (AOR: 1.63; 95% CI: 43 1.17–3.69), secondary (AOR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.83–7.01), and college or above (AOR: 3.2; 95% 44 CI: 1.5–6.95). how do you interpret father’s education increases if father’s education influence measles vaccine coverage?

• Pease report or rewrite the variables level of awareness, and perception (like high, low medium) other wise it is difficult to interpret?

� Introduction

In late 2023 and early 2024, Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, experienced two measles outbreaks, despite high reported MCV1 vaccination coverage of 90–95% among children aged 19–35 months.

• Why this outbreak happened if the coverage due to this high vaccination coverage?

• Why do you select this child aged 19–35 group why no 15?

� Method and Materials

• In line number 95-6 rewrite as Amhara National Regional State

• In line no 96-101 where you did obtain this information?

• A stratified sampling method, followed by systematic random sampling, was employed to select the study participants. Why stratified?

• How did you select the kebeles? write the name of the kebeles and their respective sample size?

• In line no 118-123 rewrite again please?

� Results

• Line no 196-8 rewrite and remove the yielding replace it with?

• Please replace average age in mean age

• TV write the full name of this abbreviation

• Table 5 that shows the factors associated with MCV2 coverage among children aged 19–35 months, please add one column that indicates the CoR its CI and P-value.

• Please observe each cells carefully

• Revise each sentences in the result section line by line

� Discussions

• Discussion section could be more elaborated compare them with existing literature, discuss implications

� Conclusion

• Conclusions must align with the research questions, be directly grounded in the

study results, and recommendations should be directly based on the findings. Rewrite again please

Reviewer #5: Title: Why you select only second dose vaccine coverage:

Abstract:

• Line 33: “May 10 to 30, 2024” → “May 10–30, 2024” (use en dash).

• Ensuring consistency in describing the participants as children (not caregivers) and using precise language for the age range and sampling scope, I have assumed "in all over the paper" means applying this uniformly throughout the manuscript for clarity as a systematic random sampling method was used to recruit 626 children aged 19-35 months.

• Line 43: “Significant factors associated with the second dose of measles vaccination were;” → “Significant factors associated with second-dose measles vaccination coverage were:”

• Significant factors associated with receipt of the second dose of measles vaccination included father's education level (primary, secondary, or college). However, as expected, these sociodemographic variables are known to promote higher vaccination coverage in educated families. This is a well-documented and almost universally true finding in global health literature. In other words, higher parental education is generally associated with greater health literacy, better access to health information, and increased ability to navigate healthcare systems." It is not a novel discovery. Reporting it without deeper context or specific relevance to the local setting can make the study seem unoriginal and its conclusions overly simplistic.

Possible recommendation to improve it: To strengthen the impact of your study, contextualize the finding locally by explaining why father’s education specifically matters in Debre Birhan-such as the high proportion of male-headed households and cultural decision-making dynamics-and highlight what is new in your setting: emphasize that maternal education was not a significant predictor, unlike in many other studies, which underscores the unique and pivotal role of fathers in this community. Use stronger analytical language by framing the education effect as a clear “dose-response relationship,” where higher paternal education corresponds to progressively higher odds of vaccination.

Then, make actionable, father-focused recommendations, moving beyond generic awareness-raising to propose targeted strategies such as workplace outreach, male-tailored health messaging, and involving fathers directly in immunization visits. Finally, reframe the discussion to present father’s education not merely as a well-known sociodemographic factor, but as a key lever for designing locally effective, gender-sensitive interventions in Debre Birhan that can meaningfully improve second-dose measles vaccine coverage

• Line 49: “Therefore, to improve coverage, it is essential to strengthen health education, streamline vaccination schedules, and enhancing communication with parents are essential to boost coverage.” → This is repetitive. Simplify to: “Therefore, to improve coverage, it is essential to strengthen health education, streamline vaccination schedules, and enhance communication with parents.”

• To fully address measles prevention, I am strongly recommended to assess vaccine effectiveness in addition to coverage. This will help determine whether waning immunity or primary vaccine failure, key challenges in current measles control, are contributing to ongoing outbreaks.

• Other significant predictors included whether the child had received any prior vaccine, whether any vaccination schedules had been canceled or postponed, as well as caregivers’ levels of awareness and perception regarding measles vaccination. All of these are established factors known to influence vaccination uptake

• Why you include those who canceled or postponed vaccination schedules as study participants.

• How the one who took another vaccine before increases the vaccination coverage of measle vaccine?

Introduction:

• Well-written and clear. Good context and rationale.

• Line 90–93: Sentence: “This also raise concerns…” → “This raises concerns…”

• Ensure consistency in referencing: e.g., “[6, 8]” in revised manuscript (line 75) is fine.

Methods:

• Study Setting: Well described.

• Sample Size Formula (Line 115): “P = 0.48%” should be “P = 0.48” (without % symbol). Also, add a space after “0.48”.

• Sampling: Clear and reproducible.

• Line 145: “In this study, parental recall was used for 12 out of 626 children (1.9%).” → Good addition.

• Operational Definitions: Clear, but ensure Awareness and Perception scoring is explicitly referenced (mean/median).

• Ethics: Well documented.

Results:

• Tables: Ensure all table titles are consistent (e.g., Table 1, 2, 3, 5).

• Figure 2 Title: “Measles two average” → “Measles second-dose coverage”

• Line 225–227: The coverage is stated clearly. Figure 2 is simple but acceptable.

• Table 5: Ensure column alignment. “Not vaccinate” → “Not vaccinated”.

• AOR Reporting: In text (Lines 248–258), ensure confidence intervals are formatted consistently: “(95% CI: 1.17–3.69)”.

Discussion:

• Line 283–284: “Gondar, Ethiopia (75.68%)” → Consider citing the correct reference.

• Line 285–286: “The disparities noted, especially in China and JapanThe disparities noted, especially in China and Japan,” → Duplicate text. Remove repetition.

• Line 301–305: Well articulated.

• Line 332–333: “Ethiopia; Gondar,” → “Ethiopia, including Gondar,”

• Line 339–347: The paragraph on strategies is relevant but could be more concise. Consider integrating into conclusion.

Limitations:

• Clearly stated. You may add: “Recall bias was minimal given only 1.9% relied on recall.”

Conclusion and Recommendations:

• Clear and practical.

• Line 358–365: Repetitive with abstract. Ensure concise, actionable recommendations.

• Suggest specifying: “Targeted health education for fathers, reminder systems for appointments, and community engagement.”

References:

• Formatting is inconsistent (some with full URLs, some without). Follow PLOS ONE citation style.

• Ensure all hyperlinks are properly bracketed and accessible.

• Example: Reference 1“Measles cases surge worldwide…” URL is very long; consider shortening or using DOI if available.

• Check for duplicate or misplaced references (e.g., references 6 and 8 are same?).

General Comments:

• Language: Mostly clear but some long sentences. Break them for readability.

• Typos: “overage” → “coverage” in Figure 2.

• Consistency: Use “MCV2” throughout instead of “measles two”.

• Figures/Tables: Ensure all are cited in text and legends are clear.

• Response to Reviewers: Well addressed. Ensure all changes are reflected in the main manuscript (some tracked changes remain).

Recommended Actions Before Submission:

1. Run a spell-check and grammar check.

2. Standardize reference formatting.

3. Verify all numbers in tables match text.

4. Consider removing Figure 2 if space is limited

**********

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: Yes: Mikhail P. Kostinov

Reviewer #4: Yes: Habtamu Belew

Reviewer #5: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comment for PLO, Me vaccine.docx

pone.0342501.s004.docx (19.8KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0342501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342501.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 3


23 Jan 2026

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #4:

Abstract

• The abstract needs grammatical, punctuation

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have incorporated this suggestion, and it has strengthened the abstract.

• How you understand the herd immunity in Debre Birhan? And how do measure herd immunity?

Response: We thank the reviewer for the opportunity to clarify our methodology.

We understand herd immunity as the critical coverage (Cc) needed to reduce the effective reproduction number (Re) below 1, calculated as Cc=1−(1/R0). For measles, with an R0 of ~15, the herd immunity threshold is approximately 93-94%. Accounting for two-dose vaccine efficacy (~97%), the required two-dose coverage target becomes ~95%.

• Significant factors associated with the second dose of measles vaccination were; father’s education level: primary (AOR: 1.63; 95% CI: 43 1.17–3.69), secondary (AOR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.83–7.01), and college or above (AOR: 3.2; 95% 44 CI: 1.5–6.95). how do you interpret father’s education increases if father’s education influence measles vaccine coverage?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this question, which allows us to clarify an important detail omitted from the abstract.

Interpretation: In our multivariable logistic regression model, the reference category for father's education was "no formal education." Therefore, the reported Adjusted Odds Ratios (AORs) are interpreted relative to this baseline.

• AOR = 1.63 for primary education means that children whose fathers have a primary education have 1.63 times higher odds of receiving the second measles dose compared to children whose fathers have no formal education.

• AOR = 2.04 for secondary education indicates 2.04 times higher odds compared to the "no education" group.

• AOR = 3.2 for college or above indicates 3.2 times higher odds compared to the "no education" group.

Conclusion: The results clearly demonstrate a positive gradient—higher paternal education is significantly associated with increased odds of a child completing the second measles vaccine dose. This aligns with the global evidence that parental education, often a proxy for health literacy and access to information, is a strong enabler of childhood vaccination.

• Pease report or rewrite the variables level of awareness, and perception (like high, low medium) otherwise it is difficult to interpret?

Response: Thank you for your comments, we correct it.

Introduction

In late 2023 and early 2024, Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, experienced two measles outbreaks, despite high reported MCV1 vaccination coverage of 90–95% among children aged 19–35 months.

• Why this outbreak happened if the coverage due to this high vaccination coverage?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this vital question, which directly addresses the central paradox motivating our research. The occurrence of outbreaks despite high MCV1 coverage can be explained by several interconnected factors, and our study provides empirical evidence for the most critical one in Debre Birhan.

The core explanation lies in the difference between MCV1 and MCV2 coverage and the nature of measles immunity:

1. High MCV1 coverage ≠ Herd Immunity: While MCV1 coverage of 90-95% is commendable, it is insufficient for measles eradication. Herd immunity for measles requires very high population immunity (typically ≥94%) with a two-dose regimen. The first dose has an efficacy of about 93%. Even with 95% MCV1 coverage, this leaves a significant immune gap (approximately 30-35% of the birth cohort may still be susceptible when accounting for vaccine efficacy). This susceptible pool is sufficient to sustain outbreaks, especially in densely populated urban areas like Debre Birhan.

2. Our Study's Critical Finding: Our research identified that second-dose (MCV2) coverage in the same age group is only 57.3%. This represents a catastrophic "coverage gap" of over 30 percentage points between dose one and dose two. This means a large proportion of children who received the first dose did not receive the crucial second dose needed to boost immunity to near 100%.

• Why do you select this child aged 19–35 group why no 15?

Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this important methodological point. The Ethiopian national immunization schedule recommends the second dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV2) at 15 months of age. We selected the age range of 19–35 months to specifically identify children who were true defaulters—those who had passed the recommended age by at least 4 months. This allowed us to accurately assess routine MCV2 coverage and its barriers, rather than including children who were still within the standard grace period for the 15-month vaccination.

Method and Materials

• In line number 95-6 rewrite as Amhara National Regional State

Response: Thank you we correct it

• In line no 96-101 where you did obtain this information?

Response: Thanks for your comment I obtain this information from ‘Population-of-Zones-and-Weredas-Projected-as-of-July-2023, by Ethiopian statistical service

• A stratified sampling method, followed by systematic random sampling, was employed to select the study participants. Why stratified?

Response: Thanks for your interesting comment, stratified sampling was used at the first stage because the five sub-cities from which we sampled were not homogeneous. They contained distinct socio-demographic and geographic strata, most notably that some sub-cities included predominantly rural kebeles while others were composed entirely of urban kebeles.

To ensure our sample was representative of both these key settings (urban and rural), we first stratified the population by sub-city. This allowed us to guarantee proportional representation of these different community types before proceeding with random selection within the chosen strata.

• How did you select the kebeles? write the name of the kebeles and their respective sample size?

Response: Thank you for this for requesting clarification. The eight selected kebeles and their respective sample sizes are detailed under figure one. As stated in the manuscript, four kebeles were selected from each of the two chosen sub-cities.

Selected Kebeles and Sample Sizes:

From Etege Taytu Sub-City:

o Giorgis Kebele: 81 participants

o Ayer Tena Kebele: 82 participants

o Bakelo Kebele: 83 participants

o Saria Kebele: 82 participants

From Tebasse Sub-City:

o Geberal Kebele: 77 participants

o Bahir Hali Kebele: 76 participants

o Addis Genet Kebele: 75 participants

o Mesalemya Kebele: 78 participants

Total Sample Size (N): 634 participants

• In line no 118-123 rewrite again please?

Response: Thank you and we rewrite it, see line 118-123

Results

• Line no 196-8 remove the yielding replace it with?

Response: Thank you for your comment and we replace ‘yielding’ by ‘with’

• Please replace average age in mean age

Response: Thanks, we replace ‘average’ by ‘mean’

• TV write the full name of this abbreviation

Response: Thank you we rewrite it with its full name

• Table 5 that shows the factors associated with MCV2 coverage among children aged 19–35 months, please add one column that indicates the CoR its CI.

Response: Thank you very much we removed it due to recommendation of one of the previous reviewers, but now we accept your recommendation and add again it

• Please observe each cell carefully

Response: Thank very much we recheck each cell of the table

• Revise each sentence in the result section line by line

Response: Thanks very much we revise the whole result section, we correct some inconvenient words.

Conclusion

• Conclusions must align with the research questions, be directly grounded in the

study results, and recommendations should be directly based on the findings. Rewrite again please

Response: Thank you for your valuable and constructive feedback. We rewrite it now.

Reviewer #5:

Title: Why you select only second dose vaccine coverage

Response: Thank you for your question. In late 2023 and early 2024, Debre Birhan City, Ethiopia, experienced two measles outbreaks, despite high reported MCV1 vaccination coverage of 90–95% among children aged 19–35 months, but thier is no clear image regardeding MCV2. This gaps, raise concerns about the coverage, and factors affecting MCV2 administration. Therefore we plan to conduct this research specifically on MCV2.

Abstract:

• Line 33: “May 10 to 30, 2024” → “May 10–30, 2024” (use en dash).

Response: Thank you for your comment and we make it -

• Ensuring consistency in describing the participants as children (not caregivers) and using precise language for the age range and sampling scope, I have assumed "in all over the paper" means applying this uniformly throughout the manuscript for clarity as a systematic random sampling method was used to recruit 626 children aged 19-35 months.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment, we revise and correct it in all over the paper.

• Line 43: “Significant factors associated with the second dose of measles vaccination were;” → “Significant factors associated with second-dose measles vaccination coverage were:”

Response: Thank you for your insightful recommendation and we correct it as you state above

• Significant factors associated with receipt of the second dose of measles vaccination included father's education level (primary, secondary, or college). However, as expected, these sociodemographic variables are known to promote higher vaccination coverage in educated families. This is a well-documented and almost universally true finding in global health literature. In other words, higher parental education is generally associated with greater health literacy, better access to health information, and increased ability to navigate healthcare systems." It is not a novel discovery. Reporting it without deeper context or specific relevance to the local setting can make the study seem unoriginal and its conclusions overly simplistic.

Possible recommendation to improve it: To strengthen the impact of your study, contextualize the finding locally by explaining why father’s education specifically matters in Debre Birhan-such as the high proportion of male-headed households and cultural decision-making dynamics-and highlight what is new in your setting: emphasize that maternal education was not a significant predictor, unlike in many other studies, which underscores the unique and pivotal role of fathers in this community. Use stronger analytical language by framing the education effect as a clear “dose-response relationship,” where higher paternal education corresponds to progressively higher odds of vaccination.

Then, make actionable, father-focused recommendations, moving beyond generic awareness-raising to propose targeted strategies such as workplace outreach, male-tailored health messaging, and involving fathers directly in immunization visits. Finally, reframe the discussion to present father’s education not merely as a well-known sociodemographic factor, but as a key lever for designing locally effective, gender-sensitive interventions in Debre Birhan that can meaningfully improve second-dose measles vaccine coverage

Response: Thank you very much, we try our best to improve the recommendation section of the Abstract

• Line 49: “Therefore, to improve coverage, it is essential to strengthen health education, streamline vaccination schedules, and enhancing communication with parents are essential to boost coverage.” → This is repetitive. Simplify to: “Therefore, to improve coverage, it is essential to strengthen health education, streamline vaccination schedules, and enhance communication with parents.”

Response: Thank you very much for your insightful suggestion and we correct it

• To fully address measles prevention, I am strongly recommended to assess vaccine effectiveness in addition to coverage. This will help determine whether waning immunity or primary vaccine failure, key challenges in current measles control, are contributing to ongoing outbreaks.

Response: Thank you very much, we will consider this for our future work

• Why you include those who canceled or postponed vaccination schedules as study participants.

Response: Thank you for this important methodological question. We included children with a history of canceled or postponed vaccination schedules as study participants for the following key reasons,

1. The target population for MCV2 in this study was all children aged 19-35 months residing in the city. Excluding children based on healthcare-seeking behaviors or prior interactions with the system (like cancellations) would create a selection bias, artificially inflating coverage estimates by only including children more likely to be reached or from more engaged families.

2. Capturing "Missed Opportunities" and System Barriers: A history of cancellation or postponement is itself a critical factor associated with ultimately missing the MCV2 dose. By including these children, we could quantify the impact of this specific barrier on final coverage.

In general, this approach was taken to ensure a true measurement of population-level coverage and to allow for the analysis of missed opportunities and system-related barriers as potential factors associated with incomplete vaccination.

• How the one who took another vaccine before increases the vaccination coverage of measle vaccine?

Response: A child who has received any prior vaccine (e.g., Pentavalent, PCV, Vitamin A) before the measles-containing vaccine (MCV) schedule is more likely to receive MCV2 due to several interrelated factors:

1. Indicator of successful health system contact: Receiving a prior vaccine signifies that the child is enrolled in the immunization system, the caregiver knows the vaccination site/schedule, and at least one successful contact with the health service has occurred. This establishes a pathway for subsequent vaccinations.

2. Reflection of caregiver health-seeking behavior: Caregivers who proactively complete early vaccines generally exhibit higher health literacy, stronger belief in vaccine benefits, and greater commitment to the recommended schedule. This positive behavior pattern continues, increasing the likelihood they will return for MCV2.

Introduction:

• Well-written and clear. Good context and rationale.

Response: Thank you very much

• Line 90–93: Sentence: “This also raise concerns…” → “This raises concerns…”

Response: Thank you very much and we correct it

• Ensure consistency in referencing: e.g., “[6, 8]” in revised manuscript (line 75) is fine.

Response: Than you we revise it

Methods:

• Study Setting: Well described.

Response: Thank you very much

• Sample Size Formula (Line 115): “P = 0.48%” should be “P = 0.48” (without % symbol). Also, add a space after “0.48”.

Response: Thank you for your critical review and we delete %

• Sampling: Clear and reproducible.

Response: Thank you very much

• Line 145: “In this study, parental recall was used for 12 out of 626 children (1.9%).” → Good addition.

Response: Thank you very much

• Operational Definitions: Clear, but ensure Awareness and Perception scoring is explicitly referenced (mean/median).

Response: Thank you very much, we ensure it and we use mean for awareness and median for perception

• Ethics: Well documented.

Response: Thank you very much

Results:

• Tables: Ensure all table titles are consistent (e.g., Table 1, 2, 3, 5).

Response: Thank you for your comment, we make it consistent

• Figure 2 Title: “Measles two average” → “Measles second-dose coverage”

Response: Thank you, we correct it as recommended

• Line 225–227: The coverage is stated clearly. Figure 2 is simple but acceptable.

Response: Thank you we left it as it is

• Table 5: Ensure column alignment. “Not vaccinate” → “Not vaccinated”.

Response: Thanks for your critical observation and we correct it.

• AOR Reporting: In text (Lines 248–258), ensure confidence intervals are formatted consistently: “(95% CI: 1.17–3.69)”.

Response: Thank you we make it consistent

Discussion:

• Line 283–284: “Gondar, Ethiopia (75.68%)” → Consider citing the correct reference.

Response: Thank you we recheck it and the citation is corrected

• Line 285–286: “The disparities noted, especially in China and Japan The disparities noted, especially in China and Japan

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_3.docx

pone.0342501.s005.docx (20.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Tebelay Dilnessa

26 Jan 2026

Second-dose measles vaccination coverage and associated factors among children aged 19 to 35 months in Debre Birhan city, Ethiopia, 2024: a community-based cross-sectional study

PONE-D-24-57768R3

Dear Dr. Moltot,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Tebelay Dilnessa, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

  • Line 89: This study aimed to assess MCV2 coverage and…………

  • Line 92: Materials and methods

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Tebelay Dilnessa

PONE-D-24-57768R3

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Moltot,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@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. Tebelay Dilnessa

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data set. Dataset for cross-checking the analysis.

    Excel file containing the underlying dataset used for the analyses in this study; provided in response to reviewer request for verification purposes.

    (CSV)

    pone.0342501.s001.csv (92.3KB, csv)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0342501.s002.docx (26.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0342501.s003.docx (26.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comment for PLO, Me vaccine.docx

    pone.0342501.s004.docx (19.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_3.docx

    pone.0342501.s005.docx (20.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Yes - all data are fully available without restriction; “All relevant data are within the paper and its supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES