Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Bulletin of the World Health Organization logoLink to Bulletin of the World Health Organization
. 2016 Aug 31;94(11):794–805B. doi: 10.2471/BLT.15.162172

Inequalities in full immunization coverage: trends in low- and middle-income countries

Inégalités dans la couverture vaccinale complète: tendances dans plusieurs pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire

Desigualdades en la cobertura de inmunización completa: tendencias en países con ingresos bajos y medios

عدم المساواة في تغطية عمليات التمنيع الكاملة: النزعات المتواجدة في البلدان ذات الدخل المنخفض والمتوسط

全程免疫接种率的不均衡性： 在中低收入国家的趋势

Неравномерность охвата населения полной вакцинацией: тенденции в странах с низким и средним уровнем дохода

María Clara Restrepo-Méndez a,✉, Aluísio JD Barros b, Kerry LM Wong a, Hope L Johnson c, George Pariyo d, Giovanny VA França a, Fernando C Wehrmeister b, Cesar G Victora b
PMCID: PMC5096343  PMID: 27821882

Abstract

Objective

To investigate disparities in full immunization coverage across and within 86 low- and middle-income countries.

Methods

In May 2015, using data from the most recent Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, we investigated inequalities in full immunization coverage – i.e. one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and three doses of polio vaccine – in 86 low- or middle-income countries. We then investigated temporal trends in the level and inequality of such coverage in eight of the countries.

Findings

In each of the World Health Organization’s regions, it appeared that about 56–69% of eligible children in the low- and middle-income countries had received full immunization. However, within each region, the mean recorded level of such coverage varied greatly. In the African Region, for example, it varied from 11.4% in Chad to 90.3% in Rwanda. We detected pro-rich inequality in such coverage in 45 of the 83 countries for which the relevant data were available and pro-urban inequality in 35 of the 86 study countries. Among the countries in which we investigated coverage trends, Madagascar and Mozambique appeared to have made the greatest progress in improving levels of full immunization coverage over the last two decades, particularly among the poorest quintiles of their populations.

Conclusion

Most low- and middle-income countries are affected by pro-rich and pro-urban inequalities in full immunization coverage that are not apparent when only national mean values of such coverage are reported.

Introduction

Despite the improvements made in global immunization coverage for children over the past decade,1,2 an estimated 21.8 million infants worldwide are still not being reached by routine immunization services.3 In 2013, most of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) regions reached more than 80% of their target populations with three doses of diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DTP) vaccine but coverage with such vaccine remained well short of the 2015 goal of 90%, particularly in the African (75%) and South-East Asia regions (77%).2,3 Many barriers exist to achieving good vaccination coverage, including a lack of parental education, low income, poor access to health facilities and traditional beliefs.4–13 As progress in this field is commonly expressed in terms of national or regional mean values, many of the underlying disparities among and within countries go unobserved or, at least, unreported. If routine immunization is to be made fast and equitable, we need multi-country studies that use the same types of stratification to document and understand the inequalities in vaccination coverage at both national and regional level.1,3,14,15 We also need to know the percentages of children who receive the full set of standard vaccines recommended by WHO. In India, for example, national immunization coverage has been increasing since the early 1990s but the proportion of children who, in 2006, had received all of the immunizations recommended for their age group as part of WHO’s Expanded Programme on Immunization was still under 50%.16 Failures or delays in the vaccination of children in high-risk groups can limit the impact of vaccine programmes on the burden of disease.17

The main objectives of the present analyses were: (i) to assess the proportions of children in low- or middle-income countries who receive a basic set of routine vaccinations – that is one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of vaccine against DTP and three doses of polio vaccine – at the appropriate ages; (ii) to document between-country and within-country inequalities in such coverage – in terms of socioeconomic status and other characteristics commonly recorded in national surveys; and (iii) to assess temporal trends in such coverage and in the associated inequalities.

Methods

In May 2015, we accessed publicly available data sets collected during the most recent Demographic and Health Survey18 and/or Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys19 in each of the 86 low- or middle-income countries in which at least one such survey had been conducted since the year 2000 (Table 1). Our study outcome was full immunization coverage, which we defined as the proportion of children who, at any age, had received one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of – trivalent, tetravalent or pentavalent – vaccine against DTP and three doses of polio vaccine. For the 20 study countries where measles vaccine was routinely administered at the age of 18 months, full immunization coverage was measured among children aged 18–29 months. Similarly, for the three study countries where measles vaccine was routinely administered at the age of 15 months, full immunization coverage was measured among children aged 15–26 months. Children aged 12–23 months formed the denominator group in all of the other study countries.

Table 1. Percentages of eligible children receiving full childhood immunization and the corresponding wealth-related inequalities in coverage, in 86 low- or middle-income countries, 2001–2012.

Region, country Yeara National coverage
SII
 CIX
Overall, % (SE)b In poorest quintile, % (SE)b In richest quintile, % (SE)b Mean percentage points (SE) P Mean (SE) P
African Region
Benin
 2006
 47.5 (1.3)
 34.0 (2.3)
 65.1 (2.3)
32.4 (3.5)
 < 0.001
12.0 (1.3)
 < 0.001
Burkina Faso
 2010
 81.3 (1.1)
 73.3 (2.5)
 83.9 (2.5)
12.9 (3.8)
 0.001
2.5 (0.8)
 0.001
Burundi
 2010
 83.1 (1.3)
 78.2 (2.5)
 83.9 (2.4)
7.1 (3.7)
 0.053
1.2 (0.7)
 0.094
Cameroon
 2011
 53.6 (1.7)
 32.9 (3.4)
 70.3 (2.7)
41.2 (4.7)
 < 0.001
13.4 (1.7)
 < 0.001
Central African Republic
 2010
 17.3 (1.5)
 7.7 (1.5)
 36.7 (4.2)
34.4 (4.6)
 < 0.001
32.7 (3.7)
 < 0.001
Chad
 2004
 11.4 (1.7)
 1.1 (0.9)
 24.0 (3.1)
25.9 (4.7)
 < 0.001
34.9 (5.3)
 < 0.001
Congo
 2011
 44.6 (2.1)
 38.2 (2.6)
 48.7 (5.3)
16.0 (6.2)
 0.010
6.3 (2.2)
 0.004
Côte d’Ivoire
 2011
 50.5 (2.3)
 39.2 (3.4)
 68.0 (4.3)
32.8 (6.0)
 < 0.001
11.0 (2.0)
 < 0.001
Democratic Republic of the Congo
 2010
 49.8 (2.2)
 39.1 (3.8)
 58.8 (3.7)
23.4 (5.9)
 < 0.001
7.7 (2.1)
 < 0.001
Ethiopia
 2011
 24.6 (1.9)
 16.8 (2.9)
 50.6 (4.7)
32.3 (5.6)
 < 0.001
22.6 (3.9)
 < 0.001
Gabon
 2012
 28.3 (2.5)
 33.5 (2.9)
 13.1 (3.8)
−16.8 (6.4)
 0.009
−9.7 (4.0)
 0.015
Gambia
 2005
 77.0 (1.2)
 83.9 (2.1)
 75.9 (3.1)
−10.0 (4.3)
 0.019
−2.5 (0.9)
 0.006
Ghana
 2011
 84.8 (1.5)
 83.9 (2.7)
 84.5 (3.9)
1.3 (5.1)
 0.794
0.3 (1.0)
 0.791
Guinea
 2005
 37.4 (2.3)
 29.0 (4.9)
 44.7 (5.2)
22.1 (7.8)
 0.005
10.0 (3.6)
 0.006
Guinea Bissau
 2006
 52.3 (2.4)
 44.6 (4.2)
 66.6 (4.7)
20.8 (6.9)
 0.003
6.6 (2.3)
 0.004
Kenya
 2008
 68.6 (2.0)
 61.6 (4.5)
 69.6 (3.5)
9.8 (6.9)
 0.155
1.9 (1.7)
 0.260
Lesotho
 2009
 62.9 (2.0)
 53.3 (4.3)
 73.0 (5.0)
21.3 (7.0)
 0.002
5.7 (1.8)
 0.002
Liberia
 2007
 39.1 (2.6)
 23.4(4.3)
 55.7 (5.5)
41.1 (6.7)
 0.000
16.7 (3.4)
 < 0.001
Madagascar
 2008
 61.7 (1.8)
 41.3 (2.7)
 82.8 (2.9)
51.5 (4.1)
 < 0.001
14.3 (1.3)
 < 0.001
Malawi
 2010
 81.3 (1.0)
 78.5 (1.9)
 82.1 (2.4)
4.3 (3.4)
 0.209
0.8 (0.7)
 0.235
Mali
 2006
 48.5 (1.9)
 48.6 (3.4)
 56.6 (3.6)
8.0 (5.5)
 0.149
2.9 (1.9)
 0.139
Mauritania
 2007
 35.3 (1.6)
 38.1 (3.1)
 24.4 (3.3)
−21.8 (5.2)
 < 0.001
−9.9 (2.5)
 < 0.001
Mozambique
 2011
 64.7 (1.8)
 54.7 (3.5)
 76.2 (2.8)
29.1 (4.9)
 < 0.001
7.0 (1.4)
 < 0.001
Namibia
 2006
 68.8 (1.9)
 59.3 (4.1)
 81.6 (5.8)
23.9 (6.7)
 < 0.001
5.6 (1.7)
 0.001
Niger
 2012
 52.5 (1.7)
 35.2 (3.0)
 67.1 (2.5)
33.4 (4.4)
 < 0.001
11.1 (1.5)
 < 0.001
Nigeria
 2011
 33.2 (1.3)
 13.7 (1.4)
 63.0 (2.9)
56.9 (3.1)
 < 0.001
29.4 (1.7)
 < 0.001
Rwanda
 2010
 90.3 (0.9)
 87.1 (2.0)
 95.5 (1.4)
11.0 (2.8)
 < 0.001
2.1 (0.5)
 < 0.001
Sao Tome and Principe
 2008
 76.6 (3.0)
 68.1 (9.1)
 81.6 (5.2)
19.1 (11.6)
 0.098
4.4 (2.4)
 0.067
Senegal
 2010
 62.9 (1.4)
 56.4 (2.5)
 70.0 (4.2)
13.6 (5.0)
 0.007
3.7 (1.3)
 0.005
Sierra Leone
 2010
 54.3 (2.0)
 56.2 (3.7)
 53.3 (4.2)
−3.1 (6.3)
 0.623
−0.8 (1.9)
 0.683
Swaziland
 2010
 85.9 (1.7)
 86.5 (3.3)
 78.4 (4.6)
−8.3 (5.79
 0.147
−1.7 (1.0)
 0.104
Togo
 2010
 50.4 (2.1)
 36.2 (4.0)
 58.9 (5.7)
25.8 (6.9)
 < 0.001
8.6 (2.4)
 < 0.001
Uganda
 2011
 52.5 (1.8)
 52.1 (3.6)
 55.4 (3.6)
3.3 (5.7)
 0.559
1.2 (1.7)
 0.479
United Republic of Tanzania
 2010
 75.2 (1.8)
 69.1 (3.5)
 84.8 (3.1)
17.5 (5.6)
 0.002
4.1 (1.2)
 0.001
Zambia
 2007
 68.4 (1.9)
 72.1 (3.0)
 79.7 (3.3)
5.9 (5.39
 0.263
1.4 (1.3)
 0.283
Zimbabwe
 2010
 65.9 (2.1)
 57.1 (83.9)
 73.4 (3.7)
21.7 (6.1)
 < 0.001
5.8 (1.6)
 < 0.001
Region of the Americas
Belize
 2006
 59.2 (3.9)
 56.5 (6.9)
 NRd
1.1 (13.7)
 0.934
−0.3 (3.8)
 0.946
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
 2008
 78.6 (1.4)
 77.9 (2.7)
 80.6 (3.5)
3.0 (4.8)
 0.530
0.7 (1.0)
 0.474
Colombia
 2010
 68.2 (1.1)
 64.2 (2.0)
 67.3 (3.4)
6.2 (3.9)
 0.109
1.8 (0.9)
 0.055
Costa Rica
 2011
 90.1 (2.7)
 86.2 (6.5)
 90.9 (6.7)c
−0.6 (11.1)
 0.958
0.0 (1.9)
 0.997
Cuba
 2010
 78.9 (3.7)
 NA
 NA
NA
 NA
NA
 NA
Dominican Republic
 2007
 58.2 (1.6)
 49.1 (2.3)
 75.6 (4.3)
24.2 (5.4)
 < 0.001
7.6 (1.5)
 < 0.001
Guyana
 2009
 63.4 (2.9)
 59.9 (4.7)
 57.9 (6.6)
1.5 (9.9)
 0.882
0.0 (2.3)
 0.986
Haiti
 2012
 45.8 (2.0)
 42.9 (4.3)
 42.6 (5.0)
−1.0 (7.0)
 0.881
−0.3 (2.5)
 0.904
Honduras
 2011
 85.1 (1.1)
 87.2 (1.4)
 87.8 (2.4)
−1.7 (3.7)
 0.646
−0.5 (0.7)
 0.473
Jamaica
 2005
 74.3 (2.8)
 NA
 NA
NA
 NA
NA
 NA
Nicaragua
 2001
 72.0 (1.6)
 64.0 (3.1)
 71.5 (4.9)
9.4 (6.2)
 0.131
2.4 (1.4)
 0.079
Peru
 2009
 52.6 (1.6)
 45.7 (2.7)
 52.6 (5.7)
10.2 (6.1)
 0.093
3.5 (1.9)
 0.060
South-East Asia Region
Bangladesh
 2011
 86.0 (1.2)
 76.8 (3.0)
 93.6 (1.7)
19.3 (4.2)
 < 0.001
3.6 (0.8)
 < 0.001
India
 2005
 43.7 (0.9)
 24.4 (1.4)
 71.0 (1.5)
53.8 (2.1)
 < 0.001
21.3 (1.0)
 < 0.001
Indonesia
 2012
 65.7 (1.3)
 47.4 (2.4)
 80.2 (2.2)
35.9 (3.6)
 < 0.001
9.6 (1.0)
 < 0.001
Maldives
 2009
 92.9 (1.2)
 94.7 (1.8)
 92.2 (3.5)
−5.8 (4.4)
 0.184
−1.0 (0.7)
 0.193
Nepal
 2011
 87.1 (2.1)
 85.0 (2.8)
 95.7 (2.2)
12.0 (4.5)
 0.008
2.3 (0.9)
 0.012
Thailand
 2005
 89.7 (1.1)
 91.7 (1.7)
 86.0 (3.0)
−7.6 (3.5)
 0.032
−1.2 (0.6)
 0.065
Timor-Leste
 2009
 52.6 (1.8)
 43.2 (3.1)
 45.2 (3.9)
9.6 (5.8)
 0.097
3.0 (1.8)
 0.106
European Region
Albania
 2008
 95.1 (1.7)
 100.0 (0.0)
 96.9 (3.0)c
−4.8 (4.6)
 0.300
−0.4 (0.7)
 0.560
Armenia
 2010
 91.5 (2.1)
 88.3 (6.7)
 90.2 (5.2)c
−2.0 (8.4)
 0.811
−0.9 (1.5)
 0.577
Azerbaijan
 2006
 59.4 (3.1)
 47.6 (5.5)
 74.0 (8.3)
27.4 (10.2)
 0.007
7.8 (2.9)
 0.006
Belarus
 2005
 97.6 (0.6)
 100.0 (0.0)
 97.5 (1.3)
−1.7 (1.8)
 0.334
−0.3 (0.3)
 0.266
Bosnia and Herzegovina
 2011
 85.0 (1.9)
 87.6 (3.4)
 77.8 (5.4)
−8.6 (7.2)
 0.229
−1.4 (1.3)
 0.311
Georgia
 2005
 19.5 (2.5)
 17.0 (5.2)
 17.8 (5.4)
1.1 (8.8)
 0.900
1.3 (7.8)
 0.867
Kazakhstan
 2010
 84.3 (1.6)
 84.0 (3.8)
 84.5 (2.8)
−1.6 (5.8)
 0.782
−0.4 (1.1)
 0.751
Kyrgyzstan
 2005
 21.6 (3.6)
 15.2 (4.3)
 33.9 (5.5)
17.9 (8.7)
 0.040
−14.4 (7.5)
 0.053
Montenegro
 2005
 56.8 (4.3)
 46.1 (9.2)c
 46.5 (9.7)c
9.7 (14.3)
 0.497
1.8 (4.1)
 0.672
Republic of the Moldova
 2005
 42.5 (3.0)
 25.2 (6.6)c
 50.8 (4.9)
28.8 (8.7)
 0.001
11.0 (3.7)
 0.003
Serbia
 2005
 47.9 (2.6)
 40.2 (5.1)
 49.9 (5.6)
19.4 (8.1)
 0.016
7.3 (2.9)
 0.011
Tajikistan
 2012
 88.9 (1.3)
 88.7 (3.7)
 86.7 (2.4)
−5.1 (4.8)
 0.291
−1.0 (0.9)
 0.291
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
 2011
 92.6 (1.9)
 91.7 (4.3)
 91.9 (4.4)
−0.9 (7.1)
 0.905
−0.3 (1.2)
 0.825
Turkey
 2003
 54.4 (2.4)
 29.3 (3.9)
 70.6 (4.6)
51.6 (6.0)
 < 0.001
16.7 (2.2)
 < 0.001
Uzbekistan
 2006
 86.9 (1.6)
 90.1 (2.6)
 80.0 (3.6)
−12.6 (4.9)
 0.011
−2.5 (0.9)
 0.007
Eastern Mediterranean Region
Afghanistan
 2010
 17.1 (1.6)
 12.9 (3.1)
 22.6 (2.4)
12.0 (5.3)
 0.022
12.0 (5.5)
 0.030
Djibouti
 2006
 39.0 (3.0)
 NA
 NA
NA
 NA
NA
 NA
Egypt
 2008
 91.8 (0.7)
 89.6 (1.5)
 94.4 (1.4)
6.5 (2.4)
 0.006
1.2 (0.4)
 0.003
Iraq
 2011
 63.0 (1.0)
 47.4 (1.7)
 73.2 (2.7)
32.8 (3.2)
 < 0.001
8.9 (0.9)
 < 0.001
Jordan
 2012
 93.1 (1.2)
 89.7 (2.3)
 91.1 (5.3)
3.5 (5.5)
 0.526
0.5 (1.0)
 0.600
Morocco
 2003
 89.2 (1.1)
 81.0 (3.1)
 97.4 (1.2)
21.8 (4.2)
 < 0.001
3.9 (0.7)
 < 0.001
Pakistan
 2012
 53.9 (2.2)
 23.4 (4.3)
 75.4 (3.3)
55.1 (5.4)
 < 0.001
18.3 (2.2)
 < 0.001
Somalia
 2006
 11.6 (1.6)
 5.4 (2.5)
 21.7 (4.0)
21.1 (5.6)
 < 0.001
29.0 (6.5)
 < 0.001
Syrian Arab Republic
 2006
 65.9 (1.4)
 49.9 (3.1)
 76.2 (2.5)
27.0 (4.4)
 < 0.001
7.0 (1.1)
 < 0.001
Yemen
 2006
 30.6 (2.4)
 14.0 (3.3)
 57.8 (5.4)
50.1 (6.2)
 < 0.001
26.7 (3.7)
 < 0.001
Western Pacific Region
Cambodia
 2010
 78.8 (1.5)
 65.3 (3.0)
 88.2 (2.2)
28.3 (4.5)
 < 0.001
6.4 (1.0)
 0.000
Lao People's Democratic Republic
 2011
 43.7 (1.6)
 29.6 (2.7)
 61.7 (3.4)
39.9 (4.7)
 < 0.001
15.9 (2.0)
 0.000
Mongolia
 2010
 78.5 (1.9)
 78.2 (3.0)
 78.0 (4.5)
1.5 (5.7)
 0.794
0.3 (1.2)
 0.825
Philippines
 2008
 79.5 (1.3)
 63.6 (2.9)
 87.1 (2.7)
30.5 (4.4)
 < 0.001
6.2 (0.9)
 0.000
Vanuatu
 2007
 38.0 (3.3)
 22.5 (5.9)
 45.3 (6.4)
20.0 (10.5)
 0.056
10.0 (4.5)
 0.027
Viet Nam 2010 60.7 (2.4) 46.3 (5.4) 71.8 (4.2) 27.1 (8.1) 0.001 7.4 (2.4) 0.002
Open in a new tab

CIX: concentration index; NA: not available; NR: not reported; SE: standard error; SII: slope index of inequality.

a Year in which the Demographic and Health Survey18 or Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey19 providing the coverage data was conducted.

b The mean proportion of eligible children included in the survey who, at any age, had received one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of – trivalent, tetravalent or pentavalent – vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and three doses of polio vaccine.

c Value based on a small sample of 25–50 children.

d Not reported or included in our analysis because sample was less than 25 children.

Inequalities in coverage

We investigated inequalities in full immunization coverage that related to three characteristics recorded in all or most of the surveys that had provided the data that we used: socioeconomic status, urban/rural residence and sex of the child. The data for three study countries – Cuba, Djibouti and Jamaica – could not be used to estimate the wealth index that we used as a measure of socioeconomic status. We calculated a mean full immunization coverage for the study countries in each WHO region.

In each of the surveys we used as a data source, urban or rural residence had been defined by the local census bureaux and the study households had been categorized into five asset-based wealth quintiles. The quintiles had been derived, using principal component analyses, from variables representing household goods, materials used for housing construction and available infrastructure such as types of water access and sanitation facilities.20

To summarize any wealth-related inequalities in full immunization coverage, we calculated four indicators.21 Two of these were based on simple comparisons of the coverage recorded for the lowest wealth quintile and that recorded for the highest wealth quintile: (i) the difference, in percentage points, between the two values; and (ii) the ratio between the two values. We also calculated two indicators of inequality that take the whole distribution of wealth into account: (i) the slope index of inequality – which uses a logistic regression model to express the absolute difference in coverage, in percentage points, between the extremes of the wealth distribution;22 and (ii) a concentration index23 that is similar in concept to the Gini index for income distribution. The concentration index was expressed on a scale from −100 to +100, with full equality indicated by a value of zero. Both summary indicators tended to be positive, indicating that full immunization coverage was higher for the rich than for the poor. We calculated standard errors for each summary indicator and corresponding P-values for the probability that there was no inequality. Our absolute measures of inequality – i.e. the difference in coverage between the lowest and highest wealth quintiles and the slope index of inequality – give an idea of the effort that will be needed to close the gap. Our two relative measures – i.e. the ratio between the coverage for the lowest and highest wealth quintiles and the concentration index – give an idea of the degree of disparity.

We made similar comparisons of the coverage recorded for urban children and that recorded for rural children – again, the difference, in percentage points, between the two values and the ratio between the two values. We evaluated the statistical significance of the difference, assuming a binomial distribution. In a similar fashion, we investigated inequalities in coverage according to the sex of the child.

Standard errors, expressed in percentage points, were calculated for all of the coverage estimates. Like the tests for statistical significance, these took into account the sample weights and clustering. When the unweighted number of children in a specific subgroup – e.g. a wealth quintile – was less than 25, we ignored the results for that subgroup.

Temporal trends in inequalities

Time-trend analyses were conducted for a subset of eight low-income study countries that had previously been identified as having the greatest within-country disparity in vaccine coverage: Central African Republic, Chad, India, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan and Viet Nam.24 We investigated the temporal trends in routine immunization coverage , for children aged no more than 23 months, by both wealth quintile and urban/rural residence. Whenever possible, pre-2000, 2000 – or close to 2000 – and post-2000 records were included (available from the corresponding author) to cover periods before Gavi was launched, when Gavi was launched and when Gavi’s main strategies had been implemented, respectively.

Variance-weighted least squares regression was used, with survey as the independent variable, to test the statistical significance of the observed temporal trends, taking into account the clustered nature of the survey samples.

Results

Detected inequalities

Wealth

Table 1 shows national levels of full immunization coverage for all 86 countries that we assessed. For the 83 study countries for which the relevant data were available, it also summarizes the full immunization coverage for the lowest and highest wealth quintiles and the corresponding summary indicators of inequality according to wealth. Five countries –Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Georgia and Somalia – showed national levels of full immunization coverage that were below 20%. Nine countries –Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Costa Rica, Egypt, Jordan, Maldives, Rwanda and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – showed corresponding coverage above 90%. Lesotho and Senegal, each with a full immunization coverage of 63%, represented the 50th percentile of the country ranking. In most of the study countries, the increase in coverage with wealth was monotonic, that is, coverage in the lowest wealth quintile was lower than that in the second-lowest, coverage in the second-lowest quintile was lower than that in the third-lowest and so on.

Of the 83 study countries for which the relevant data on wealth were available, 65 each gave a positive slope index of inequality that indicated the existence of a pro-rich inequality in coverage (Table 1). For 45 of the countries with a positive slope index of inequality, that index was significantly different from zero. Although 18 countries had negative slope indices, indicating a pro-poor inequality in coverage, only five of the 18 negative slope indices were significantly different from zero. The corresponding results for the concentration index were very similar: we recorded 64 positive and 19 negative concentration indices, of which 45 and four, respectively, were significantly different from zero.

In terms of the slope indices of inequality, Nigeria showed the greatest pro-rich inequality in full immunization coverage, followed by Pakistan, India, Turkey, Madagascar, Yemen, Cameroon and Liberia. The corresponding patterns for the concentration indices were similar. Seven countries – in descending order of pro-rich inequality, Chad, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Ethiopia and India – gave concentration indices above 20 (Table 1). In terms of one or both of our summary indicators, only four of our study countries showed distinctively pro-poor inequalities in their full immunization coverage: Gabon, Gambia, Mauritania and Uzbekistan. However, Gabon and Mauritania had relatively low national levels of coverage.

Countries that appeared similar in terms of their national values for full immunization coverage could show very different degrees of inequality. For example, Côte d’Ivoire and Mali had national values of about 50% but very different slope indices of inequality – of 8 and 33 percentage points, respectively – and very different concentration indices – of 3 and 11, respectively. Likewise, the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Philippines had national values of about 79% but very different slope indices – of 3 and 30 percentage points, respectively – and very different concentration indices – of 0.7 and 6, respectively.

Table 2 (available at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/94/11/15-162172) shows the mean values for full immunization coverage in the low- and middle-income countries we investigated in each WHO Region, which varied from 55.5% in the Eastern Mediterranean Region to 68.9% in the Region of the Americas. Globally, according to the most recent survey data available in May 2015, just over 60% of all eligible children in low- and middle-income countries had received full immunization. There was wide variation in the level of full immunization coverage within a given Region (Fig. 1). For example, in the African Region, the mean level of full immunization coverage varied from just 11.4% in Chad to 90.3% in Rwanda. Fig. 2 shows that on average, the wealth inequalities in full immunization coverage were less marked in the low- and middle-income countries in the Region of the Americas and the European Region than in such countries in other regions. The Eastern Mediterranean Region not only presented the highest absolute and relative wealth-related inequalities in such coverage but also the lowest mean level of such coverage.

Table 2. Full immunization coverage, and levels of sex-related, urban/rural and wealth-related inequalities in such coverage, in low- and middle-income countries by World Health Organization region, 2001–2012.
Region Mean coverage, %a Mean sex-related inequality
 Mean urban/rural inequality
 Mean wealth-related inequality
Male coverage – female coverage, percentage points Male coverage/female coverage Urban coverage – rural coverage, percentage points Urban coverage/rural coverage SII, percentage points CIX Q5 coverage – Q1 coverage, percentage points Q5 coverage/Q1 coverage
African Region 56.7 −0.2 1.0 7.0 1.2 17.8 7.3 15.4 2.1
Region of the Americas 68.9 1.1 1.0 −1.0 1.0 5.2 1.5 4.0 1.1
South-East Asia Region 74.0 2.5 1.0 2.6 1.1 16.7 5.4 14.4 1.4
European Region 68.2 1.9 1.1 3.4 1.1 7.9 1.6 6.5 1.3
Eastern Mediterranean Region 55.5 0.3 1.1 11.2 1.6 25.5 11.9 21.8 2.2
Western Pacific Region 63.2 −3.3 0.9 9.0 1.2 24.6 7.7 21.1 1.6
Open in a new tab

CIX: concentration index; Q1; poorest quintile; Q5: richest quintile; SII: slope index of inequality

a The mean proportion of eligible children included in national surveys who, at any age, had received one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of – trivalent, tetravalent or pentavalent – vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and three doses of polio vaccine. Mean values were not weighted by the sizes of the national populations.

Fig. 1.

Full childhood immunization coverage in low- or middle-income countries by World Health Organization region, 2001–2012

Notes: Full coverage indicates the proportion of eligible children, included in national surveys, conducted between 2001 and 2012, who, at any age, had received one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of – trivalent, tetravalent or pentavalent – vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and three doses of polio vaccine. The data are presented as box plots. The left and right side of each box indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles: the line dissecting the box is the median value. The whiskers indicate the range of values.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab
Fig. 2.

Mean full childhood immunization coverage in low- or middle-income countries split by wealth quintile, by World Health Organization region, 2001–2012

Notes: Full coverage indicates the proportion of eligible children, included in national surveys, conducted between 2001 and 2012, who, at any age, had received one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of – trivalent, tetravalent or pentavalent – vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and three doses of polio vaccine. The mean values shown were not weighted according to the sizes of the national populations. The plots show coverage recorded in each wealth quintile, from the poorest – i.e. quintile 1 – to the richest – i.e. quintile 5.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Residence

Table 3 summarizes mean levels of full immunization coverage, split according to urban/rural residence, in our 86 study countries. Although 28 countries had higher levels of coverage in their rural areas than in their urban areas, the differences were generally very small and only those for Mauritania, Swaziland and Uzbekistan were statistically significant. The remaining 58 countries had higher levels of coverage in their urban areas than in their rural areas and the differences for 35 of these countries achieved statistical significance. In Ethiopia, which showed the greatest absolute pro-urban inequality, the mean level of full immunization coverage in urban areas was 28 percentage points higher than that in rural areas. Côte d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Nigeria, Turkey and Yemen also showed pro-urban differences of at least 20 percentage points. In contrast, Mauritania, Swaziland and Uzbekistan showed pro-rural differences of at least 10 percentage points. In terms of full immunization coverage, no other countries showed a statistically significant advantage for rural children.

Table 3. Sex-related and urban/rural inequalities in full childhood immunization coverage in 86 low- or middle-income countries, 2001–2012.
Region, country Yeara Area of residence, mean coverage (SE)b
 Sex of child, mean coverage (SE)b
Urban Rural Male Female
African Region
Benin 2006 55.0 (2.1) 43.4 (1.6) 46.6 (1.6) 48.4 (1.6)
Burkina Faso 2010 81.7 (2.3) 81.3 (1.3) 82.1 (1.3) 80.6 (1.4)
Burundi 2010 84.0 (2.6) 83.0 (1.4) 83.6 (1.5) 82.5 (1.7)
Central African Republic 2010 63.2 (2.0) 46.7 (2.4) 17.6 (1.6) 16.5 (1.8)
Cameroon 2011 29.2 (2.9) 11.0 (1.3) 52.3 (2.2) 54.8 (1.8)
Chad 2004 21.3 (2.9) 9.0 (1.9) 11.0 (1.9) 11.8 (1.7)
Congo 2011 47.8 (3.1) 39.6 (2.4) 47.4 (2.7) 41.8 (2.6)
Côte d’Ivoire 2011 63.0 (3.1) 42.2 (2.7) 53.1 (3.0) 48.1 (2.6)
Democratic Republic of the Congo 2010 54.6 (2.6) 48.1 (2.8) 50.7 (2.3) 48.7 (2.4)
Ethiopia 2011 48.2 (5.2) 20.6 (1.9) 23.1 (2.1) 26.1 (2.2)
Gabon 2012 27.5 (2.9) 32.3 (3.3) 30.3 (3.3) 32.3 (3.0)
Gambia 2005 74.4 (2.0) 78.3 (1.5) 75.5 (1.7) 80.0 (1.5)
Ghana 2011 82.3 (2.5) 86.7 (1.8) 83.5 (2.4) 86.1 (1.8)
Guinea 2005 40.3 (4.7) 36.6 (2.6) 38.8 (2.7) 35.9 (2.7)
Guinea Bissau 2006 59.4 (3.6) 49.3 (3.0) 49.8 (2.7) 49.9 (2.7)
Kenya 2008 63.2 (3.4) 70.2 (2.3) 71.3 (3.1) 66.0 (2.8)
Lesotho 2009 71.5 (4.6) 60.4 (2.3) 59.1 (3.0) 66.4 (2.6)
Liberia 2007 52.5 (3.3) 32.7 (3.4) 36.1 (2.7) 42.6 (3.3)
Madagascar 2008 81.1 (2.5) 59.4 (2.0) 61.4 (2.0) 61.9 (2.0)
Malawi 2010 76.2 (3.5) 82.2 (1.0) 81.4 (1.2) 81.1 (1.4)
Mali 2006 53.7 (3.6) 46.4 (2.3) 51.8 (2.0) 45.2 (2.3)
Mauritania 2007 25.3 (2.3) 42.4 (2.0) 35.1 (2.1) 37.5 (2.2)
Mozambique 2011 75.4 (2.1) 60.7 (2.2) 63.8 (2.1) 65.5 (2.1)
Namibia 2006 71.5 (3.2) 67.0 (2.3) 66.9 (2.3) 70.8 (2.6)
Niger 2012 68.7 (2.8) 49.7 (2.0) 51.9 (2.1) 53.0 (2.0)
Nigeria 2011 49.6 (2.8) 25.3 (1.2) 33.2 (1.4) 32.7 (1.6)
Rwanda 2010 94.8 (2.1) 89.8 (1.0) 90.2 (1.0) 90.4 (1.0)
Sao Tome and Principe 2008 76.1 (5.0) 77.0 (3.6) 78.1 (4.3) 74.8 (4.3)
Senegal 2010 63.1 (2.6) 62.7 (1.7) 62.9 (1.9) 62.8 (1.8)
Sierra Leone 2010 51.4 (3.1) 55.5 (2.6) 53.3 (2.6) 49.2 (2.5)
Swaziland 2010 77.3 (4.3) 87.8 (1.8) 85.3 (2.2) 86.4 (2.4)
Togo 2010 57.1 (3.8) 47.5 (2.6) 48.8 (2.8) 51.7 (2.8)
Uganda 2011 61.5 (3.5) 51.1 (2.0) 52.5 (2.5) 52.6 (2.3)
United Republic of Tanzania 2010 85.6 (2.4) 72.6 (2.0) 75.8 (2.1) 74.5 (2.4)
Zambia 2007 72.2 (2.5) 67.0 (2.4) 69.2 (2.3) 67.6 (2.4)
Zimbabwe 2010 70.3 (3.9) 64.1 (2.4) 64.6 (2.6) 67.2 (2.6)
Region of the Americas
Belize 2006 59.6 (6.0) 58.7 (4.8) 68.8 (5.2) 52.3 (5.9)
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 2008 78.1 (2.0) 79.2 (2.0) 78.5 (1.8) 78.8 (1.9)
Colombia 2010 68.8 (1.3) 66.5 (2.0) 70.1 (1.4) 66.1 (1.6)
Costa Rica 2011 89.5 (4.3) 90.9 (2.2) 86.8 (3.6) 89.5 (4.1)
Cuba 2010 77.2 (4.3) 83.9 (6.0) 77.4 (5.3) 80.4 (3.5)
Dominican Republic 2007 57.0 (2.1) 60.9 (2.1) 57.6 (2.2) 58.9 (2.5)
Guyana 2009 60.2 (6.6) 64.3 (3.2) 62.4 (3.5) 64.4 (4.0)
Haiti 2012 44.5 (2.9) 46.5 (2.6) 47.2 (2.6) 44.3 (2.6)
Honduras 2011 82.7 (1.7) 87.1 (1.5) 85.5 (1.4) 84.5 (1.5)
Jamaica 2005 73.8 (4.2) 74.9 (3.5) 75.0 (3.8) 78.4 (3.8)
Nicaragua 2001 74.4 (2.3) 69.8 (2.3) 73.3 (2.0) 70.7 (2.2)
Peru 2009 54.4 (2.1) 49.0 (2.4) 52.2 (2.2) 53.0 (2.4)
South-East Asia Region
Bangladesh 2011 86.6 (2.1) 85.8 (1.5) 87.3 (1.6) 84.7 (1.6)
India 2005 57.7 (1.5) 38.7 (1.0) 45.5 (1.0) 41.6 (1.0)
Indonesia 2012 69.6 (1.8) 62.0 (1.9) 66.2 (1.7) 65.2 (1.7)
Maldives 2009 91.4 (2.9) 93.5 (1.1) 93.4 (1.6) 92.3 (1.6)
Nepal 2011 90.0 (2.3) 86.8 (2.3) 88.4 (2.3) 85.7 (2.3)
Thailand 2005 87.0 (2.2) 90.7 (1.2) 92.3 (1.1) 89.6 (1.5)
Timor-Leste 2009 47.7 (3.2) 54.1 (2.1) 54.3 (2.2) 50.8 (2.1)
European Region
Albania 2008 97.1 (2.0) 93.9 (2.5) 95.2 (1.1) 95.1 (2.2)
Armenia 2010 90.9 (2.7) 92.3 (3.4) 91.3 (2.6) 91.7 (3.0)
Azerbaijan 2006 67.6 (4.5) 51.7 (3.9) 55.5 (3.9) 44.0 (4.5)
Belarus 2005 97.5 (0.7) 98.0 (1.2) 98.5 (0.7) 96.8 (0.9)
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2011 85.6 (2.5) 84.8 (2.6) 87.1 (2.1) 82.8 (2.9)
Georgia 2005 19.2 (3.8) 19.8 (3.3) 11.0 (2.6) 9.5 (2.8)
Kazakhstan 2010 82.1 (2.0) 86.2 (2.4) 84.7 (2.2) 83.0 (1.9)
Kyrgyzstan 2005 31.2 (3.8) 15.5 (5.2) 35.0 (5.2) 29.8 (5.5)
Montenegro 2005 56.5 (5.7) 57.4 (6.1) 58.0 (5.5) 58.7 (5.5)
Republic of the Moldova 2005 44.5 (3.9) 41.3 (4.3) 87.8 (2.8) 87.1 (2.8)
Serbia 2005 54.1 (3.6) 40.7 (3.5) 49.2 (3.3) 50.1 (3.5)
Tajikistan 2012 87.7 (2.0) 89.2 (1.6) 89.3 (1.6) 88.4 (1.7)
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2011 89.7 (3.4) 95.3 (1.9) 90.2 (3.1) 93.2 (2.6)
Turkey 2003 62.9 (2.8) 36.9 (3.8) 57.7 (2.9) 50.9 (2.8)
Uzbekistan 2006 78.1 (3.4) 90.4 (1.7) 86.9 (1.9) 87.9 (2.0)
Eastern Mediterranean Region
Afghanistan 2010 20.5 (2.3) 16.4 (1.9) 35.9 (2.1) 33.6 (2.3)
Djibouti 2006 39.6 (3.1) 21.1 (6.9)c 39.2 (4.2) 39.5 (4.4)
Egypt 2008 93.7 (0.9) 90.6 (0.9) 91.0 (0.9) 92.6 (0.9)
Iraq 2011 68.9 (1.2) 50.6 (1.6) 63.3 (1.2) 61.9 (1.2)
Jordan 2012 93.2 (1.5) 92.8 (1.5) 92.7 (1.9) 93.5 (1.4)
Morocco 2003 93.5 (1.1) 84.2 (1.9) 87.0 (1.4) 91.2 (1.3)
Pakistan 2012 65.9 (2.5) 48.6 (2.9) 56.2 (2.5) 51.6 (2.4)
Somalia 2006 21.5 (3.4) 5.6 (1.2) 13.5 (2.2) 8.0 (1.4)
Syrian Arab Republic 2006 67.7 (1.8) 64.1 (2.0) 67.0 (1.7) 69.8 (1.7)
Yemen 2006 45.6 (4.0) 24.4 (2.7) 37.8 (3.1) 39.0 (3.4)
Western Pacific Region
Cambodia 2010 85.5 (2.1) 77.4 (1.8) 77.1 (2.1) 80.5 (1.9)
Lao People's Democratic Republic 2011 54.9 (3.2) 40.2 (1.9) 41.9 (1.8) 45.1 (2.0)
Mongolia 2010 80.5 (2.7) 75.4 (2.5) 76.5 (2.5) 79.7 (2.6)
Philippines 2008 82.3 (1.9) 76.8 (1.8) 80.5 (1.6) 78.5 (1.8)
Vanuatu 2007 43.9 (5.1) 36.8 (3.9) 39.7 (3.9) 44.3 (4.9)
Viet Nam 2010 70.1 (3.3) 56.4 (3.1) 57.8 (3.1) 65.1 (3.0)
Open in a new tab

SE: standard error.

a Year in which the Demographic and Health Survey18 or Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey19 providing the coverage data was conducted.

b The mean proportion of eligible children included in the survey who, at any age, had received one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of – trivalent, tetravalent or pentavalent – vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and three doses of polio vaccine.

c Value based on a small sample of 25–50 children.

In terms of the effects of urban/rural residence on full immunization coverage (Table 2, available at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/94/11/15-162172, and Fig. 3), the Region of the Americas and the European Region appeared more equitable than other Regions. The Eastern Mediterranean Region showed the largest pro-urban inequalities, where mean levels of full immunization coverage were about 60% higher among urban children than among their rural counterparts.

Fig. 3.

Mean full childhood immunization coverage in low- or middle-income countries split by urban or rural residence, by World Health Organization region, 2001–2012

Notes: Full coverage indicates the proportion of eligible children, included in national surveys, conducted between 2001 and 2012, who, at any age, had received one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of – trivalent, tetravalent or pentavalent – vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and three doses of polio vaccine. The mean values shown were not weighted according to the sizes of the national populations.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Sex of child

Although most of our study countries showed higher levels of full immunization coverage among boys than girls (Table 3), such sex-related differences were of less than three percentage points in each of 59 countries and only achieved statistical significance in Azerbaijan, Belize, India, Mali and Somalia. The absolute levels of sex-related inequality were relatively high in the South-East Asia and Western Pacific Regions. In the Western Pacific Region, the mean level of full immunization coverage was 10% lower among boys than among girls (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

Mean full childhood immunization coverage in low- or middle-income countries split by sex of the child, by World Health Organization region, 2001–2012

Notes: Full coverage indicates the proportion of eligible children, included in national surveys, conducted between 2001 and 2012, who, at any age, had received one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of – trivalent, tetravalent or pentavalent – vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and three doses of polio vaccine. The mean values shown were not weighted according to the sizes of the national populations.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Temporal trends

In all eight countries included in our investigation of temporal trends, there was evidence of pro-rich inequality in full immunization coverage at all of the time-points we investigated (Fig. 5; available at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/94/11/15-162172). Thus, for any country at any time, the poorest wealth quintile had the lowest coverage. However, over the period we investigated, there were substantial differences between the countries in terms of the national trend in full immunization coverage, the degree of inequality in such coverage and the temporal changes in inequality associated with wealth quintile or urban/rural place of residence (available from the corresponding author).

Fig. 5.

Temporal trends in wealth-related inequalities in the full childhood immunization coverage in eight countries, 1994–2012

Notes: Full coverage indicates the proportion of eligible children, included in national surveys, conducted between 1994 and 2012, who, at any age, had received one dose of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, one dose of measles vaccine, three doses of – trivalent, tetravalent or pentavalent – vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and three doses of polio vaccine. The plots show coverage recorded in each wealth quintile, from the poorest – i.e. quintile 1 – to the richest – i.e. quintile 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

In the Central African Republic, for example, there was a major decline in the national level of full immunization coverage over our study period. The level of absolute pro-rich inequality declined – since the absolute reduction in coverage was most marked among the richest quintile – but the level of relative pro-rich inequality increased. In Chad, however, the national level of coverage remained low and stable over our study period and wealth-related and urban/rural inequalities remained largely unchanged. In India, the national level of coverage increased but, as in Chad, wealth-related and urban/rural inequalities remained fairly stable. The results for Madagascar and Mozambique, which both showed increasing national levels of coverage over time, were more encouraging. The relative pro-rich inequality observed in Madagascar also decreased over time, although the absolute pro-rich inequality and all measures of urban/rural inequality did not decline. In Mozambique, much of the increase seen in the national level of coverage was linked to increasing coverage in the poorest quintile of the population. Although the country’s pro-rich and pro-urban inequalities decreased over time, the decrease observed in the pro-rich inequality was partly attributable to a decrease in coverage among the children from the richest quintile. In Nigeria, increases in the level of full immunization coverage in some areas had little impact on the overall national level, which remained relatively low. When we compared the most recent data we investigated for each of the eight countries, Nigeria showed the largest absolute pro-rich inequality as well as a large level of pro-urban inequality. Although Nigeria’s relative pro-rich inequality appeared to have decreased over our study period, this was only the result of mean coverage in the poorest quintile increasing from nearly zero to just over 10%. In Pakistan, the level of coverage in all quintiles except the poorest showed improvement over time – with a consequent increase in the level of pro-rich inequality. In Viet Nam, coverage in the poorest quintile remained fairly stable while that in each of the other wealth quintiles – like the levels of pro-rich and pro-urban inequalities – initially increased but then declined.

Discussion

Our findings indicate that, despite progress, much remains to be done if the benefit of routine childhood immunization is to be maximized. Reports of regional levels of vaccination coverage may mask local challenges, inequalities and variation. We observed pro-rich inequalities in full immunization coverage in most low- or middle-income countries, although they were, in general, relatively small in the Region of the Americas and European Region – and relatively large in the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Pacific Regions. Pro-urban inequalities were also common. They were generally very small in the low- or middle-income countries in the Region of the Americas and largest in such countries in the Eastern Mediterranean region, where coverage was about 60% higher among urban children than among rural children. Low- or middle-income countries in the South-East Asia Region showed the largest absolute pro-male inequalities.

We observed that, whether related to sex, wealth or urban/rural residence, inequalities in full immunization coverage varied substantially between and within our study countries. Inequalities related to wealth and urban/rural residence appeared to be ubiquitous and persistent and to be larger, in general, than the corresponding sex-related inequalities. Although some countries have made substantial progress in reducing such inequalities, some other countries have seen such disparities increase.

Among the eight countries included in our investigation of temporal trends in coverage and coverage inequality, Madagascar and Mozambique appeared to have made the most progress in improving national levels of coverage – in both cases by achieving particularly rapid increases in coverage in the poorest quintile. In general, the factors that are believed to have contributed to global improvements in immunization coverage include national multi-year planning, district-level planning and monitoring and the establishment of national budget lines funded via domestic and external resources for the strengthening of immunization services.25 Our observation of markedly different temporal trends in coverage and coverage inequality in eight countries needs to be followed up with case studies aimed at documenting the factors – within and beyond the health sector – that might explain such variation.

It is important to note that the data on coverage being reported here are solely based on survey information. As international agencies estimate vaccination coverage using a combination of data from surveys and data from health information systems, the coverage levels reported here will not necessarily be consistent with the estimates given in official documents produced by national governments and the United Nations. However, such estimates cannot be disaggregated by wealth quintile or place of residence and can rarely be used to determine the level of the full immunization coverage that we wished to investigate. To allow consistent and meaningful comparisons, we confined our investigation to vaccines that are available in almost all countries of the world. We ignored several new vaccines that are included in the national immunization programmes of a few of our study countries. Another limitation of the present study is that, when vaccination cards are not available, the information collected on child immunization in national surveys has to be based on the recall of mothers or other caregivers.

Our results indicate that the ultimate goal of the Global vaccine action plan 2011–2020 – i.e. universal access to immunization3 – will only be achieved if the relevant health workers, policy-makers and stakeholders can: (i) develop and implement strategies for reaching those who are difficult to reach and for promoting the need for full immunization among those who have contact with health services for other interventions; (ii) expand vaccination programmes to include underserved groups; (iii) improve the quality of the monitoring of immunization coverage; (iv) use monitoring data to ameliorate programme performance; and (v) explore additional cross-sectoral strategies – particularly in those low- or middle-income countries with the worst inequalities in coverage. The improvements in coverage and equitable access to routine immunizations achieved by some Latin American countries may serve as useful examples.26

Competing interests:

None declared.

References

  • 1.Fulfilling the health agenda for women and children: the 2014 report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. Available from: http://www.countdown2015mnch.org/documents/2014Report/Countdown_to_2015-Fulfilling%20the%20Health_Agenda_for_Women_and_Children-The_2014_Report-Conference_Draft.pdf [cited 2016 Jul 3].
  • 2.Immunization summary. A statistical reference containing data through 2013. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund; 2014. Available from: http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/Immunization_Summary_2013.pdf [cited 2016 Jul 3].
  • 3.Global vaccine action plan 2011–2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. Available from: http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78141/1/9789241504980_eng.pdf [cited 2016 Jul 3].
  • 4.Jani JV, De Schacht C, Jani IV, Bjune G. Risk factors for incomplete vaccination and missed opportunity for immunization in rural Mozambique. BMC Public Health. 2008. May 16;8(1):161. 10.1186/1471-2458-8-161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Akmatov MK, Mikolajczyk RT. Timeliness of childhood vaccinations in 31 low and middle-income countries. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012. July;66(7):e14. 10.1136/jech.2010.124651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pande RP, Yazbeck AS. What’s in a country average? Wealth, gender, and regional inequalities in immunization in India. Soc Sci Med. 2003. December;57(11):2075–88. 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00085-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pande RP. Selective gender differences in childhood nutrition and immunization in rural India: the role of siblings. Demography. 2003. August;40(3):395–418. 10.1353/dem.2003.0029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Canavan ME, Sipsma HL, Kassie GM, Bradley EH. Correlates of complete childhood vaccination in East African countries. PLoS One. 2014. April 21;9(4):e95709. 10.1371/journal.pone.0095709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Antai D. Inequitable childhood immunization uptake in Nigeria: a multilevel analysis of individual and contextual determinants. BMC Infect Dis. 2009. November 20;9(1):181. 10.1186/1471-2334-9-181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Antai D. Faith and child survival: the role of religion in childhood immunization in Nigeria. J Biosoc Sci. 2009. January;41(1):57–76. 10.1017/S0021932008002861 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gyimah SO. What has faith got to do with it? Religion and child survival in Ghana. J Biosoc Sci. 2007. November;39(6):923–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mutua MK, Kimani-Murage E, Ettarh RR. Childhood vaccination in informal urban settlements in Nairobi, Kenya: who gets vaccinated? BMC Public Health. 2011. January 04;11(1):6. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mitchell S, Andersson N, Ansari NM, Omer K, Soberanis JL, Cockcroft A. Equity and vaccine uptake: a cross-sectional study of measles vaccination in Lasbela district, Pakistan. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2009. October 14;9 Suppl 1:S7. 10.1186/1472-698X-9-S1-S7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Requejo JH, Bryce J, Barros AJ, Berman P, Bhutta Z, Chopra M, et al. Countdown to 2015 and beyond: fulfilling the health agenda for women and children. Lancet. 2015. January 31;385(9966):466–76. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60925-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mhatre SL, Schryer-Roy AM. The fallacy of coverage: uncovering disparities to improve immunization rates through evidence. Results from the Canadian International Immunization Initiative Phase 2 - Operational Research Grants. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2009. October 14;9 Suppl 1:S1. 10.1186/1472-698X-9-S1-S1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Corsi DJ, Bassani DG, Kumar R, Awasthi S, Jotkar R, Kaur N, et al. Gender inequity and age-appropriate immunization coverage in India from 1992 to 2006. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2009. October 14;9 Suppl 1:S3. 10.1186/1472-698X-9-S1-S3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Clark A, Sanderson C. Timing of children’s vaccinations in 45 low-income and middle-income countries: an analysis of survey data. Lancet. 2009. May 2;373(9674):1543–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60317-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Data [Internet]. Rockville: DHS Program; 2015. Available from: http://dhsprogram.com/Data/ [cited 2015 Apr 12].
  • 19.Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys [Internet]. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund; 2015. Available from: http://mics.unicef.org/ [cited 2015 Apr 12].
  • 20.Rutstein SO, Johnson K. The DHS wealth index. Calverton: ORC Macro; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Barros AJ, Victora CG. Measuring coverage in MNCH: determining and interpreting inequalities in coverage of maternal, newborn, and child health interventions. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001390. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Harper S, Lynch J. Methods for measuring cancer disparities: using data relevant to healthy people 2010 cancer-related objectives. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wagstaff A, Paci P, van Doorslaer E. On the measurement of inequalities in health. Soc Sci Med. 1991;33(5):545–57. 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90212-U [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.GAVI gender policy: frequently asked questions. Geneva: GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance; 2014. Available from: http://www.gavi.org/library/gavi-documents/policies/http://[cited 2015 Apr 12].
  • 25.Duclos P, Okwo-Bele JM, Gacic-Dobo M, Cherian T. Global immunization: status, progress, challenges and future. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2009. October 14;9 Suppl 1:S2. 10.1186/1472-698X-9-S1-S2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Restrepo-Méndez MC, Barros AJD, Requejo J, Durán P, Serpa LAF, França GVA, et al. Progress in reducing inequalities in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health in Latin America and the Caribbean: an unfinished agenda. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015;38(1):9–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Bulletin of the World Health Organization are provided here courtesy of World Health Organization

RESOURCES