Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 7;15(8):e0236955. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236955

Factors influencing vaccination coverage among children age 12–23 months in Afghanistan: Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

Ahmad Khalid Aalemi 1,2,*, Karimullah Shahpar 3, Mohammad Yousuf Mubarak 4
Editor: Holly Seale5
PMCID: PMC7413477  PMID: 32764770

Abstract

Background

Childhood vaccination plays a key role in reducing morbidity and mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases. Numerous studies have assessed the influence of demographic and socioeconomic factors on child immunization around the world. There are few such studies in Afghanistan, however. Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors influencing vaccination status among children age 12–23 months in Afghanistan.

Materials and methods

Nationally representative data from the 2015 Afghanistan Demographic and Health Survey were used for this study. A sample of 5,708 children age 12–23 months with a vaccine card and immunization history was analyzed. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify significant relationships between cofactors and vaccination status.

Results

In the study, 51% the subjects were boys, 48% were born at home, and 76% were residents of rural areas. Background characteristics positively associated with vaccination status included delivery in a health facility (RRR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.9–3.3), maternal age of 30–39 years (RRR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.2–4.1), attending at least four visits for antenatal care (RRR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.7–4.5), health facility visit in the past 12 months (RRR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.4–2.5), paternal professional occupation (RRR = 4.9, 95% CI = 2.0–12.3), family with richer wealth index (RRR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.4–4.1), and living in the northeast region (RRR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.2–3.9)were positively associated with vaccination status. Living in the southern region (RRR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.2–0.5) was negatively associated with vaccination status.

Conclusion

This study identified maternal age, ANC visits, place of delivery, health facility visits in past 12 months, paternal occupation, wealth quintile, and geographic region as the factors influencing child’s vaccination status in Afghanistan.

Introduction

Levels of morbidity and mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases have decreased in recent years due to administration of childhood vaccinations [1]. Every year, vaccination effectively prevents about 2–3 million child deaths. Nonetheless it is also estimated that vaccine-preventable diseases are still responsible for 1.5 million deaths each year among children under age 5 [2]. Previous studies have demonstrated that vaccination has a positive impact on the control of communicable diseases and decreases the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates [35]. A study in Iran found that the DALYs rates for measles were 86.1/100,000 in 1990 and decreased to 5.6/100,000 in 2010 [3]. A recent study by the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation found considerable progress in child survival during last three decades. It also showed that the under-5 mortality rate has been reduced by 58% since 1990, while the number of under-5 deaths declined from 12.6 million in 1990 to 5.4 million in 2017 [6].

Global data on vaccination in 2017 show that nearly 123 million infants worldwide received the recommended three doses of DPT, which indicates the successful activities of the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) [7]. To cover the significant need for vaccines, the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF announced the period from 2011–2020 as the Decade of Vaccine [8].

In Afghanistan, the EPI was initiated in 1978. It is one of the main sub-components of the Basic Package of Health Services (BPHS) under the main component of child health and immunization. The EPI services are provided from the Health Sub-Center (HSC) level to the Provincial Hospital (PH) level. Vaccination is provided at all public health facilities free of charge [9]. The number of health facilities that provide vaccination services has increased from 1,575 in 2015 to 2,926 in 2018 [1].

The EPI, under direction of the Ministry of Public Health, implements eight most common vaccines to prevent most vaccine-preventable diseases in the country. These vaccines include BCG, measles, Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV), and Pentavalent (Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, hepatitis B, and Hemophilus influenza type B). The current EPI schedule is BCG and OPV0 at birth, Penta-1 and OPV1 in the 6th week, Penta-2 and OPV-2 in the 10th week, Penta-3 and OPV-3 in the 14th week, measles-1 at 9 months and measles-2 at 18 months. All the vaccines except for measles-2 should be completed by all children before 1 year of age [9].

Despite the improvements in vaccination services over the past 40 years and the increased number of health facilities that provide vaccination services, the vaccination coverage in Afghanistan has remained low due to security and other related problems [10]. A study by Farzard et al. that used the Afghanistan Health Survey dataset revealed that full vaccination coverage was only 39%. This low vaccination level among Afghan children is of great concern [11]. Outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases still have a seasonal pattern in Afghanistan. For instance, around 25,000 measles cases were reported during the winter in 2017 [1].

Child mortality is higher in Afghanistan compared with other countries [12]. Afghanistan has poor health indicators, based on data from 2015, and was reported as one of the most dangerous countries for children, with one of every 18 children dying before reaching their first year [13]. In 2017, the under-5 mortality rate in Afghanistan was 67.9 deaths per 1,000 live births [6]. Based on 2018 data, WHO indicates that only 65% of children received DPT3, which placed Afghanistan among the 10 countries with the lowest DPT coverage in the world [14, 15].

Understanding factors that influence vaccination coverage is important to increase the vaccination coverage rate. Numerous investigations have found that the factors influencing vaccination coverage among children include sex of child, place of birth, maternal and paternal education, maternal and paternal occupation, number of antenatal care (ANC) visits, household characteristics, and sociocultural factors [1618].

Few studies in Afghanistan have been done on the association of socio-demographic factors with partial and full vaccination. Thus, this study was aimed at identifying the factors associated with vaccination status among children age 12–23 months in Afghanistan.

Materials and methods

Source of data and study design

This study used nationally representative data from the 2015 Afghanistan Demographic and Health Survey (AfDHS). The AfDHS used a cross-sectional study design. The sample was collected based on a two-stage stratified cluster sampling method to cover the entire population of Afghanistan. A complete list of enumeration areas (EAs) was used as a sampling frame to cover the whole population; it was provided by the Central Statistics Organization (CSO) of Afghanistan. In the first stage of sampling, a total of 950 EAs were selected with probability proportional to size, 260 in urban areas and 690 in rural areas. In the second stage, 27 households were selected per cluster using systematic random sampling. The AfDHS was conducted from June 2015 to February 2016 and collected data from 29,461 ever-married women age 15–49 [19].

The survey was conducted in all provinces of Afghanistan to collect information on different indicators including respondents’ sociodemographic, maternal, paternal, children’s, and household characteristics. The information collected about childhood vaccination was collected for live children who were born in the 5 years before the survey, while the data on vaccination status was recorded based on the availability of the child vaccine card and maternal recall. Our study included children age 12–23 months with an immunization card and EPI history from the AfDHS child dataset. We limited our study to children age 12–23 months because the children under age 12 months would not have completed the vaccination period, and because, for children older than 23 months, respondents would have a higher chance of recall bias.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study used secondary data and permission was obtained from the DHS program to download and use the data for our study. All the data were anonymized and deidentified by DHS program before access and analysis. The AfDHS obtained written informed consent from all respondents before enrollment in the study.

Dependent variable

Vaccination status was categorized as: fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and non-vaccinated. Fully vaccinated status was considered as having received all recommended age-appropriate vaccines such as BCG, Pentavalent, OPV and measles-1; partially vaccinated status was defined as having received some but not all vaccines; and non-vaccinated status was defined as not having received any vaccines.

Independent variables

The independent variables were selected from the AfDHS dataset based on prior knowledge and published literature. These variables include sex of child, birth order, place of birth, maternal education, maternal age, number of ANC visits, health facility visit in the past 12 months, maternal occupation, maternal autonomy, paternal education, paternal occupation (included as a variable because in Afghanistan it has a tremendous effect on managing family-decision issues including child vaccination), household size (number of persons who live together in the same dwelling unit), household wealth quintile, exposure to mass media, place of residence, and geographic location.

Place of birth was categorized as: in a health facility, or at home. Maternal age was classified as: under age 20, 20–39, 30–39, and 40–49. ANC visit was categorized as: no ANC visit, 1–3 visits, and 4 or more visits. Maternal autonomy was defined in three categories: yes when the mother played a role in making decisions on family visits, large household purchases, and own health care; some when she played a role in some of these decisions; and no autonomy if she did not have a role in any of the decisions.

Exposure to mass media was classified as: yes when the family watched television, or listened to the radio, or read the newspaper at least once a week; and no when the family did not have such access to the media. Household size was defined based on the number of persons living in the household and categorized as: fewer than 5, 5–9, 10–14, and more than 14. Geographic region was classified into seven regions based on the EPI 2013 report; central, eastern, northern, northeast, southern, southeast, and western.

Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using statistical software STATA/SE version 15.0. The sociodemographic characteristics and general information were presented by frequency and percentage. Bivariate analysis was performed to assess the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable using the Chi-square test. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to determine the significance of the factors related to vaccination status after controlling for other covariates. The results were presented as adjusted relative risk ratio (RRR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. All the estimates were weighted to represent the population at the national level. The effect of complex multistage sampling design was considered in the analysis. Missing data were coded as missing and included in the analysis, but were not reported in the final table.

Results

The analysis included a total of 5,708 children age 12–23 months. Table 1 shows characteristics of the children in the sample, along with maternal, paternal, and household characteristics. Half of the children were boys (51%), one-fifth were firstborn (29%), nearly half were born at home (48%), and about three-fourths were rural (76%). Among their mothers, the mean maternal age was 27.6 years, with standard deviation of 6.3 years; a large majority of the mothers were uneducated (81%), while 87% of mothers were unemployed. Less than a quarter of the mothers (23%) had autonomy in decision-making. Near half (43%) had made no ANC visits, while 54% had visited a health facility in the past 12 months. Among the fathers, more than half were uneducated (55%), while about one-fifth (19%) had a professional occupation. By household characteristics, about one-third of children were in the poorer or poorest wealth quintiles (38%), only 10% had a family size of fewer than five, and more than half (55%) had exposure to the mass media.

Table 1. Percent distribution of children age 12–23 months, by child, mother, father, and household characteristics (n = 5,708).

Characteristics % n Characteristics % n
Child characteristics Paternal characteristics
Sex Education
 Boy 50.6 2,890  No education 55.3 3,158
 Girl 49.4 2,818  Primary education 15.4 881
Birth order  Secondary education 23.0 1,310
 1 19.6 1,119  Higher education 6.3 359
 2–3 33.5 1,914 Occupation type*
 4–5 23.1 1,317  Clerical 2.6 147
 >5 23.8 1,358  Professional 18.6 1,054
Maternal characteristics  Agriculture 26.8 1,516
Age, in years  Services 15.2 862
 <20 years 5.5 315  Skilled manual 20.0 1,131
 20–29 60.9 3,474  Unskilled manual 16.9 956
 30–39 27.4 1,562 Household characteristics
 40–49 6.3 357 Household size
Education  <5 10.4 594
 No education 80.6 4,599  5–9 47.6 2,716
 Primary education 8.4 477  10–14 27.9 1,594
 Secondary education 8.9 506  >14 14.1 804
 Higher education 2.2 126 Wealth index
Employment status  Poorest 18.1 1,035
 No employment 86.9 4,961  Poorer 19.7 1,126
 Employment 13.1 747  Middle 20.3 1,161
Autonomy  Richer 23.2 1,325
 No 36.3 2,072  Richest 18.6 1,061
 Some 41.0 2,341 Exposure to mass media
 Yes 22.7 1,295  No 45.3 2,584
Mother health-seeking behavior 36.3 2,072  Yes 54.7 3,124
Place of delivery Region
 Home 47.5 2,709  Urban 24.1 1,377
 Health facility 52.5 2,999  Rural 75.9 4,331
ANC visit Geographical regions
 0 43.2 2,464  Central 20.2 1,151
 1–3 39.1 2,230  Eastern 8.4 477
 4+ 17.8 1,013  Northern 19.6 1,119
Health facility visit (past 12 months)  Northeast 13.2 756
 No 46.3 2,642  Southern 15.9 910
 Yes 53.7 3,066  Southeast 8.6 489
 Western 14.1 805

*42 persons missing.

As Fig 1 shows, the proportion of children who completed each component of basic vaccines was 74% for BCG, 58% for Pentavalent, 65% for OPV, and 60% for measles-1. The overall prevalence of full vaccination was 46%, while 41% of children were partially vaccinated and 13% were non-vaccinated.

Fig 1. Proportion of basic vaccine and its components among children age 12–23 months.

Fig 1

Tables 2 and 3 show vaccination status by characteristics of the child, parents, and household. There were no significant differences in vaccination by birth order. Prevalence of full vaccination was lowest among children born at home (35%), maternal age less than 20 years (31%), uneducated mothers (42%), mothers with no autonomy (38%), no ANC visit (36%), no health facility visits in the past 12 months (39%), uneducated fathers (41%), fathers with self-employed occupation (35%), household size more than 14 persons (42%), poorest wealth quintile (38%), rural residence (43%), and no exposure to mass media (41%). The differences in these categories were found to be statistically significant in association with vaccination status.

Table 2. Proportion of vaccination status among children age 12–23 months, by child, and mother characteristics.

Non-vaccinated Partially vaccinated Fully vaccinated p value
Characteristics % 95% CI % 95% CI % 95% CI
Child characteristics
Sex 0.72
 Boy 12.9 10.8–15.4 42.0 39.0–45.1 45.0 41.3–48.8
 Girl 13.2 11.2–15.5 40.5 37.2–43.8 46.4 42.1–50.7
Birth order 0.12
 1 10.2 8.0–13.0 41.7 36.6–46.9 48.1 42.9–53.4
 2–3 15.1 12.7–17.9 43.5 39.3–47.7 41.4 36.6–46.4
 4–5 11.1 9.0–13.7 40.4 35.8–45.1 48.5 43.3–53.7
 >5 14.4 10.0–20.3 38.7 33.6–44.1 46.9 40.8–53.2
Maternal characteristics
Age, in year <0.001
 <20 years 10.0 6.6–14.8 59.3 50.1–67.9 30.7 23.4–39.2
 20–29 14.4 12.5–16.5 41.9 38.9–44.9 43.7 40.0–47.6
 30–39 10.9 8.0–14.7 35.5 30.7–40.6 53.6 47.8–59.3
 40–49 12.5 7.8–19.6 44.3 36.5–52.5 43.1 35.5–51.2
Education <0.001
 No education 14.4 12.6–16.4 43.2 40.5–45.9 42.4 39.0–45.9
 Primary education 7.9 4.3–14.1 37.3 30.0–45.3 54.8 45.8–63.5
 Secondary education 7.3 3.7–13.7 30.9 24.5–38.0 61.9 55.1–68.2
 Higher education 7.6 1.8–26.8 27.3 13.3–47.8 65.1 43.9–81.6
Employment status 0.79
 No employment 12.8 11.2–14.6 41.4 38.8–44.1 45.7 42.6–48.9
 Employment 14.6 10.1–20.7 40.1 31.9–48.9 45.3 35.8–55.2
Autonomy <0.001
 No 17.2 14.2–20.6 45.1 41.1–49.2 37.7 33.2–42.5
 Some 10.3 8.0–13.2 39.8 35.3–44.5 49.9 44.3–55.5
 Yes 11.5 9.4–13.9 37.7 33.9–41.6 50.8 46.7–55.0
Mother health-seeking behavior
Place of delivery <0.001
 Home 18.3 15.7–21.1 46.9 43.8–50.0 34.8 31.2–38.6
 Health facility 8.4 6.7–10.4 36.2 33.2–39.2 55.5 51.6–59.3
ANC visit <0.001
 0 19.9 17.3–22.9 44.2 41.3–47.2 35.8 32.1–39.7
 1–3 9.1 7.1–11.5 42.4 38.1–46.9 48.5 43.2–53.9
 4+ 5.1 3.2–7.9 31.6 27.1–36.4 63.3 58.4–68.0
Health facility visit (past 12 months) <0.001
 No 18.3 15.6–21.2 43.0 39.8–46.3 38.7 34.7–42.9
 Yes 8.6 7.0–10.5 39.8 35.6–44.1 51.7 46.6–56.7
Total 13.1 11.4–15.0 41.3 38.8–43.8 45.7 42.3–49.1

Table 3. Proportion of vaccination status among children age 12–23 months, by father, and household characteristics.

Non-vaccinated Partially vaccinated Fully vaccinated p value
Characteristics % 95% CI % 95% CI % 95% CI
Paternal characteristics
Education <0.001
 No education 15.8 13.6–18.4 42.7 39.8,45.7 41.4 37.7,45.2
 Primary education 9.4 6.4–13.7 43.3 37.5–49.3 47.3 40.3–54.3
 Secondary education 9.9 7.6–12.8 38.5 34.2–42.8 51.6 46.6–56.6
 Higher education 8.9 5.2–14.9 33.6 26.6–41.4 57.5 49.6–65.0
Occupation type* <0.001
 Clerical 14.7 6.5–30.1 16.9 10.4–26.4 68.3 54.4–79.6
 Professional 11.7 9.1–14.8 39.1 34.9–43.5 49.3 44.5–54.0
 Agriculture 16.6 13.0–20.9 48.7 44.6–52.8 34.7 29.8–40.0
 Services 13.0 10.3–16.3 41.5 35.8–47.4 45.6 39.4–51.9
 Skilled manual 8.9 5.9–13.1 34.6 28.8–40.9 56.5 49.4–63.4
 Unskilled manual 13.1 9.3–18.0 44.7 38.7–50.9 42.2 36.4–48.3
Household characteristics
Household size 0.16
 <5 11.4 7.9–16.1 45.4 38.6–52.3 43.2 37.2–49.4
 5–9 12.3 10.4–14.4 40.3 37.5–43.1 47.5 44.2–50.8
 10–14 15.2 12.6–18.2 39.3 35.1–43.7 45.5 40.4–50.7
 >14 12.7 9.0–17.7 45.4 40.5–50.3 41.9 35.5–48.5
Wealth index <0.001
 Poorest 15.8 13.0–19.0 45.8 41.1–50.5 38.4 33.5–43.7
 Poorer 16.9 13.1–21.5 41.8 37.6–46.2 41.3 36.3–46.6
 Middle 13.4 10.1–17.4 46.2 41.8–50.6 40.5 35.2–46.0
 Richer 11.0 8.3–14.5 37.3 31.2–43.8 51.7 44.1–59.2
 Richest 8.6 6.0–12.2 35.9 30.4–41.8 55.5 48.9–61.9
Exposure to mass media <0.001
 No 15.8 13.7–18.1 43.6 40.4–46.7 40.7 37.3–44.1
 Yes 10.8 8.7–13.4 39.4 36.2–42.7 49.8 45.5–54.2
Region 0.01
 Urban 10.0 7.2–13.6 37.3 33.2–41.5 52.8 47.4–58.1
 Rural 14.0 12.0–16.4 42.5 39.5–45.6 43.4 39.3–47.7
Geographical regions <0.001
 Central 11.2 8.0–15.6 33.6 28.8–38.9 55.1 48.1–62.0
 Eastern 19.9 16.3–24.2 31.4 26.8–36.3 48.7 43.2–54.2
 Northern 7.0 4.5–10.7 41.5 34.2–49.1 51.6 41.9–61.1
 Northeast 6.8 4.5–10.3 41.1 35.9–46.5 52.1 45.6–58.6
 Southern 24.8 19.3–31.1 53.4 48.2–58.6 21.8 16.4–28.5
 Southeast 13.2 10.8–16.2 44.5 37.9–51.4 42.2 36.0–48.7
 Western 12.6 9.5–16.5 42.2 34.8–50.0 45.2 37.7–53.0
Total 13.1 11.4–15.0 41.3 38.8–43.8 45.7 42.3–49.1

*42 persons missing.

As Fig 2 shows, the prevalence of full vaccination was lowest in the southern region, at 22%, followed by the southeast (42%), western (45%), eastern (49%), northern and northeast, at 52% each, and highest in the central region, at 55%.

Fig 2. Proportion of basic vaccine and its components among children age 12–23 months, by geographic regions.

Fig 2

Table 4 shows the results of multinomial logistic regression models that estimate the adjusted relative risk ratio of a child being partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated versus non-vaccinated. After controlling for other covariates, characteristics of children age 12–23 months most likely to be associated with a greater relative risk of full or partial vaccination, versus no vaccination, were: delivery in a health facility, maternal age, number of ANC visits, health facility visit in past 12 months, paternal occupation, household wealth quintile, and geographic region.

Table 4. Association between independent variables and vaccination status among children age 12–23 months after adjusting for covariates.

Partially vaccinated Fully vaccinated
Characteristics RRR 95% CI RRR 95% CI
Sex of child
 Boy
 Girl 1.0 0.8–1.2 1.0 0.8–1.3
Mother’s age, in years
 <20 years
 20–29 0.5* 0.3–0.9 1.2 0.7–2.2
 30–39 0.6 0.3–1.1 2.0* 1.0–4.0
 40–49 0.8 0.3–1.8 1.9 0.8–4.3
Mother’s education
 No education
 Primary education 1.2 0.6–2.6 1.5 0.6–3.5
 Secondary education 0.7 0.4–1.3 1.1 0.6–2.1
 Higher education 0.5 0.1–2.6 0.7 0.1–3.5
Mother’s employment status
 No employment
 Employment 0.9 0.5–1.4 0.8 0.5–1.2
Mother’s autonomy
 No
 Some 1.0 0.7–1.4 1.1 0.8–1.5
 Yes 0.9 0.6–1.3 1.0 0.7–1.4
Place of delivery
 Home
 Health facility 1.3* 1.0–1.7 2.1*** 1.5–2.8
ANC visit
 0
 1–3 1.6** 1.2–2.1 1.7*** 1.3–2.3
 4+ 2.0** 1.2–3.5 3.2*** 1.9–5.3
Health Facility visit (past 12 months)
 No
 Yes 1.7*** 1.2–2.2 1.9*** 1.4–2.5
Father’s education
 No education
 Primary education 1.4 1.0–2.0 1.3 0.9–1.8
 Secondary education 1.4 1.0–1.9 1.3 1.0–1.8
 Higher education 1.5 0.7–3.1 1.3 0.6–2.7
Father’s occupation#
 Clerical
 Professional 3.8* 1.2–12.0 1.4 0.5–4.2
 Self employed 5.6** 1.9–17.2 1.6 0.6–4.4
 Services 3.9* 1.3–11.5 1.3 0.4–3.8
 Skilled manual 4.3* 1.4–13.3 2.0 0.7–6.2
 Unskilled manual 4.7** 1.5–14.8 1.4 0.5–4.0
Household size
 <5
 5–9 1.0 0.6–1.6 1.2 0.7–2.0
 10–14 0.8 0.5–1.3 1.0 0.6–1.7
 >14 1.0 0.6–1.9 1.0 0.6–1.9
Wealth quintile
 Poorest
 Poorer 1.3 0.9–1.9 1.6* 1.1–2.3
 Middle 2.0** 1.3–3.0 2.1*** 1.4–3.3
 Richer 1.9** 1.2–3.0 2.6*** 1.5–4.6
 Richest 2.8* 1.2–6.3 3.6** 1.6–8.4
Residence place
 Rural
 Urban 1.2 0.7–2.2 1.5 0.8–2.9
Exposure to mass media
 No
 Yes 0.9 0.7–1.3 0.9 0.7–1.3
Region
 Central
 Eastern 0.5** 0.3–0.7 0.5* 0.3–1.0
 Northern 2.0** 1.2–3.4 1.7 0.9–3.1
 Northeast 3.0*** 1.7–5.2 3.2*** 1.7–6.3
 Southern 0.8 0.5–1.2 0.3*** 0.2–0.5
 Southeast 1.3 0.8–2.0 0.9 0.5–1.7
 Western 1.4 0.9–2.3 1.5 0.9–2.6

RRR = Relative risk ratio.

* = p value <0.05,

** = p value <0.01,

*** = p value <0.001.

# = Missing category were not reported in the table.

CI = Confidence interval.

Children born in a health facility compared to those who were born at home had 2.1 times higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.5–2.8), and 1.3 times higher relative risk of being partially vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.0–1.7). Children of mothers age 30–39 at delivery compared to children of mothers under age 20 at delivery had 2 times higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.0–4.0).

Children whose mothers made 1–3 ANC visits compared to no ANC visit had 70% higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.3–2.3), and 60% higher relative risk of being partially vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.2–2.1). Similarly, attending ANC at least four times compared to no ANC visit had 3.2 times higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 3.2, 95% CI = 1.9–5.3), and 2 times higher relative risk of being partially vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.2–3.5). Children whose mothers visited a health facility in the past 12 months compared to those who did not have any visit had 90% higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.4–2.5), and 70% higher relative risk of being partially vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2–2.2).

Children whose fathers had a professional occupation compared to clerical occupation had 3.8 times higher relative risk of being partially vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 3.8, 95% CI = 1.2–12.0). Children in households in the richer wealth quintile compared to the poorest had 2.6 times higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 2.6, 95% CI = 1.5–4.6), and 1.9 times higher relative risk of being partially vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated (RRR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.3–3.0).

After controlling for covariates, results showed that children in the northeast region compared with central region had 220% higher relative risk of receiving all basic vaccines and 200% higher relative risk of being partially vaccinated versus not receiving all basic vaccines. Children in the southern region, however, had 70% lower risk of being fully vaccinated versus non-vaccinated than children in the central region. Similarly, the relative risk for receiving some of the basic vaccines versus not receiving was 50% lower for children in the eastern region than in the central region.

Discussion

Childhood vaccination plays an important role in preventing many diseases, averting an estimated 2 million deaths yearly around the world. Nonetheless, 2.5 million deaths per year are still caused by vaccine-preventable diseases, and approximately 1.5 million of them are among children under age 5 in developing countries [20]. Vaccine-preventable diseases including tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pertussis, neonatal tetanus, hepatitis B, pneumonia due to Haemophilus Influenzae, and measles are among the main killers of children under age 5 in developing countries [3, 6, 21]. Afghanistan is taking part in the global fight against these diseases by implementing BCG, OPV, Pentavalent, and measles vaccines. Although Afghanistan did not reach its targets, coverage of Pentavalent-3, OPV, and measles vaccine was 58%, 65%, and 60% respectively, based on the 2015 AfDHS survey.

A study by Tefera et al. in Ethiopia found that fear of side effects, being too busy, hearing rumors about vaccines, and fewer ANC visits were the main factors related to low coverage of vaccination among children under age 5 [22]. Bbaale et al. found that maternal education, exposure to media, maternal healthcare utilization, maternal age, occupation type, and immunization plan by EPI authorities were among the factors most related to vaccination status. The percentage of fully vaccinated children age 12–23 months increased with the level of mother’s education [23]. A study by Lakew et al. found that children in households in the richer wealth quintile had higher odds of full vaccination compared with households in the poor wealth index [24].

A study by Xeuatvongsa et al. revealed that maternal education and the level of education among women in the whole community influence children’s vaccination status. The study suggested that improving health awareness could overcome the barriers of low education levels and improve vaccination coverage [25]. Vaccination status could also be associated with maternal autonomy and empowerment, since mothers have the responsibility to make decisions about the health issues of their children. A study by Noh et al. in Pakistan found that the factors associated with completeness of basic vaccination coverage included child’s age, number of children in the family, parental education level, household wealth index, source of mother’s awareness about child health, number of ANC visits, and receiving assistance during delivery [4].

The present study was conducted as a secondary analysis of data from the Afghanistan 2015 DHS. Based on the objectives of this study, we found that 48% of children age 12–23 months in Afghanistan were fully vaccinated, 41% partially vaccinated, and 13% non-vaccinated. In comparison, based on the 2012 Afghanistan Health Survey, only 39% of were fully vaccinated [11]. While coverage of vaccination has increased, it still did not meet the expected target for 2015, possibly due to sustained conflict in Afghanistan [26].

Full vaccination coverage was found to be higher in urban areas of Afghanistan than in the rural community. Levels of partial vaccination coverage in the rural community were higher than among children in urban areas. The percentage of non-vaccinated children in the rural areas of Afghanistan was higher than in urban areas. Similar findings were presented by a study in 2013 among Afghan children age 12–23 months, where the prevalence of full vaccination was found to be 62% in urban areas versus 49% in rural areas [17]. These findings were consistent with studies conducted in Pakistan [4], India [18], and Ethiopia [24]. The reasons could be low literacy rates, high levels of poverty, long distances to health facilities, and lack of awareness among the parents about vaccines in the rural areas.

While the overall coverage of vaccination is low in Afghanistan, which is similar to other developing countries such as Ethiopia [24], Uganda [23], and Bangladesh [5] but the severity of the problem is not similar across geographic regions of Afghanistan. Full vaccination coverage is highest in the central region, which is relatively secure, and lowest in the southern region, which is the most insecure region in the country. The highest level of non-vaccination is in the southern region and the lowest in the northern region, which is relatively secure. As mentioned, these discrepancies could be due to security problems in the different regions of Afghanistan.

The main determinants for completeness of vaccination among children in the study were maternal age, delivery in a health facility, more ANC visits, health facility visit in the last year, paternal occupation, wealth quintile, and geographic region. These findings are consistent with studies conducted in Bangladesh [5], Pakistan [4], India [18], and Ethiopia [22].

Maternal education and paternal education are related to social behavior and lifestyle, which could have effects on children’s vaccination status [27]. School education is an important factor to inform parents regarding the value of vaccination of their children. Most mothers living in the rural and insecure areas of the country are illiterate, which is responsible for part of the observed difference between the urban and rural areas in children’s vaccination status. In our study, there was no significant association between maternal or paternal education and vaccination status, while this relationship has been confirmed in other developing countries as well [4, 25].

We found that children who had contact with the health system were more likely to be fully vaccinated; children born in a health facility were more likely to receive all basic vaccines. As BCG is administered during birth, mothers who deliver in a health facility have a high chance of delivery with the presence of any birth attendants and will receive the BCG vaccine. Therefore, the mothers will be encouraged to complete the remaining routine vaccines of their children. These findings are confirmed by other studies [22, 28]. Moreover, we found that making more ANC visits positively affected the coverage of vaccination. This could be because antenatal care visits or delivery at a health facility pave the way for women to be more familiar with health services, e.g., institutional delivery and vaccination programs [29].

In addition, the children of mothers who visited a health facility in the past 12 months have a high chance of being fully vaccinated; like making ANC visits, this also creates an opportunity to meet healthcare workers, providing awareness for mothers on the importance of vaccination [29].

In this study, we did not find any significant difference in vaccination status between boys and girls; these findings are similar to previous studies conducted by Tefera et al. in Ethiopia [22], and Xeuatvongsa et al. in Lao [25]. In addition, this study did not find any association between vaccination status and maternal education, maternal autonomy, household size, or exposure to mass media.

Strengths and limitations

The larger sample size of the DHS data allowed us to look for many associations. Due to security problems in some parts of the country, the survey teams were not able to collect the relevant data in some areas. These areas were mainly in the rural districts of Uruzgan, Zabul, and Helmand provinces, which belong to the southern region of Afghanistan. The vaccination rates and influencing factors may be different in those areas not covered in the survey.

Conclusion

This study found that the overall coverage of full vaccination was low among children age 12–23 months in Afghanistan—highest in the central region and lowest in the southern region. Furthermore, this study identified some of the key factors associated with vaccination status such as; Children of mothers age 30–39 at delivery compared to children of mothers under age 20 at delivery had 2 times higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated. Children born in a health facility compared to those who were born at home had 2.1 times higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated. Children whose mothers made 1–3 ANC visits compared to no ANC visit had 1.7 times higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated. Children whose mothers visited a health facility in the past 12 months compared to those who did not have any visit had 1.9 times higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated. Children in households in the richer wealth quintile compared to the poorest had 2.6 times higher relative risk of being fully vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated. Children in the northeast region compared with central region had 3.2 times higher relative risk of receiving all basic vaccines. Children in the southern region, however, had 1.7 times lower risk of being fully vaccinated versus non-vaccinated than children in the central region.

This study suggests that expanding access to institutional delivery, ANC visits, and health services may increase childhood vaccination. Ministry of Hajj & Religious Affairs is kindly requested to work with Imams to spread EPI messages through Masjids. In addition, MOPH may consider the findings of this study in revision of health policies. Moreover, further studies using a different study design are needed to investigate the factors influencing vaccination status in Afghanistan.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. STROBE checklist.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge USAID and ICF for providing the opportunity for the authors to attend the 2019 DHS Fellows Program. Our special thanks go to the program facilitators Wenjuan Wang and Shireen Assaf for their kind support and suggestions, and we appreciate the co-facilitators Kyaw Swa Mya and GedefawAbeje for their assistance and comments. We also thank the ICF reviewers of this paper, Lindsay Mallick and Courtney Allen, who provided constructive comments. Moreover, we are grateful for the 2019 DHS Fellows who provided valuable comments during the presentation of the findings. The authors would also like to thank Kabul University of Medical Sciences (KUMS) for its kind facilitation to attend and participate in the workshops and support for the implementation of our capacity-building plan for the KUMS colleagues.

Abbreviations

AFDHS

Afghanistan Demographic and Health Survey

ANC

Antenatal Care

BCG

Bacillus Calmette Guerin

BPHS

Basic Package of Health Services

CSO

Central Statistics Organization

DALYs

Disability-Adjusted Life Years

DHS

Demographic and Health Survey

DPT3

Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus

EPI

Expended Immunization program

EA

Enumeration Area

HSC

Health Sub-Center

MOPH

Ministry of Public Health

OPV

Oral Polio Vaccine

PR

Provincial Hospital

RRR

Relative Risk Ratio

UNICEF

United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data are publicly available data that can be downloaded from the DHS Program’s website (URL: https://www.dhsprogram.com/). The specific data set used by the authors was the 2015 Afghanistan DHS survey.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization; Expanded Programme on Immunization: WHO EMRO; 2018. [cited 2019 March 3]. Available from: http://www.emro.who.int/afg/programmes/epi.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization; 1 in 10 infants worldwide did not receive any vaccinations in 2016: WHO; 2017. [cited 2019 March 3]. Available from: https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/infants-worldwide-vaccinations/en/. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mokhayeri Y, Naderimagham S, Mohammadi R, Rahimi E, Rahimzadeh S, Badirzadeh A, et al. Burden of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases-Measles, Tetanus, Diphtheria and Whooping Cough-in Iran: Findings from the GBD study 2010. Archives of Iranian medicine. 2016;19(6):382–7. Epub 2016/06/14. doi: 0161906/AIM.003 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Noh JW, Kim YM, Akram N, Yoo KB, Park J, Cheon J, et al. Factors affecting complete and timely childhood immunization coverage in Sindh, Pakistan; A secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data. PloS one. 2018;13(10):e0206766 Epub 2018/11/01. 10.1371/journal.pone.0206766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sheikh N, Sultana M, Ali N, Akram R, Mahumud RA, Asaduzzaman M, et al. Coverage, Timelines, and Determinants of Incomplete Immunization in Bangladesh. Tropical medicine and infectious disease. 2018;3(3). Epub 2018/10/03. 10.3390/tropicalmed3030072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.You D, Hug L, Ejdemyr S, Idele P, Hogan D, Mathers C, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and trends in under-5 mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. Lancet (London, England). 2015;386(10010):2275–86. Epub 2015/09/13. 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00120-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.UNICEF. Monitoring the situation of children and women, Immunization: UNICEF; July 2018. [cited 2019 March 3]. Available from: https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-health/immunization/. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization. Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020: WHO; 2012. [cited 2019 March 3]. Available from: https://www.who.int/immunization/global_vaccine_action_plan/GVAP_doc_2011_2020/en/. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.World Health Organization. EPI Review Mission in Afghanistan. 2017.
  • 10.World Health Organization. World Immunization Week 2017: #VaccinesWork 2017 [cited 2019 March 3]. Available from: http://www.emro.who.int/media/news/world-immunization-week-2017-vaccineswork.html.
  • 11.Farzad F, J AR, Yamamoto E, Hamajima N. Socio-economic and demographic determinants of full immunization among children of 12–23 months in Afghanistan. Nagoya journal of medical science. 2017;79(2):179–88. Epub 2017/06/20. 10.18999/nagjms.79.2.179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wagner AL, Mubarak MY, Johnson LE, Porth JM, Yousif JE, Boulton ML. Trends of vaccine-preventable diseases in Afghanistan from the Disease Early Warning System, 2009–2015. PloS one. 2017;12(6):e0178677 Epub 2017/06/02. 10.1371/journal.pone.0178677 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.UNICEF. Health, Ending preventable maternal, newborn and child deaths: UNICEF; 2015. [cited 2019 March 3]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/health. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tsega A, Daniel F, Steinglass R. Monitoring coverage of fully immunized children. Vaccine. 2014;32(52):7047–9. Epub 2014/12/03. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.10.057 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.World Health Organization. WHO-UNICEF estimates of DTP3 coverage: WHO; 2018. [cited 2019 March 3]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tswucoveragedtp3.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Canavan ME, Sipsma HL, Kassie GM, Bradley EH. Correlates of complete childhood vaccination in East African countries. PloS one. 2014;9(4):e95709 Epub 2014/04/23. 10.1371/journal.pone.0095709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mugali RR, Mansoor F, Parwiz S, Ahmad F, Safi N, Higgins-Steele A, et al. Improving immunization in Afghanistan: results from a cross-sectional community-based survey to assess routine immunization coverage. BMC public health. 2017;17(1):290 Epub 2017/04/06. 10.1186/s12889-017-4193-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shrivastwa N, Gillespie BW, Kolenic GE, Lepkowski JM, Boulton ML. Predictors of vaccination in India for children aged 12–36 months. Vaccine. 2015;33 Suppl 4:D99–105. Epub 2015/11/29. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.09.034 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Central Statistics Organization (CSO) MoPH, and ICF,. Afghanistan Demographic and Health Survey 2015. Rockville, Maryland, USA: The DHS Program; January 2017.
  • 20.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 international health and human rights. 2009;9 Suppl 1:S3 Epub 2009/10/16. 10.1186/1472-698x-9-s1-s3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Collaborators GCM. Global, regional, national, and selected subnational levels of stillbirths, neonatal, infant, and under-5 mortality, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet (London, England). 2016;388(10053):1725–74. Epub 2016/10/14. 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31575-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tefera YA, Wagner AL, Mekonen EB, Carlson BF, Boulton ML. Predictors and Barriers to Full Vaccination among Children in Ethiopia. Vaccines. 2018;6(2). Epub 2018/04/13. 10.3390/vaccines6020022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bbaale E. Factors influencing childhood immunization in Uganda. Journal of health, population, and nutrition. 2013;31(1):118–29. Epub 2013/04/27. 10.3329/jhpn.v31i1.14756 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lakew Y, Bekele A, Biadgilign S. Factors influencing full immunization coverage among 12–23 months of age children in Ethiopia: evidence from the national demographic and health survey in 2011. BMC public health. 2015;15:728 Epub 2015/08/01. 10.1186/s12889-015-2078-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Xeuatvongsa A, Hachiya M, Miyano S, Mizoue T, Kitamura T. Determination of factors affecting the vaccination status of children aged 12–35 months in Lao People's Democratic Republic. Heliyon. 2017;3(3):e00265 Epub 2017/04/04. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Acerra JR, Iskyan K, Qureshi ZA, Sharma RK. Rebuilding the health care system in Afghanistan: an overview of primary care and emergency services. International journal of emergency medicine. 2009;2(2):77–82. Epub 2010/02/17. 10.1007/s12245-009-0106-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Newbrander W, Ickx P, Feroz F, Stanekzai H. Afghanistan's basic package of health services: its development and effects on rebuilding the health system. Global public health. 2014;9 Suppl 1:S6–28. Epub 2014/05/29. 10.1080/17441692.2014.916735 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chambongo PE, Nguku P, Wasswa P, Semali I. Community vaccine perceptions and its role on vaccination uptake among children aged 12–23 months in the Ileje District, Tanzania: a cross section study. The Pan African medical journal. 2016;23:162 Epub 2016/06/16. 10.11604/pamj.2016.23.162.8925 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dixit P, Dwivedi LK, Ram F. Strategies to Improve Child Immunization via Antenatal Care Visits in India: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. PloS one. 2013;8(6):e66175 Epub 2013/07/05. 10.1371/journal.pone.0066175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Holly Seale

29 May 2020

PONE-D-20-06204

Factors Influencing Vaccination Coverage among Children Age 12–23 Months in Afghanistan: Further Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. university,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 13 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Holly Seale

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. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should remain as separate "supporting information" files

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere:

"This study was conducted during the DHS fellowship program and one of the responsibility of fellows are to to publish their studies in a peer review journal. The DHS program also shared the conducted studies in its website and also after publication in a peer review journal they will share the link of paper in the DHS website."

Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published.

If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) 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.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Ahmad Khalid Aalemi.

6. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

8. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Comments to authors

Title: Factors Influencing Vaccination Coverage among Children Age 12–23 Months in 3 Afghanistan: Further Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

Comment: My suggestion to remove the word further

Abstract

Comment: In the study, half of the subjects were boys (51%), almost half were born at home 36 (48%), and about three-fourths were residents of rural areas (76%)

Please revise the above sentence to either include narrate or %, but not both IE half and then 51% this the same way of expressing.

Line 37-43 add RRR appropriately

Introduction

Comments: Line 89 health indicators 2015 used, could you use update one!

Line 96-119, all these review literatures could be part of the discussion rather in the introduction

Lines 114-116, stated the study objective clearly, however, line 119-129 stated other objectives which is a bit confusing and stated like protocol rather than study write up. Revise accordingly.

Methods

Comments: Line 134 stated the survey was conducted in 34 provinces of Afghanistan. Any justification of implemented in these provinces?

34 provinces representation of how many provinces at national level. Explain?

Results

Comments:

Could you also analyze the vaccination coverage based on the card and maternal recall?

In all tables limit the % into at least one digit avoid over digital 2.3456

Discussions

General comments:

Haemophilus influenzae change to italic

Comments:

Sentence in line 256 no reference

Provide links and experiences with other countries in the key findings, especially the discussion in lines 269, 277 and 308

Line 267-268 provide more in-depth of plausible causes not limited to one cause

Line 283-284 this is a repetition sentence to be avoided

Line 319 identifies the key finding and further discuss around it

Conclusion

Comments: to be revised and include the key findings and messages

Study limitation

Provide possible study limitation

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Salah Al Awaidy

[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. 2020 Aug 7;15(8):e0236955. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236955.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Jun 2020

Dear Prof. Holly Seale

I would like to thank you for giving us a chance to revise our manuscript and thanks to reviewers for their valuable comments.

Please find our detailed answers under each comment. We have specified the paragraph where the revisions have been mad and the revision can be seen as track changes in the manuscript.

Response to comments

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 athttps://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

Answer: Dear Editor, thanks for providing the link. We have read it carefully and revised our manuscript according to the guildline.

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should remain as separate "supporting information" files

Answer: We have included all the tables in the manuscript and removed individual files from the system.

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere:

"This study was conducted during the DHS fellowship program and one of the responsibility of fellows are to to publish their studies in a peer review journal. The DHS program also shared the conducted studies in its website and also after publication in a peer review journal they will share the link of paper in the DHS website."

Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

Answer: Dear Editor, as I explained this study was conducted under the guidance of DHS experts to increase the capacity of secondary analysis in developing countries. This study is neither published in any journal nor peer reviewed, just as a result of capacity building program they shared the study as a working paper in their website. There are examples of such papers published in PLOS One (these papers also conducted in the same program but different year.

1- Mya KS, Kyaw AT, Tun T. Feeding practices and nutritional status of children age 6-23 months in Myanmar: A secondary analysis of the 2015-16 Demographic and Health Survey. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0209044. Published 2019 Jan 2. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209044

2- Chhea C, Ir P, Sopheab H. Low birth weight of institutional births in Cambodia: Analysis of the Demographic and Health Surveys 2010-2014. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0207021. Published 2018 Nov 8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207021

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) 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.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Answer: Dear Editor, thanks for your question. The data is publically available in the DHS website. I revised the data availability statement as follow.

The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data are publicly available data that can be downloaded from the DHS Program’s website (URL: https://www.dhsprogram.com/). The specific data set used by the authors was the 2015 Afghanistan DHS survey.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Ahmad Khalid Aalemi.

Answer: We are amended the submission data and included author Ahmad Khalid

Aalemi

6. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Answer: Thanks for your comment; we moved the ethics statement to the methods section.

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Answer: We have updated the Figure 3 label. Now all of the figures are cited in the text.

8. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Answer: Thanks for comments; we added a caption for each figure in the manuscript.

Reviewer #1: Comments to authors

Dear Salah Al Awaidy thanks for your valuable comments. We tried to consider all of your comments hope it will be acceptable for you.

Title: Factors Influencing Vaccination Coverage among Children Age 12–23 Months in 3 Afghanistan: Further Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

Comment: My suggestion to remove the word further

Answer: Dear Sir, we included further because this is a secondary analysis of DHS data. As per your suggestion we removed the further from the title.

Abstract

Comment: In the study, half of the subjects were boys (51%), almost half were born at home 36 (48%), and about three-fourths were residents of rural areas (76%)

Please revise the above sentence to either include narrate or %, but not both IE half and then 51% this the same way of expressing.

Line 37-43 add RRR appropriately

Answer: Dear Sir, we revised the whole result part of the abstract based on your recommendation.

Introduction

Comments: Line 89 health indicators 2015 used, could you use update one!

Answer: Thanks for comment; this is the latest available figure about Afghanistan. As per your comment we searched literature but could not find any update data.

Line 96-119, all these review literatures could be part of the discussion rather in the introduction

Answer: Thank you for your comment; we moved the recommended part to discussion

Lines 114-116, stated the study objective clearly, however, line 119-129 stated other objectives which is a bit confusing and stated like protocol rather than study write up. Revise accordingly.

Answer: We removed the line 119-129 from the manuscript and revised the objective of the study.

Methods

Comments: Line 134 stated the survey was conducted in 34 provinces of Afghanistan. Any justification of implemented in these provinces?

34 provinces representation of how many provinces at national level. Explain?

Answer: Dear Sir, this is the total number of provinces in Afghanistan. It means the data were collected from all provinces of Afghanistan. We revised the 34 provinces to all provinces.

Results

Comments:

Could you also analyze the vaccination coverage based on the card and maternal recall?

Answer: Thanks for your comment; unfortunately we cannot analysis separately based on card and maternal recall because we have one variable about each vaccine. There is no separate variable in the data set for each of them.

In all tables limit the % into at least one digit avoid over digital 2.3456

Answer: Thanks for comments. Sorry for the mistake. Now the tables’ contents are updated.

Discussions

General comments:

Haemophilus influenzae change to italic

Answer: Thanks Sir, we changed the Haemophilus influenza to italic

Comments:

Sentence in line 256 no reference

Answer: The reference is added to that sentence.

Provide links and experiences with other countries in the key findings, especially the discussion in lines 269, 277 and 308

Answer: Thanks for your valuable comments we added the links to show other countries also found similar findings as per your comments in each paragraph.

Line 267-268 provide more in-depth of plausible causes not limited to one cause

Answer: Dear Sir, as you know this is a cross sectional study; only we can find association which does not mean causation. In this paragraph we tried to link some evidence from literature that security might be a reason for lower coverage in Afghanistan. However there are many factors that have influence in the low coverage of vaccination in Afghanistan but till now it is not fully understood.

Line 283-284 this is a repetition sentence to be avoided

Answer: The sentence is removed from manuscript.

Line 319 identifies the key finding and further discuss around it

Answer: This is answered under conclusion comments

Conclusion

Comments: to be revised and include the key findings and messages

Answer: Thanks for comments; we revised the key finding of our study in the conclusion. Regarding our message it is stated in the 379-384 in the manuscript with track changes.

Study limitation

Provide possible study limitation

Answer: Thanks Sir, we added strength and limitation for our study at the end of discussion part.

Best Regards,

Dr. Ahmad Khalid Aalemi

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Holly Seale

17 Jul 2020

Factors influencing vaccination coverage among children age 12–23 months in Afghanistan: Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

PONE-D-20-06204R1

Dear Dr. Aalemi,

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Holly Seale

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Holly Seale

21 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-06204R1

Factors influencing vaccination coverage among children age 12–23 months in Afghanistan: Analysis of the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey

Dear Dr. Aalemi:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Holly Seale

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 Checklist. STROBE checklist.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data are publicly available data that can be downloaded from the DHS Program’s website (URL: https://www.dhsprogram.com/). The specific data set used by the authors was the 2015 Afghanistan DHS survey.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES