Table 2.

consistency between VM1A and HF vaccine utilization MSF versus characteristics of reporting HF

HF Characteristics		HF with Poor Consistency (N=965)	HF with Good Consistency (N=90)	Total (N=1055)	P-value
Availability of trained staff at the facility	No	95 (9.8%)	1 (1.1%)	96 (9.1%)	0.006
	Yes	870 (90.2%)	89 (98.9%)	959 (90.9%)
Number of Health Workers trained on RI tools per facility	No trained Health Worker	91 (9.4%)	1 (1.1%)	92 (8.7%)	0.023
	One trained Health Worker	663 (68.7%)	70 (77.8%)	733 (69.5%)
	At least 2 trained health	211 (21.9%)	19 (21.1%)	230 (21.8%)
Tools Availability at the HF level	Incomplete RI data tools	203 (21.0%)	12 (13.3%)	215 (20.4%)	0.083
	Complete RI data tools	762 (79.0%)	78 (86.7%)	840 (79.6%)
When was the last time someone from this HF attended LGA meeting	No Response	79 (8.2%)	0 (0.0%)	79 (7.5%)	0.044
	Less than 1 month	841 (87.2%)	85 (94.4%)	926 (87.8%)
	2-4 months	24 (2.5%)	3 (3.3%)	27 (2.6%)
	More than 4 months	21 (2.2%)	2 (2.2%)	23 (2.2%)
When was the last time this HF had a RI SS visit from the LGA	No Response	91 (9.4%)	1 (1.1%)	92 (8.7%)	0.053
	One Month or less	821 (85.1%)	82 (91.1%)	903 (85.6%)
	2-4 Months	32 (3.3%)	4 (4.4%)	36 (3.4%)
	4 Months or more	21 (2.2%)	3 (3.3%)	24 (2.3%)

HF with poor data consistency had >10% discrepancy level between vaccine management tool 1A (VM1a) and HF vaccine utilization summary form while HF with good data consistency had <10% discrepancy level between vaccine management tool (VM1a) and HF vaccine utilization summary. Discrepancy was measured based on 3 antigens bacille Calmette-Guerin, Pentavalent and Meales vaccines