Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Addressing the challenges of estimating the target population in calculation of routine infant immunization coverage in Kenya

Bibliographic Data

ID19594058
AuthorsChristine Karanja-Chege (0000-0002-2272-5761, Kenyatta University), Ambrose Agweyu (0000-0001-8760-1279, Kenya Medical Research Institute), Fred Were (0000-0001-7879-1883, University of Nairobi), Michael Boele van Hensbroek (0000-0003-1907-5427, Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development), William Ogallo (0000-0001-8580-1656, Google (United States))
EditorsAbram L Wagner Abram L Wagner
Year2025
Volume5
Issue7
Pagese0004298
Publication date2025-07-08
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePLOS Global Public Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2767-3375 • E-ISSN: 2767-3375
PublisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1371/journal.pgph.0004298
PMID40627639
OpenAlexW4412157441
LanguageEN
References cited4

Target population estimation for immunization coverage calculations from census data is often inaccurate. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the traditional census extrapolation method in comparison with three alternative approaches: the Cohort-Component Population Projections Method (CCPPM), using the Expanded Program on Immunisation (EPI) numerators – BCG and DTP1 doses as denominators, and estimates derived from first antenatal care clinic (ANC1) visits. We obtained target population estimates in Kenya from 1999 - 2023 using all 4 methods with data for ANC1 available only for 2020–2023. We assessed the accuracy of the estimates for 2003–2018 by computing the Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r), excluding outliers. A sub-analysis for the period 2020–2023 included ANC1 data. The CCPPM method had the largest population estimates while the census-based method had pronounced discontinuities at the census years. The CCPPM method compared to the DTP1 doses was associated with the greatest error magnitude (MAE = 212917.19 and MAPE = 18.18) while the DTP1 doses and census-based methods showed the smallest error (MAE = 44317.16 and MAPE = 3.77). Sub-analysis of target populations for the period 2020–2023 showed similar upward trends except for the census-based method which exhibited a significantly divergent trajectory. Comparison between the ANC1 and DTP1 doses showed the strongest linear correlation (r = 1.00). Although sub-national analysis was not done and there was the significant challenge of missing data, the results nevertheless reveal significant inaccuracies in the current target population estimation methods which may have serious implications on immunisation coverage assessments. Immunisation programs should utilise diverse sources of data and triangulate results as a more pragmatic approach for approximating the target populations for vaccination in the absence of well-established civil registration systems. Additionally, more research is warranted to address this gap

Environmental health · Geography · Immunization · Population · Routine immunization · Sociology · Statistics · Demography · Immune responses and vaccinations · Mathematics · Medicine · Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy · Virology and Viral Diseases · Immunology

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae