Lot quality assurance sampling for monitoring immunization coverage in Madras City.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the usefulness of Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) to identify divisions in a city that had immunization coverage levels of 80% for any of the four EPI vaccines. METHODS: Only 43 divisions were considered for the study, the stratification factor being the death rate. The hypothesis that 80% coverage is 'unacceptable' was stipulated. Critical value (the number of unimmunized children) was chosen as 3. A simple random sample of 36 children in the age-group 12-23 months was taken from each selected division. Since sampling frames of children were not available, a simple random sample of 36 households was selected. Immunization status of each child was assessed by interviewing the child's mother/guardian. If the number of unimmunized children exceeded 3, then the division was regarded having coverage level 80% and rejected. RESULTS: The coverage was classified as unacceptable(i. e., below 80%) in 19 divisions for Polio and DPT vaccines, in 26 divisions for Measles vaccine and in 4 divisions for BCG vaccine. The average time spent for undertaking the LQAS survey was 6 man-days per division. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the utility of the LQAS technique in identifying 'unsatisfactory' pockets in Madras City, when the overall coverage was satisfactory. The technique will have greater application with an increase in the number of large units (cities/districts) having an overall coverage of 90% or more.

A concurrent comparison of a WHO-recommended 30-cluster survey and a modified version of it under Indian conditions in the estimation of immunization coverages.

A concurrent comparison of the WHO 30-cluster sample survey method for estimating immunization coverages (DPT, Polio, BCG, Measles) and an Indian modification of (GOI) was undertaken in five districts in South India. The essential difference between the two methods is the manner in which the first household is selected in the chosen clusters. With the WHO method, it is chosen clusters. With the WHO method, it is chosen at random, whereas with the GOI method it is often close to the village centre. Estimates with the required degree of precision, i.e., 95% confidence limits of +/- 10 percentage points, were provided in 18 (90%) of 20 instances by the WHO method and in 19 (95%) by the GOI method, findings which are in accordance with expectation. The estimated coverages were, however, higher by the GOI method than by the WHO method in two districts, lower in one district, and in the remaining two districts there was no clear pattern. On the average, there was a suggestion that the GOI method yielded slightly higher coverages, but the differences were not statistically significant.

A comparison of a 30-cluster survey method used in India and a purposive method in the estimation of immunization coverages in Tamil Nadu.

A 30-cluster survey method that is employed for estimating immunization coverages by the Government of India (GOI) was compared with a Purposive method, to investigate whether the likely omission of SC/ST and backward classes in the former would lead to the reporting of higher coverages. The essential difference between the two methods is in the manner in which the first household is selected in the chosen first stage sampling units (villages). With the GOI method, it is often close to the village centre, whereas with the Purposive method it is always in the periphery or in a pocket consisting of SC/ST or backward classes. A concurrent comparison of the two methods in three districts in Tamil Nadu showed no real differences in the coverage with DPT and BCG vaccines. However, the coverage was consistently higher by the GOI method in the case of the Polio vaccine (by 1.5%, 3.1% and 5.3% in the 3 districts), and the Measles vaccine (by 4.8%, 13.3% and 13.9%); the average difference was 3.3% for Polio vaccine (p = 0.08) and 7.3% for Measles vaccine (p = 0.01).