Further observations on comparison of immunization coverage by lot quality assurance sampling and 30 cluster sampling.

ABSTRACT

Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) and standard EPI methodology (30 cluster sampling) were used to evaluate immunization coverage in a Primary Health Center (PHC) where coverage levels were reported to be more than 85%. Of 27 sub-centers (lots) evaluated by LQAS, only 2 were accepted for child coverage, whereas none was accepted for tetanus toxoid (TT) coverage in mothers. LQAS data were combined to obtain an estimate of coverage in the entire population; 41% (95% CI 36-46) infants were immunized appropriately for their ages, while 42% (95% CI 37-47) of their mothers had received a second/ booster dose of TT. TT coverage in 149 contemporary mothers sampled in EPI survey was also 42% (95% CI 31-52). Although results by the two sampling methods were consistent with each other, a big gap was evident between reported coverage (in children as well as mothers) and survey results. LQAS was found to be operationally feasible, but it cost 40% more and required 2.5 times more time than the EPI survey. LQAS therefore, is not a good substitute for current EPI methodology to evaluate immunization coverage in a large administrative area. However, LQAS has potential as method to monitor health programs on a routine basis in small population sub-units, especially in areas with high and heterogeneously distributed immunization coverage.