RESUMO
Nested serosurveys within routine service delivery platforms such as planned supplemental immunization activities (SIAs) provide an opportunity to collect information that can be used to answer valuable questions on the effectiveness and efficiency of the delivery model to inform future activities. However, integrating research data collection in SIAs is rarely done due to concerns it will negatively impact the program. We conducted a serosurvey nested within the November 2020 measles-rubella SIA integrated with the Child Health Week activities in Zambia to evaluate this approach. In-depth interviews with the study teams and vaccination campaign staff at the vaccination sites were conducted. Recorded interviews were transcribed, transcripts were coded and then grouped into themes based on a process evaluation framework. A multi-methods analytical approach was used to assess the feasibility and acceptability of collecting dried blood spots from children during the SIA. This included a quantitative assessment of participant enrollment. The serosurvey successfully enrolled 90% of children from Child Health Week due to close coordination and teamwork between the vaccination teams and serosurvey team, in addition to substantial social mobilization efforts. Continually adjusting the sampling interval that was used to select eligible children allowed us to enroll throughout the SIA and capture a representative sample of children in attendance although it was challenging for the staff involved. As vaccination programs aim to tailor their approaches to reach the hardest-to-reach children, embedding research questions in SIAs will allow evaluation of the successes and challenges and compare alternative approaches. Lessons learned from this experience collecting data during an SIA can be applicable to future research activities embedded in SIAs or other delivery platforms.
RESUMO
Community-based serological studies are increasingly relied upon to measure disease burden, identify population immunity gaps, and guide control and elimination strategies; however, there is little understanding of the potential for and impact of sampling biases on outcomes of interest. As part of efforts to quantify measles immunity gaps in Zambia, a community-based serological survey using stratified multi-stage cluster sampling approach was conducted in Ndola and Choma districts in May-June 2022, enrolling 1245 individuals. We carried out a follow-up study among individuals missed from the sampling frame of the serosurvey in July-August 2022, enrolling 672 individuals. We assessed the potential for and impact of biases in the community-based serosurvey by i) estimating differences in characteristics of households and individuals included and excluded (77% vs 23% of households) from the sampling frame of the serosurvey and ii) evaluating the magnitude these differences make on healthcare-seeking behavior, vaccination coverage, and measles seroprevalence. We found that missed households were 20% smaller and 25% less likely to have children. Missed individuals resided in less wealthy households, had different distributions of sex and occupation, and were more likely to seek care at health facilities. Despite these differences, simulating a survey in which missed households were included in the sampling frame resulted in less than a 5% estimated bias in these outcomes. Although community-based studies are upheld as the gold standard study design in assessing immunity gaps and underlying community health characteristics, these findings underscore the fact that sampling biases can impact the results of even well-conducted community-based surveys. Results from these studies should be interpreted in the context of the study methodology and challenges faced during implementation, which include shortcomings in establishing accurate and up-to-date sampling frames. Failure to account for these shortcomings may result in biased estimates and detrimental effects on decision-making.
