Summary: Objectives  To measure the accuracy and quality of immunization information systems in a range of low‐income countries eligible to receive GAVI support.Methods  The Data Quality Audit (DQA) uses a WHO validated, standard methodology to compare data collected from health unit (HU) records of immunizations administered with reports of immunizations at central level and to collect quality indicators of the reporting system. The verification factor (VF), as a measure of accuracy, expresses the proportion of immunizations reported at national level that can be tracked down to the HU. A VF of 80% or above entitles countries to receive additional GAVI financial support. Quality indicators are assigned points which were summed to obtain quality scores (QS) at national, district and HU levels. DQAs included here were conducted between 2002 and 2005 in 41 countries, encompassing 1082 primary healthcare units in 188 randomly selected districts.Results  Almost half of countries obtained a VF below 80% and only nine showed consistently high VF and QS scores. The most frequent weaknesses in the information systems were inconsistency of denominators used to estimate coverage, poor availability of guidelines (e.g. for late reporting), incorrect estimations of vaccine wastage and lack of feedback on immunization performance. In all six countries that failed a first DQA and undertook a second DQA, the VF and all QSs improved, not all of them statistically significantly.Conclusions  The DQA is a diagnostic tool to reveal a number of crucial problems that affect the quality of immunization data in all tiers of the health system. It identifies good performance at HU and district levels which can be used as examples of best practices. The DQA methodology brings data quality issues to the top of the agenda to improve the monitoring of immunization coverage.

The role of health communication in vaccination programmes cannot be overemphasized: it has contributed significantly to creating and sustaining demand for vaccination services and improving vaccination coverage. In Nigeria, numerous communication approaches have been deployed but these interventions are not without challenges. We therefore aimed to explore factors affecting the delivery of vaccination communication in Nigeria. We used a qualitative approach and conducted the study in two states: Bauchi and Cross River States in northern and southern Nigeria respectively. We identified factors affecting the implementation of communication interventions through interviews with relevant stakeholders involved in vaccination communication in the health services. We also reviewed relevant documents. Data generated were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. We used the SURE framework to organise the identified factors (barriers and facilitators) affecting vaccination communication delivery. We then grouped these into health systems and community level factors. Some of the commonly reported health system barriers amongst stakeholders interviewed included: funding constraints, human resource factors (health worker shortages, training deficiencies, poor attitude of health workers and vaccination teams), inadequate infrastructure and equipment and weak political will. Community level factors included the attitudes of community stakeholders and of parents and caregivers. We also identified factors that appeared to facilitate communication activities. These included political support, engagement of traditional and religious institutions and the use of organised communication committees. Communication activities are a crucial element of immunization programmes. It is therefore important for policy makers and programme managers to understand the barriers and facilitators affecting the delivery of vaccination communication so as to be able to implement communication interventions more effectively.

Summary: Objectives  To (a) summarise opinion about what supervision of primary health care is by those advocating it; (b) compare these features with reports describing supervision in practice; and (c) to appraise the evidence of the effects of sector performance.Methods  Systematic review. Reports were classified into three groups and summarised using appropriate methods: policy and opinion papers (narrative summary), descriptive studies (systematically summarised) and experimental or quasi‐experimental studies (design and outcomes systematically summarised). Data presented as narrative summaries and tables.Results  74 reports were included. In eight policy and opinion papers, supervision was conceptualised as the link between the district and the peripheral health staff; it is important in performance and staff motivation; it often includes problem solving, reviewing records, and observing clinical practice; and is usually undertaken by visiting the supervisees place of work. In 54 descriptive studies, the setting was the primary health care (PHC) or specific services and programmes. Supervisor‐supervisee dyads were generally district personnel supervising health facilities or lay health workers. Supervision mostly meant visiting supervisees, but also included meetings in the centre; it appeared to focus on administration and checking, sometimes with checklists. Problem solving, feedback and clinical supervision, training and consultation with the community were less commonly described in the descriptive studies. Supervision appears expensive from studies that have reported costs. In 12 quasi‐experimental trials, supervision interventions generally showed small positive effects in some of the outcomes assessed. However, trial quality was mixed, and outcomes varied greatly between studies.Conclusions  Supervision is widely recommended, but is a complex intervention and implemented in different ways. There is some evidence of benefit on health care performance, but the studies are generally limited in the rigor and follow up is limited. Further research delineating what supervision consists of and evaluating it in the context of unbiased comparisons would guide the implementation of effective supervision as part of the management of PHC.

In the first paper in a three-part series on health systems guidance, Xavier Bosch-Capblanch and colleagues examine how guidance is currently formulated in low- and middle-income countries, and the challenges to developing such guidance.

Objective  While childhood immunisation coverage levels have increased since the 70s, inequities in coverage between and within countries have been widely reported. Unvaccinated children remain undetected by routine monitoring systems and strikingly unreported. The objective of this study was to provide evidence on the magnitude of the problem and to describe predictors associated with non‐vaccination.Methods  Two hundred and forty‐one nationally representative household surveys in 96 countries were analysed. Proportions and changes in time of ‘unvaccinated’ (children having not received a single dose of vaccine), ‘partially vaccinated’ and ‘fully vaccinated’ children were estimated. Predictors of non‐vaccination were explored.Results  The percentage of unvaccinated children was 9.9% across all surveys. 66 countries had more than one survey: 38 showed statistically significant reductions in the proportion of unvaccinated children between the first and last survey, 10 countries showed increases and the rest showed no significant changes. However, while 18 of the 38 countries also improved in terms of partially and fully vaccinated, in the other 20 the proportion of fully vaccinated decreased. The predictors more strongly associated with being unvaccinated were education of the caregiver, education of caregiver’s partner, caregiver’s tetanus toxoid (TT) status, wealth index and type of family member participation in decision‐making when the child is ill. Multivariable logistic regression identified the TT status of the caregiver as the strongest predictors of unvaccinated children. Country‐specific summaries were produced and sent to countries.Conclusion  The number of unvaccinated children is not negligible and their proportion and the predictors of non‐vaccination have to be drawn from specific surveys. Specific vaccine indicators cannot properly describe the performance of immunisation programmes in certain situations. National immunisation programmes and national and international immunisation stakeholders should also consider monitoring the proportion of unvaccinated children (i.e. those who have received no vaccines at all) and draw specific plans on the determinants of non‐vaccination.