Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

While there is a coordinated effort around reaching zero dose children and closing existing equity gaps in immunization delivery, it is important that there is agreement and clarity around how ‘zero dose status’ is defined and what is gained and lost by using different indicators for zero dose status. There are two popular approaches used in research, program design, and advocacy to define zero dose status: one uses a single vaccine to serve as a proxy for zero dose status, while another uses a subset of vaccines to identify children who have missed all routine vaccines. We provide a global analysis utilizing the most recent publicly available DHS and MICS data from 2010 to 2020 to compare the number, proportion, and profile of children aged 12 to 23 months who are ‘penta-zero dose’ (have not received the pentavalent vaccine), ‘truly’ zero dose (have not received any dose of BCG, polio, pentavalent, or measles vaccines), and ‘misclassified’ zero dose children (those who are penta-zero dose but have received at least one other vaccine). Our analysis includes 194,829 observations from 82 low- and middle-income countries. Globally, 14.2% of children are penta-zero dose and 7.5% are truly zero dose, suggesting that 46.5% of penta-zero dose children have had at least one contact with the immunization system. While there are similarities in the profile of children that are penta-zero dose and truly zero dose, there are key differences between the proportion of key characteristics among truly zero dose and misclassified zero dose children, including access to maternal and child health services. By understanding the extent of the connection zero dose children may have with the health and immunization system and contrasting it with how much the use of a more feasible definition of zero dose may underestimate the level of vulnerability in the zero dose population, we provide insights that can help immunization programs design strategies that better target the most disadvantaged populations. If the vulnerability profiles of the truly zero dose children are qualitatively different from that of the penta-zero dose children, then failing to distinguish the truly zero dose populations, and how to optimally reach them, may lead to the development of misguided or inefficient strategies for vaccinating the most disadvantaged population of children.

Introduction: In 2021, an estimated 18 million children did not receive a single dose of routine vaccinations and constitute the population known as zero dose children. There is growing momentum and investment in reaching zero dose children and addressing the gross inequity in the reach of immunization services. To effectively do so, there is an urgent need to characterize more deeply the population of zero dose children and the barriers they face in accessing routine immunization services. Methods: We utilized the most recent DHS and MICS data spanning 2011 to 2020 from low, lower-middle, and upper-middle income countries. Zero dose status was defined as children aged 12–23 months who had not received any doses of BCG, DTP-containing, polio, and measles-containing vaccines. We estimated the prevalence of zero-dose children in the entire study sample, by country income level, and by region, and characterized the zero dose population by household-level factors. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine the household-level sociodemographic and health care access factors associated with zero dose immunization status. To pool multicountry data, we adjusted the original survey weights according to the country’s population of children 12–23 months of age. To contextualize our findings, we utilized United Nations Population Division birth cohort data to estimate the study population as a proportion of the global and country income group populations. Results: We included a total of 82 countries in our univariate analyses and 68 countries in our multivariate model. Overall, 7.5% of the study population were zero dose children. More than half (51.9%) of this population was concentrated in African countries. Zero dose children were predominantly situated in rural areas (75.8%) and in households in the lowest two wealth quintiles (62.7%) and were born to mothers who completed fewer than four antenatal care (ANC) visits (66.5%) and had home births (58.5%). Yet, surprisingly, a considerable proportion of zero dose children’s mothers did receive appropriate care during pregnancy (33.5% of zero dose children have mothers who received at least 4 ANC visits). When controlled for other factors, children had three times the odds (OR = 3.00, 95% CI: 2.72, 3.30) of being zero dose if their mother had not received any tetanus injections, 2.46 times the odds (95% CI: 2.21, 2.74) of being zero dose if their mother had not received any ANC visits, and had nearly twice the odds (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.70, 2.05) of being zero dose if their mother had a home delivery, compared to children of mothers who received at least 2 tetanus injections, received at least 4 ANC visits, and had a facility delivery, respectively. Discussion: A lack of access to maternal health care was a strong risk factor of zero dose status and highlights important opportunities to improve the quality and integration of maternal and child health programs. Additionally, because a substantial proportion of zero dose children and their mothers do receive appropriate care, approaches to reach zero dose children should incorporate mitigating missed opportunities for vaccination.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

While there is a coordinated effort around reaching zero dose children and closing existing equity gaps in immunization delivery, it’s important that there is agreement and clarity around how ‘zero dose status’ is defined and what is gained and lost by using different indicators for zero dose status. There are two popular approaches used in research, program design, and advocacy to define zero dose status: one uses a single vaccine to serve as a proxy for zero dose status, while another uses a subset of vaccines to identify children who have missed all routine vaccines. We provide a global analysis utilizing the most recent publicly available DHS and MICS data to compare the number, proportion, and profile of children 12 to 23 months who are ‘penta-zero dose’ (have not received the pentavalent vaccine), ‘truly’ zero dose (have not received the BCG, polio, pentavalent, and measles vaccines), and ‘misclassified’ zero dose children (those who are penta-zero dose but have received at least one other vaccine). Our analysis includes 194,829 observations from 82 low- and middle-income countries. Globally, 14.2% of children are penta-zero dose and 7.5% are truly zero dose, suggesting that 46.5% of penta-zero dose children have had at least one contact with the immunization system. While there are similarities in the profile of children that are penta-zero dose and truly zero dose, there are key differences between the proportion of key characteristics among truly zero dose and misclassified zero dose children, including access to maternal and child health services. By understanding the extent of connection zero dose children may have with the health and immunization system and contrasting it with how much the use of a more feasible definition of zero dose may underestimate the level of vulnerability in the zero dose population, we provide insights that can help immunization programs design strategies that better target the most disadvantaged populations. If the vulnerability profiles of the truly zero dose children are qualitatively different from that of the penta zero dose children, then failing to distinguish the truly zero dose populations, and how to optimally reach them, may lead to the development of misguided or inefficient strategies for vaccinating the most disadvantaged population of children.

Ensuring immunisation coverage in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings (FCAS) remains a critical global health challenge. National Immunisation Programmes (NIPs) are unable to provide programming in some areas because of conflict and insecurity or the destruction of healthcare infrastructure. Humanitarian civil society organisations (CSOs) can fill those programming gaps, but they need to be able to do so promptly and effectively. This paper presents an analysis of gaps experienced by NIPs across the REACH Project, funded by Gavi to immunise ‘zero-dose’ children (children who did not receive any diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-containing vaccine) in FCAS in Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan. We offer insights that can be used by humanitarian and immunisation CSOs that aim to overcome the challenges that NIPs face in these settings in ways that are truly complementary and not substituting for what NIPs could achieve. The NIP contributions were categorised as ‘No NIP Contribution’, ‘Limited NIP: Geographic Limitations’, ‘Limited NIP: Functional Limitations’ and ‘Limited NIP: Transitioning Contexts’ reflecting the nature and extent of NIP contributions. Based on NIP contribution context, humanitarian CSOs filled immunisation programming gaps by working with NIPs in complementary ways to re-establish or extend immunisation services and by using conflict-sensitive approaches to support immunisation programming. Different conflict-sensitive programmatic adaptations were critical based on the needs in each context. Despite variable NIP contribution levels, collaboration between NIPs and humanitarian CSOs was vital to the success of REACH. The REACH Project demonstrates how to effectively adapt immunisation programming within a context-specific hybrid NIP-humanitarian CSO model in FCAS.