BMC Public Health (Feb 2022)

An innovative approach in monitoring oral cholera vaccination campaign: integration of a between-round survey

  • Jerôme Ateudjieu,
  • Martin Ndinakie Yakum,
  • André Pascal Goura,
  • Maureen Tembei Ayok,
  • Etienne Guenou,
  • Corine Blondo Kangmo Sielinou,
  • Frank Forex Kiadjieu,
  • Marcellin Tsafack,
  • Ingrid Marcelle Douanla Koutio,
  • Ketina Hirma Tchio-Nighie,
  • Hervé Tchokomeni,
  • Paul Nyibio Ntsekendio,
  • David A. Sack

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12610-5
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 1
pp. 1 – 13

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is essential in ensuring population’s access to immunization. Surveys are part of this M&E approach but its timing limits the use of its results to improve the coverage of the evaluated campaign. An oral cholera vaccination campaign was organized in a health district of the Far North region of Cameroon and involved an innovative M&E approach. The aim of this project was to assess the feasibility and effect of using recommendations of a community-based immunization and communication coverage survey conducted after the first round of an OCV campaign on the coverage of the second-round of the campaign. Methods Two community-based surveys were included in the M&E plan and conducted at the end of each of the campaign rounds. Data were collected by trained and closely supervised surveyors and reported using smartphones. Key results of the first-round survey were disseminated to campaign implementing team prior to the second round. The two rounds of the pre-emptive campaign were organized by the Cameroon Ministry of Public Health and partners with a two-week interval in the Mogode Health District of the Far North region of Cameroon in May and June 2017. Results Of 120 targeted clusters, 119 (99.1%) and 117 (97.5%) were reached for the first and second rounds respectively. Among the Mogode population eligible for vaccination, the immunization coverage based on evidence (card or finger mark) were estimated at 81.0% in the first round and increased to 88.8% in the second round (X2=69.0 and p <0.00). For the second round, we estimated 80.1% and 4.3% of persons who were administered 2 doses and 1 dose of OCV with evidence respectively, and 3.8% of persons who have not been vaccinated. The distribution of campaign communication coverage per health area was shared with the campaign coordination team for better planning of the second round campaign activities. Conclusions It is feasible to plan and implement coverage survey after first round OCV campaign and use its results for the better planning of the second round. For the present study, this is associated to the improvement of OCV coverage in the second-round vaccination. If this is persistent in other contexts, it may apply to improve coverage of any health campaign that is organized in more than one round.

Keywords