Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 57, Issue 10, November 2003, Pages 1807-1819
Social Science & Medicine

The impact of the national polio immunization campaign on levels and equity in immunization coverage: evidence from rural North India

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00056-XGet rights and content

Abstract

Few studies have investigated the impact of immunization campaigns conducted under the global polio eradication program on sustainability of polio vaccination coverage, on coverage of non-polio vaccines (administered under Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI)), and on changes in social inequities in immunization coverage. This study proposes to fill the gaps in the evidence by investigating the impact of a polio immunization campaign launched in India in 1995.

The study uses a before-and-after study design using representative samples from rural areas of four North Indian states. The National Family Health Survey I (NFHS I) and NFHS II, conducted in 1992–93 and 1998–99 respectively, were used as pre- and post-intervention data. Using pooled data from both the surveys, multivariate logistic regression models with interaction terms were used to investigate the changes in social inequities.

During the study period, a greater increase was observed in the coverage of first dose of polio compared to three doses of polio. Moderate improvements in at least one dose of non-polio EPI vaccinations, and no improvements in complete immunization against non-polio EPI diseases were observed. The polio campaign was successful, to some extent, in reducing gender-, caste- and wealth-based inequities, but had no impact on religion- or residence-based inequities. Social inequities in non-polio EPI vaccinations did not reduce during the study period.

Significant dropouts between first and third dose of polio raise concerns of sustainability of immunization coverage under a campaign approach. Similarly, little evidence to support synergy between polio campaign and non-polio EPI vaccinations raises questions about the effects of polio campaign on routine health system's functions. However, moderate success of the polio campaign in reducing social inequities in polio coverage may offer valuable insights into the routine health systems for addressing persistent social inequities in access to health care.

Introduction

Encouraged by the success of the polio eradication campaigns in the Americas, the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1988 set out to eradicate poliomyelitis globally by 2000 (World Health Organization, 1988). Subsequently, India launched a polio eradication program in December 1995 and named it Pulse Polio Immunization (PPI) campaign (AIIMS, 2000). A major component of PPI was the organization of annual National Immunization Days (NIDs) (CDC, 1998). The NIDs for PPI were well publicized in the media, and attendance was advocated by celebrities, local and national politicians. Special efforts were made during PPI and NIDs which included extensive social mobilization, inter-departmental co-ordination, improved linkages between health workers and local communities, and organization of outreach immunization booths in the remote areas on NIDs (Suresh, 2000).

Various studies in India and elsewhere have investigated different aspects of the implementation and impact of polio mass immunization campaigns. These studies have investigated the effects of polio mass immunization campaigns on: aggregate coverage (Bandyopadhyay et al., 1996; Chincholikar & Prayag, 2000; Suresh, 2000; Swami, Bhatia & Bhatia, 1998); on mother's awareness of polio campaign (Chincholikar & Prayag, 2000; Quaiyum, Tunon, Baqui, Quayyum & Khatun, 1997; Swami et al., 1998); and on staffing issues during campaigns (Thakur, Swami, & Bhatia, 2000).

However, most of the existing studies were conducted immediately after the campaign (post-campaign studies). This precluded these studies from looking into the issues of sustainability in coverage over time and completion rates for polio immunization (i.e., whether the child has received three doses of polio). In addition, most of these studies were conducted in small geographical areas, often in urban settings, limiting their external generalizability (Bandyopadhyay et al., 1996; Quaiyum et al., 1997; Swami et al., 1998; Thakur et al., 2000). Moreover, none of these studies examined the effect of PPI on coverage of non-polio vaccines—DPT, BCG and measles—administered under the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI).

The World Health Assembly laid emphasis on the need to implement polio eradication programs in a way that would strengthen routine health system functions (World Health Organization, 1988). As a result, significant improvement in coverage of non-polio EPI vaccinations was expected. Considerable debate has since been generated regarding the impact of polio mass campaigns on coverage of non-polio EPI vaccines delivered through the routine health system (Adachi, 1999; Dietz & Cutts, 1997; Loevinson et al., 2002; Schreuder & Kostermans, 2001). Polio mass immunization campaigns have been hypothesized to improve the coverage of routine immunizations by increasing awareness of immunization (Dietz & Cutts, 1997; Loevinson et al., 2002), by improving linkages between health workers and communities (Loevinson et al., 2002), by reaching disadvantaged groups through social mobilization, by renewing political interest around immunization, and by strengthening of health systems in general (de Quadros & Henderson, 1993; Goodman, Dalmiya, de Benoist, & Schultink, 2000; Hull & Aylward, 2001).

However, some researchers have expressed concern that polio mass campaign may adversely affect non-polio EPI coverage by disrupting routine service delivery due to diversion of human and material resources to the campaign (AIIMS, 2000; Nichter, 1995; Razum, Liyanage, & Nayar, 2001; Schreuder & Kostermans, 2001; Taylor, Cutts, & Taylor, 1997), and by creating misperceptions among the mothers that a child has received all the immunizations during NIDs (Nichter, 1995). Notwithstanding the extensive debate on this issue, only a few qualitative and anecdotal studies have been conducted, to date, to examine this issue (AIIMS, 2000, Loevinson et al., 2002). We are not aware of any long-term empirical study with baseline and follow-up data that has investigated the effects of polio mass campaigns on coverage of routine immunizations.

For a variety of reasons social inequities in immunization coverage by gender, religion, wealth, and caste have been increasingly documented in India (Gwatkin & Deveshwar-Bahl, 2000; Nichter, 1995; Pande & Yazbeck, 2002). Female and Muslim children are significantly less likely to be immunized, especially in North India, than male and Hindu children are. In addition, significant disparities in immunization coverage are seen by caste—the basis of hierarchical organization of Hindu religion. Children from scheduled castes (SCs) and the scheduled tribes (STs)—the castes identified by Government of India as socially the most backward in a schedule to the Indian Constitution—are least likely to be immunized. Children from other backward castes (OBCs)—occupational castes identified by the government of India as socially backward—are more likely to be immunized than SC/ST, but less likely to be immunized than forward castes. Due to special outreach and social mobilization efforts made during NIDs and inherent emphasis on equity in a disease eradication program, it has been hypothesized that PPI would improve social equity in polio immunization coverage, and perhaps, in coverage of non-polio EPI vaccines. Surprisingly, few studies have investigated the social equity aspect of immunization campaigns.

This study tries to fill some of the important gaps identified above in the literature by investigating the impact of PPI campaign in rural North India on completion rates for polio immunization, coverage of non-polio EPI vaccines and equity in coverage of polio and non-polio EPI vaccination.

Section snippets

Study setting

The study was conducted in the rural areas of four North Indian states—Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. These four states constitute 40% of India's population; yet have more than 70% of non-immunized children in India (Das, Das, & Coutinho, 2000; Suresh, 2000). Rural areas of these states have shown persistent inequities in immunization coverage by caste, gender, wealth, and religion (Pande & Yazbeck, 2002). These states are among the few geographical regions in the world

Overall coverage

Table 2 presents the changes in coverage of OPV, DPT and non-polio EPI vaccines between 1993 and 1999. The percentage of children receiving the first dose of OPV increased significantly from 48% in 1993 to 73% in 1999 (p<0.000). Under the routine delivery system, OPV is almost always given with DPT vaccine. Therefore, the difference between coverage rates of first dose of DPT and first dose of OPV will roughly provide estimates of OPV coverage that can be attributed to the PPI campaign. The

Discussion

There are three potential limitations to the study. First, neither NFHS I nor NFHS II were explicitly designed to evaluate the PPI campaign. No specific questions were asked in the follow-up survey (NFHS II) regarding immunization of the child during the PPI campaign. Under the routine immunization system, polio vaccine is always given with the DPT vaccine; therefore, the difference between DPT vaccine coverage and polio vaccine in the post-intervention survey can be attributed to the PPI

Conclusion

Despite the high profile given to PPI, and steadfast political and bureaucratic commitment, the impact of PPI on coverage and sustainability of polio and non-polio EPI vaccination is less than satisfactory. Findings of the study highlight the limitations of “campaign” approach to disease eradication in “backward” regions of India and elsewhere where weak health systems operate in challenging social, cultural and physical environment.

As the global polio eradication efforts narrow down to few

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the following for the helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper: W.H. Mosley, Carl E. Taylor, David Peters, Anthony R. Measham, Joe Naimoli, Kees Kosterman, Abdo S. Yazbeck, Davidson R. Gwatkin, Robert Steinglass, John Jerome and Kathryn Lockwood. We also thank the three anonymous referees for suggesting changes.

References (36)

  • CDC (1998). Progress towards poliomyelitis eradication—India, 1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(37),...
  • S.V. Chincholikar et al.

    Evaluation of pulse-polio immunization in rural area of Maharashtra

    Indian Journal of Pediatrics

    (2000)
  • T. Clarke

    Polio's last stand

    Nature

    (2001)
  • V. Das et al.

    Disease control and immunizationA sociological enquiry

    Economic and Political Weekly

    (2000)
  • D. de Quadros et al.

    Disease eradication and control in the Americas

    Biologicals

    (1993)
  • V. Dietz et al.

    The use of mass immunization campaigns in the expanded program on immunizationA review of reported advantages and disadvantages

    International Journal of Health Services

    (1997)
  • D. Filmer et al.

    Estimating wealth effects without wealth or expenditure dataEducational enrollment in India

    (1998)
  • T. Goodman et al.

    Polio as a platformUsing national immunization days to deliver vitamin a supplements

    Bulletin of the World Health Organization

    (2000)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Study conducted while on study leave at John Hopkins University.

    View full text