Search

Introduction The measles supplemental immunisation activity is an effective strategy that improves vaccination coverage and reduces measles-related morbidity and mortality. However, the lack of compliance with microplanning processes, contributes to improper estimation of resources needed for a good SIA in Nigeria. We described the microplanning verification process for 2017/2018 measles vaccination campaign and highlighted the contribution of selected variables to the output of the microplan. Methods We conducted microplanning verification in 2 phases. In Phase 1, we verified at least 30% of randomly selected microplans to assess compliance with the steps and processes of developing good microplans. In Phase 2 we conducted desk review of the entire states micoplans and verified some selected variables at the ward level to corroborate the findings of the microplans. We collected data using open data kit and verification checklist. We conducted data analysis using SPSS and Microsoft Excel version 2016. Results All states in Nigeria verified their wards’ microplans, 21 states (57%) verified more than 30% ,16 states (43%) verified less than 30%, Kebbi State verified the lowest (5.3%). Over 90% of microplans verified complied with the microplanning processes. We observed that overall, there was no significant difference in the number of target population, vaccination teams and qualified vaccinators after the verification process. Conclusion The microplans for 2017/2018 measles vaccination campaign were developed according to the required procesesses, the target population, vaccination teams and qualified vaccinators were physically and realistically estimated. Adherence to microplanning processes is critical to the success of immunization programs.

Background Measles causes significant childhood morbidity in Nigeria. Routine immunization (RI) coverage is around 40% country-wide, with very high levels of spatial heterogeneity (3–86%), with supplemental immunization activities (SIAs) at 2-year or 3-year intervals. We investigated cost savings and burden reduction that could be achieved by adjusting the inter-campaign interval by region. Methods We modeled 81 scenarios; permuting SIA calendars of every one, two, or three years in each of four regions of Nigeria (North-west, North-central, North-east, and South). We used an agent-based disease transmission model to estimate the number of measles cases and ingredients-based cost models to estimate RI and SIA costs for each scenario over a 10 year period. Results Decreasing SIAs to every three years in the North-central and South (regions of above national-average RI coverage) while increasing to every year in either the North-east or North-west (regions of below national-average RI coverage) would avert measles cases (0.4 or 1.4 million, respectively), and save vaccination costs (save $19.4 or $5.4 million, respectively), compared to a base-case of national SIAs every two years. Decreasing SIA frequency to every three years in the South while increasing to every year in the just the North-west, or in all Northern regions would prevent more cases (2.1 or 5.0 million, respectively), but would increase vaccination costs (add $3.5 million or $34.6 million, respectively), for $1.65 or $6.99 per case averted, respectively. Conclusions Our modeling shows how increasing SIA frequency in Northern regions, where RI is low and birth rates are high, while decreasing frequency in the South of Nigeria would reduce the number of measles cases with relatively little or no increase in vaccination costs. A national vaccination strategy that incorporates regional SIA targeting in contexts with a high level of sub-national variation would lead to improved health outcomes and/or lower costs.