Are Vaccination Campaigns Misinformed?
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Resumen
Descripción
Routine immunization coverage
estimated in surveys often substantially differs from
figures reported in administrative records, presenting a
dilemma for researchers and policy makers. Using
high-frequency phone surveys and administrative records from
government sources in 36 low- and middle-income countries,
this paper shows that such misalignment has also been common
in the case of COVID-19. Across the sample, survey estimates
exceed administrative figures by 47 percent on average, at
times suggesting markedly different policy conclusions
depending on the data source consulted. This pattern is
particularly stark and consistent in Sub-Saharan Africa. To
investigate the sources of this discrepancy, the paper
presents results from six methodological experiments that
vary survey design choices and documents their effect on
estimated COVID-19 vaccine coverage. The results show that
design choices matter, in particular the selection of
respondents to be interviewed. However, phone survey
estimates prove remarkably robust to several commonly
claimed biases. After accounting for observed errors of
representation and measurement in the survey data, there
remains a nonnegligible, unexplained residual gap with
administrative records. The paper provides indicative
evidence of flaws and weaknesses in administrative data
recording and reporting that affect reported vaccination
rates and could contribute to this gap. The findings matter
for past research on COVID-19 vaccination, future
immunization efforts, and the design of robust data
production systems on health topics.
Palabras clave
COVID-19 PANDEMIC, COVID VACCINATION PROMOTION, IMMUNIZAITON, COVID VACCINE SURVEY, IMMUNIZATION ADMINISTRATIVE DATA DISCREPANCY, PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY