Scoping Review of Current Costing Literature on Interventions to Reach Zero-Dose Children in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

A limited number of studies focus on estimating the costs of interventions to increase childhood immunization coverage in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Existing reviews often compare estimated costs but lack information on the methods used. The objective of this review is to summarize the methods used in costing studies that assessed interventions to reach zero-dose (ZD) children.

Exploring the landscape of routine immunization in Nigeria: A scoping review of barriers and facilitators.

Background: Despite global efforts to improve vaccination coverage, the number of zero-dose and under-immunized children has increased in Africa, particularly in Nigeria, which has over 2.1 million unvaccinated (zero dose) children, the highest in the continent. This scoping review systematically maps and summarizes existing literature on the barriers and facilitators of immunization in Nigeria, focusing on regional inequalities.

Measuring Zero-Dose Children: Reflections on Age Cohort Flexibilities for Targeted Immunization Surveys at the Local Level.

Zero-dose (ZD) children is a critical objective in global health, and it is at the heart of the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) strategy. Coverage for the first dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP1)-containing vaccine is the global operational indicator used to estimate ZD children. When surveys are used, DTP1 coverage estimates usually rely on information reported from caregivers of children aged 12-23 months.

Does interviewer gender influence a mother's response to household surveys about maternal and child health in traditional settings? A qualitative study in Bihar, India.

Background: Two probability surveys, conducted in the same districts of Bihar, India (Aurangabad and Gopalganj) at approximately the same time in 2016 using identical questionnaires and similar survey methods, produced significantly different responses for 37.2% (58/156) of the indicator comparisons. Interviewers for one survey were men while for the other they were women.