Country ownership as a guiding principle for IA2030: A case study of the measles and rubella elimination programs in Nepal and Nigeria.

Country-owned, as opposed to donor-driven, is a principle within the development sector that recognizes the centrality of countries' leadership, systems, and resources in executing programs and achieving sustainable development. In alignment with this notion, the Immunization Agenda 2030 was developed with country ownership as one of four core principles of the ambitious ten-year plan. This means that the success of immunization programs, including those with eradication and elimination goals such as polio, measles, and rubella, and those with broader equity goals to "leave no one behind" on immunization, would be largely driven by country systems. In this paper we deconstruct country ownership into five operational principles: commitment, coordination, capacity, community participation, and accountability. Through this lens, we illustrate how two countries, Nepal and Nigeria, have exemplified country ownership in their measles and rubella elimination programs and we infer the ways in which country ownership drives system performance and sustains program efforts.

COVID-19 vaccination up-take in three districts of Nepal.

Vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be an issue in terms of global efforts to decrease transmission rates. Despite high demand for the vaccines in Nepal, the country still contends with challenges related to vaccine accessibility, equitable vaccine distribution, and vaccine hesitancy. Study objectives were to identify: 1) up-take and intention for use of COVID-19 vaccines, 2) factors associated with vaccine up-take, and 3) trusted communication strategies about COVID-19 and the vaccines. A quantitative survey was implemented in August and September 2021 through an initiative at the Nepali Ministry of Health and Population Department of Health Services, Family Welfare Division. Data were collected from 865 respondents in three provinces (Bagmati, Lumbini, and Province 1). Ordinal multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine relationships between vaccination status and associated factors. Overall, 62% (537) respondents were fully vaccinated and 18% (159) were partially vaccinated. Those respondents with higher education (p < .001) and higher household income (p < .001) were more likely vaccinated. There were also significant differences in vaccine up-take across the three provinces (p < .001). Respondents who were vaccinated were significantly more likely to perceive vaccines as efficacious in terms of preventing COVID-19 (p = .004) and preventing serious outcomes (p = .010). Among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, there was a high level of trust in information about COVID-19 vaccines provided through local health-care workers [e.g. nurses and physicians]. These results are consistent with other findings within the South Asia region. Targeted advocacy and outreach efforts are needed to support ongoing COVID-19 vaccination campaigns throughout Nepal.

Nepal measles outbreak response immunization during COVID-19: A risk-based intervention strategy.

In 2020, National Immunization Programme (NIP) of Nepal implemented a measles outbreak response immunization (ORI) campaign, which was additional to an ongoing preventive measles-rubella SIA campaign. Both campaigns were implemented during ongoing COVID-19 transmission. By April, 220 measles cases and two deaths were confirmed from eight districts of Nepal. The NIP triangulated information from surveillance (measles and COVID-19), measles immunization performance and immunity profile, programme capacities and community engagement and applied a logical decision-making framework to the collated data to inform 'Go/No-Go' decisions for ORI interventions. This was reviewed by the National Immunization Advisory Committee (NIAC) for endorsement. Outbreak response with non-selective immunization (ORI), vitamin-A administration and case management were implemented in affected municipalities of four districts, while in the remaining districts outbreak response without ORI were undertaken. The structure and iterative application of this logical framework has been described. ORI was implemented without interrupting the ongoing measles-rubella vaccination campaign which had targeted children from 9 to 59 months of age. The age group for ORI was same as SIA in one sub-district area, while for the other three sub-district areas it was from 6 months to 15 years of age. More than 32,000 persons (97% coverage) were vaccinated in ORI response. Overall measles incidence decreased by 98% after ORI. The daily incidence rate of measles was 94 times higher (95% confidence interval: 36.11 - 347.62) before the ORI compared to two weeks after ORI until year end. Close attention to surveillance and other data to inform actions and seamless collaboration between NIP and core immunization partners (WHO, UNICEF), with guidance from NIAC were key elements in successful implementation. This was an example of feasible application of the global framework for implementation of a mass vaccination campaign during COVID-19 through application of a simple decision-making logical framework.

Who gets vaccinated in a measles-rubella campaign in Nepal?: results from a post-campaign coverage survey.

BACKGROUND: Following the 2015 earthquake, a measles-rubella (MR) supplementary immunization activity (SIA), in four phases, was implemented in Nepal in 2015-2016. A post-campaign coverage survey (PCCS) was then conducted in 2017 to assess SIA performance and explore factors that were associated with vaccine uptake. METHODS: A household survey using stratified multi-stage probability sampling was conducted to assess coverage for a MR dose in the 2015-2016 SIA in Nepal. Logistic regression was then used to identify factors related to vaccine uptake. RESULTS: Eleven thousand two hundred fifty-three households, with 4870 eligible children provided information on vaccination during the 2015-2016 MR SIA. Overall coverage of measles-rubella vaccine was 84.7% (95% CI: 82.0-87.0), but varied between 77.5% (95% CI: 72.0, 82.2) in phase-3, of 21 districts vaccinated in Feb-Mar 2016, to 97.7% (CI: 95.4, 98.9) in phase-4, of the last seven mountainous districts vaccinated in Mar-Apr 2016. Coverage in rural areas was higher at 85.6% (CI: 81.9, 88.8) than in urban areas at 79.0% (CI: 75.5, 82.1). Of the 4223 children whose caregivers knew about the SIA, 96.5% received the MR dose and of the 647 children whose caregivers had not heard about the campaign, only 1.8% received the MR dose. CONCLUSIONS: The coverage in the 2015-2016 MR SIA in Nepal varied by geographical region with rural areas achieving higher coverage than urban areas. The single most important predictor of vaccination was the caregiver being informed in advance about the vaccination campaign. Enhanced efforts on social mobilization for vaccination have been used in Nepal since this survey, notably for the most recent 2020 MR campaign.

Vaccine preventable diseases surveillance in Nepal: How much does it cost?

Assessing the cost of vaccine preventable diseases (VPD) surveillance is becoming more important in the context of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) funding transition, since GPEI support to polio surveillance helped the incremental building of VPD surveillance systems in many countries, including low income countries such as Nepal. However, there is limited knowledge on the cost of conducting VPD surveillance, especially the national cost for surveillance of multiple vaccine-preventable diseases. The current study sought to calculate the economic and financial costs of Nepal's comprehensive VPD surveillance systems from July 2016 to July 2017. At thecentral level, all surveillance units were included in the sample. At sub-national level, a purposive sampling strategy was used to select a representative sample from locations involved in conducting surveillance. The sub-national sample costs were extrapolated to the nationwide VPD surveillance system. Nepal's total annual economic cost of VPD surveillance was USD 4.81 million or USD 0.18 per capita, while the total financial cost was USD 4.38 million or USD 0.16 per capita. Government expenditures accounted for 56% of the total economic cost, and World Health Organization accounting for 44%. The biggest cost driver was personnel accounting for 51% of the total economic cost. WHO supported trained surveillance personnel through donor funding, mainly from Global Polio Eradication Initiative. As a polio transition priority country, Nepal will need to make strategic choices to fully self-finance or seek full donor support or a mixed-financing model as polio program funding diminishes.