Vaccination
What predicts full childhood immunization in Senegal
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Only 62.8% of Senegalese children 12–23 months were fully immunized; maternal education, wealth, and antenatal care strongly predicted coverage.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — Secondary analysis of Senegal 2010–2011 DHS
- N
- N=2199 · Children aged 12–23 months
- Population
- Senegalese children aged 12–23 months in the Demographic and Health Survey
- Outcome
- Complete immunization coverage and maternal/household predictors
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Complete coverage was 62.8%, below national (>80%) and international (>90%) goals; four antenatal visits associated with AOR 3.10 for complete immunization.
Methodology
Secondary analysis of Senegal 2010–2011 DHS data for 2,199 children aged 12–23 months examined complete immunization (card or maternal recall) and maternal/household predictors.
Limitations
Causal effects of specific outreach programs, and recall-based vaccination histories can misclassify doses.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Multiple studies in this library examine vaccination with empirical patient or population outcomes rather than opinion alone.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Complete coverage was 62.8%, below national (>80%) and international (>90%) goals; four antenatal visits associated with AOR 3.10 for complete immunization.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Effect sizes and settings differ across vaccination studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
In Senegal's 2010–2011 DHS, complete immunization among 2,199 children aged 12–23 months was 62.8%, below national (>80%) and international (>90%) goals. Four antenatal visits were associated with AOR 3.10 for complete immunization (card or maternal recall). That is an adjusted association in survey data, not a trial of an outreach programme, and recall can misclassify doses.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
The same odds-ratio language is asked to do two different jobs. Senegal's AOR 3.10 and the CDI 36% excess odds are observational associations after covariate adjustment. Text4Heart's AOR 2.55 is a randomised contrast that itself was gone by 6 months. Reading every AOR as if it were that trial overclaims the survey papers and understates how fragile a trial AOR can be once follow-up continues.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Diagnostic papers optimise a cutoff, not an exposure odds ratio. CA125's PPV of 10.1% at a guideline threshold is a rare-disease problem; the diabetes score's NNS of 3–7 is a screening-workload problem that tracks prevalence, not AUC. Those operating-point numbers are not interchangeable with an immunization AOR of 3.10.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Effect sizes and settings differ across vaccination studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
- Supports · Seasonal vs pandemic flu vaccine coverage
- Supports · COVID vaccine acceptance in Libya
The same odds-ratio language is asked to do two different jobs. Senegal's AOR 3.10 and the CDI 36% excess odds are observational associations after covariate adjustment. Text4Heart's AOR 2.55 is a randomised contrast that itself was gone by 6 months. Reading every AOR as if it were that trial overclaims the survey papers and understates how fragile a trial AOR can be once follow-up continues.
Diagnostic papers optimise a cutoff, not an exposure odds ratio. CA125's PPV of 10.1% at a guideline threshold is a rare-disease problem; the diabetes score's NNS of 3–7 is a screening-workload problem that tracks prevalence, not AUC. Those operating-point numbers are not interchangeable with an immunization AOR of 3.10.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.