» Articles » PMID: 20478960

Improving Immunisation Coverage in Rural India: Clustered Randomised Controlled Evaluation of Immunisation Campaigns with and Without Incentives

Overview
Journal BMJ
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2010 May 19
PMID 20478960
Citations 132
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To assess the efficacy of modest non-financial incentives on immunisation rates in children aged 1-3 and to compare it with the effect of only improving the reliability of the supply of services.

Design: Clustered randomised controlled study.

Setting: Rural Rajasthan, India.

Participants: 1640 children aged 1-3 at end point.

Interventions: 134 villages were randomised to one of three groups: a once monthly reliable immunisation camp (intervention A; 379 children from 30 villages); a once monthly reliable immunisation camp with small incentives (raw lentils and metal plates for completed immunisation; intervention B; 382 children from 30 villages), or control (no intervention, 860 children in 74 villages). Surveys were undertaken in randomly selected households at baseline and about 18 months after the interventions started (end point).

Main Outcome Measures: Proportion of children aged 1-3 at the end point who were partially or fully immunised.

Results: Among children aged 1-3 in the end point survey, rates of full immunisation were 39% (148/382, 95% confidence interval 30% to 47%) for intervention B villages (reliable immunisation with incentives), 18% (68/379, 11% to 23%) for intervention A villages (reliable immunisation without incentives), and 6% (50/860, 3% to 9%) for control villages. The relative risk of complete immunisation for intervention B versus control was 6.7 (4.5 to 8.8) and for intervention B versus intervention A was 2.2 (1.5 to 2.8). Children in areas neighbouring intervention B villages were also more likely to be fully immunised than those from areas neighbouring intervention A villages (1.9, 1.1 to 2.8). The average cost per immunisation was $56 (2202 rupees) in intervention A and $28 (1102 rupees, about pound16 or euro19) in intervention B.

Conclusions: Improving reliability of services improves immunisation rates, but the effect remains modest. Small incentives have large positive impacts on the uptake of immunisation services in resource poor areas and are more cost effective than purely improving supply.

Trial Registration: IRSCTN87759937.

Citing Articles

Low parental income level is associated with pediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the San Francisco Bay area.

Takou Mbah O, Goodman S, Maldonado Y, Bollyky J BMC Public Health. 2025; 25(1):921.

PMID: 40055641 PMC: 11889740. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-025-22132-5.


Living with technological challenges: does socioeconomic status affect people's health?.

Xu J, Xia C, Ding X BMC Geriatr. 2025; 25(1):143.

PMID: 40033215 PMC: 11874828. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-024-05662-2.


Preventing vaccine drop-outs: Geographic and system-level barriers to full immunization coverage among children in Uttar Pradesh, India.

Prakash R, Kumar P, Dehury B, Thacker D, Shoemaker E, Manjappa R Vaccine X. 2025; 23:100613.

PMID: 39980605 PMC: 11840531. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2025.100613.


Assessing insecticide treated nets awareness at Njala University: case study of Njala and Towama Campuses, Sierra Leone.

Williams S, Wadsworth R, Foday S, George A, Foday I, Williams E BMC Public Health. 2025; 25(1):532.

PMID: 39930445 PMC: 11808937. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-21007-5.


Financial Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Ternovski J, Jilke S, Keppeler F, Vogel D JAMA Netw Open. 2025; 8(2):e2458542.

PMID: 39918821 PMC: 11806395. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58542.


References
1.
Wolfson L, Gasse F, Lee-Martin S, Lydon P, Magan A, Tibouti A . Estimating the costs of achieving the WHO-UNICEF Global Immunization Vision and Strategy, 2006-2015. Bull World Health Organ. 2008; 86(1):27-39. PMC: 2647343. DOI: 10.2471/blt.07.045096. View

2.
Travis P, Bennett S, Haines A, Pang T, Bhutta Z, Hyder A . Overcoming health-systems constraints to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Lancet. 2004; 364(9437):900-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16987-0. View

3.
Lagarde M, Haines A, Palmer N . Conditional cash transfers for improving uptake of health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. JAMA. 2007; 298(16):1900-10. DOI: 10.1001/jama.298.16.1900. View

4.
Wiysonge C, Nomo E, Mawo J, Ticha J . Accelerated measles control in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet. 2006; 367(9508):394-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68133-6. View

5.
Fernald L, Gertler P, Neufeld L . Role of cash in conditional cash transfer programmes for child health, growth, and development: an analysis of Mexico's Oportunidades. Lancet. 2008; 371(9615):828-37. PMC: 2779574. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60382-7. View