Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 179

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Coverage in MNCH: Design, Implementation, and Interpretation Challenges Associated with Tracking Vaccination Coverage Using Household Surveys

Open access
Cutts, Felicity T., Izurieta, Hector S., Rhoda, Dale A.·2013·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

Vaccination coverage is an important public health indicator that is measured using administrative reports and/or surveys. The measurement of vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries using surveys is susceptible to numerous challenges. These challenges include selection bias and information bias, which cannot be solved by increasing the sample size, and the precision of the coverage estimate, which is determined by the survey sample size and sampling method. Selection bias can result from an inaccurate sampling frame or inappropriate field procedures and, since populations likely to be missed in a vaccination coverage survey are also likely to be missed by vaccination teams, most often inflates coverage estimates. Importantly, the large multi-purpose household surveys that are often used to measure vaccination coverage have invested substantial effort to reduce selection bias. Information bias occurs when a child's vaccination status is misclassified due to mistakes on his or her vaccination record, in data transcription, in the way survey questions are presented, or in the guardian's recall of vaccination for children without a written record. There has been substantial reliance on the guardian's recall in recent surveys, and, worryingly, information bias may become more likely in the future as immunization schedules become more complex and variable. Finally, some surveys assess immunity directly using serological assays. Sero-surveys are important for assessing public health risk, but currently are unable to validate coverage estimates directly. To improve vaccination coverage estimates based on surveys, we recommend that recording tools and practices should be improved and that surveys should incorporate best practices for design, implementation, and analysis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001404

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 179

Metadata

Authors
Cutts, F. T., Izurieta, H. S., & Rhoda, D. A.
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2013-05-07
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
e1001404
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2087314245
Cited by
179
References
3
FWCI
11.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Coverage in MNCH: Design, Implementation, and Interpretation Challenges Associated with Tracking Vaccination Coverage Using Household Surveys. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001404
The paper
Cutts, F. T., Izurieta, H. S., & Rhoda, D. A. (2013). Measuring Coverage in MNCH: Design, Implementation, and Interpretation Challenges Associated with Tracking Vaccination Coverage Using Household Surveys. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001404

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.