Open AccessThe distribution and use of feedback bulletins among national immunization program management teams in East and Southern Africa
Author(s) -
Balcha Masresha,
Goitom Weldegebriel,
Emmaculate Lebo,
Jethro Chakauya,
Fussum Daniel
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
the pan african medical journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.287
H-Index - 30
ISSN - 1937-8688
DOI - 10.11604/pamj.supp.2020.35.1.19062
Subject(s) - immunization , immunization program , medicine , family medicine , medical education , immunology , antigen
Immunization program monitoring includes numerous activities, some of which include monitoring of vaccination coverage, surveillance performance and epidemiological patterns. The provision of timely, high quality and actionable feedback is an essential component of strengthening health systems. Within the African region of the WHO, various bulletins are produced and disseminated regularly to provide feedback on the performance of immunization programs and vaccine preventable disease control initiatives. Methods The 2019 annual national immunization program managers’ meeting for countries in the eastern and southern African subregion was held in Asmara from 18 - 20 March 2019. A survey questionnaire was administered to the participants representing the national programs and in-country partners across the 20 countries. Results On average, the 75 respondents receive 1.8 e-mailed feedback bulletins monthly. Twenty-three (31%) respondents receive 3 or more written feedback bulletins per month, and 72% receive the bulletins regularly. On a scale of 1 - 5 (from lowest to highest), 87% participants rated the relevance of the bulletins they receive at 4 - 5. Only 19% of the respondents responded that the results are discussed within the national immunization program, and 14% stated that action points are generated based on the feedback received. Fifty-nine (79%) respondents want to receive more frequent feedback on routine immunization performance. Among the EPI program managers and the EPI program data managers, the access to these feedback bulletins was quite limited. Even though the primary objective of the bulletins is to initiate discussions and action based on the provided feedback, such discussions do not happen regularly at country level. The programmatic use and advocacy value of the bulletins is not optimal. Conclusion We recommend integrating program feedback, regularly updating the distribution lists, the additional use of instant messaging platforms for distribution, as well as online posting of the bulletins for wider availability.