How Well Do Coverage Surveys and Programmatically Reported Mass Drug Administration Coverage Match? Results From 214 Mass Drug Administration Campaigns in 15 Countries, 2008-2017

BMJ Global Health

By 
Kathryn L Zoerhoff, 
Pamela S Mbabazi, 
Katherine Gass, 
John Kraemer, 
Brian B Fuller, 
Lynsey Blair, 
Roland Bougma, 
Aboulaye Meite, 
Nebiyu Negussu, 
Bizuayehu Gashaw, 
Scott D Nash, 
Nana-Kwadwo Biritwum, 
Jean Frantz Lemoine, 
Helena Ullyartha Pangaribuan, 
Eksi Wijayanti, 
Karsor Kollie, 
Clara Fabienne Rasoamanamihaja, 
Lazarus Juziwelo, 
Square Mkwanda, 
Pradip Rimal, 
Issa Gnandou, 
Bocar Diop, 
Ameyo Monique Dorkenoo, 
Rachel Bronzan, 
Edridah Muheki Tukahebwa, 
Fatima Kabole, 
Violetta Yevstigneyeva, 
Donal Bisanzio, 
Lauren Courtney, 
Joseph Koroma, 
Egide Endayishimye, 
Richard Reithinger, 
Margaret C Baker, 
and Fiona M Fleming

Description: Delivering preventive chemotherapy through mass drug administration (MDA) is a central approach in controlling or eliminating several neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Treatment coverage, a primary indicator of MDA performance, can be measured through routinely reported programmatic data or population-based coverage evaluation surveys. Reported coverage is often the easiest and least expensive way to estimate coverage; however, it is prone to inaccuracies due to errors in data compilation and imprecise denominators, and in some cases measures treatments offered as opposed to treatments swallowed. Analyses presented here aimed to understand (1) how often coverage calculated using routinely reported data and survey data would lead program managers to make the same programmatic decisions; (2) the magnitude and direction of the difference between these two estimates, and (3) whether there is meaningful variation by region, age group or country.

Read the full article(opens in new window)

Subcategory: Mass Drug Administration (MDA)

Related Tags