↓ Skip to main content

Investigating socio-economic inequity in access to and expenditures on routine immunization services in Anambra state

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Investigating socio-economic inequity in access to and expenditures on routine immunization services in Anambra state
Published in
BMC Research Notes, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2407-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florence T. Sibeudu, Benjamin S. C. Uzochukwu, Obinna E. Onwujekwe

Abstract

Addressing existing inequities in the utilization of priority health services such as routine immunization is a current public health priority. Increasing access to routine immunization from the current low levels amongst all socio-economic status groups in Nigeria is challenging. However, little is known on the level of SES inequity in utilization of routine immunization services and such information which will inform the development of strategies for ensuring equitable provision of routine immunization services in the country. The study was a cross sectional household survey, which was undertaken in two randomly selected communities in Anambra State, southeast Nigeria. A pre-tested interviewer administered questionnaire was used to collect data on levels of access to RI by children under-2 years from randomly selected households. In each household, data was collected from the primary care givers or their representative (in their absence). The relationship between access to routine immunization and socio-economic status of households and other key variables was explored in data analysis. Households from high socio-economic status (well-off) groups utilized routine immunization services more than those that belong to low socio-economic status (poor) groups (X(2) = 9.97, p < 0.002). It was found that higher percentage of low socio-economic status households compared to the high socio-economic status households received routine immunization services at public health facilities. Households that belong to low socio-economic status groups had to travel longer distance to get to health facilities consequently incurring some transportation cost. The mean expenditures on service charge for routine immunization services (mostly informal payments) and transportation were US$1.84 and US$1.27 respectively. Logistic regression showed that access to routine immunization was positively related to socio-economic status and negatively related to distant of a household to a health facility. Ability to pay affects access to services, even when such services are free at point of consumption with lower socio-economic status groups having less access to services and also having other constraints such as transportation. Hence, innovative provision methods that will bring routine immunization services closer to the people and eliminate all formal and informal user fees for routine immunization will help to increase and improve equitable coverage with routine immunization services.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 25%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 27 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,894,152
of 9,018,604 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,149
of 2,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,436
of 308,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#32
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,018,604 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,276 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.