Abstract
IntroductionMyanmar, a conflict-affected geographically and ethnically diverse lower middle-income country, was in the donor transition phase for health prior to the political unrest of the last year. This study analyses the distribution of benefit and utilisation of basic childhood vaccinations from the highly donor-dependent Expanded Program on Immunization for populations of different socioeconomic status (SES).MethodsWe conducted a benefit incidence analysis with decomposition analysis to assess the equity of benefit. We used basic childhood immunisations—BCG, measles, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT)/pentavalent, oral polio vaccine (OPV) and full vaccination—as measurements for healthcare use. Childhood immunisation data were collected from Myanmar Demographic and Health Survey. Cost of vaccines was obtained from UNICEF document and ‘Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue’ and adjusted with regional cost variations. We reported Concentration Index (CI) and Achievement Index (AI) by SES, including wealth quintiles, maternal education and across geographic areas.ResultsNationally, better-off households disproportionately used more services from the programme (CI–Wealth Index (CI-WI) for BCG, measles, DPT/pentavalent, OPV and full immunisation: 0.032, 0.051, 0.120, 0.091 and 0.137, respectively). Benefits had a pro-poor distribution for BCG but a less pro-rich distribution than utilisation for all other vaccines (CI-WI: −0.004, 0.019, 0.092, 0.045 and 0.106, respectively). Urban regions had a more pro-rich distribution of benefit than that in rural areas, where BCG and measles had a pro-poor distribution. Subnational analysis found significant heterogeneity: benefit was less equitably distributed, and AI was lower in conflict-affected states than in government-controlled areas. The major contributors to vaccine inequality were SES, antenatal care visits and paternal education.ConclusionDonors, national government and regional government should better plan to maintain vaccine coverage while improving equity of vaccine services, especially for children of lower SES, mothers with less antenatal care visits and lower paternal education living in conflicted-affected remote regions.
Funder
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy
Reference41 articles.
1. WHO. World Health Organization . WHO | Health systems financing: the path to universal coverage. Available: http://www.who.int/whr/2010/en/ [Accessed 5 Nov 2020].
2. Inverse care law. The King’s Fund, 2001. Available: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/inverse-care-law [Accessed 22 Dec 2020].
3. WHO. World Health Organization . WHO | Inverse care and the role of the state: the health of the urban poor [Internet]. Available: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/95/2/16-179325/en/ [Accessed 22 Dec 2020].
4. How to do (or not to do) … a benefit incidence analysis
5. cmyp_2012-2016_12_nov_11_.pdf [Internet]. Available: http://staging.nationalplanningcycles.org/sites/default/files/country_docs/Myanmar/cmyp_2012-2016_12_nov_11_.pdf [Accessed 8 Nov 2020].
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献