Skip to main content

Table 3 Characterization of secondary analyses by group of affiliation countriesa

From: Characterization of immunization secondary analyses using demographic and health surveys (DHS) and multiple indicator cluster surveys (MICS), 2006–2018

  

High-income countries

(N = 80)

Low-middle income countries

(N = 36)

P-value

n

%

n

%

Publication metric

 Publication year

2006–2012

20

25.0

6

16.7

0.319

2012- August 2018

60

75.0

30

83.8

 

 Country analyzed

Multiple countries

34

42.5

3

8.3

< 0.001

Single country

46

57.5

33

91.7

 

 Survey year

on or before 2011

54

67.5

30

83.3

0.078

2012–2018

26

32.5

6

16.7

 

 Publishing delay

Mean (SD)

4.8(2.2)

6.6(3.0)

< 0.001

Within 5 years

55

68.8

11

30.6

< 0.001

More than 5 years

25

31.2

25

69.4

 

Analysis content

 Survey types

DHS

69

86.3

31

86.1

0.979

MICS

5

6.3

2

5.6

 

Both

6

7.4

3

8.3

 

 Outcomesb

Specific immunization

47

51.1

8

20.0

0.003

Complete or full immunization

28

30.4

25

62.5

 

Partly or incomplete immunization

9

9.8

3

7.5

 

Never vaccinated

7

7.6

4

10.0

 

Otherb

1

1.1

0

0.0

 

 Type of analysis

Factors associated

53

55.8

24

54.5

0.185

Inequalities

12

12.6

9

20.5

 

Timeliness

9

9.5

3

6.8

 

Trends

9

9.5

7

15.9

 

Others

12

12.6

1

2.3

 

Analyses quality

 Handling of persons without documented vaccination

Mentioned

75

93.8

24

66.7

< 0.001

Not mentioned

5

6.2

12

33.3

 

 Percentage of card seen

Mentioned

27

33.8

9

25.0

0.346

No mentioned

53

66.2

27

75.0

 

 Weighted analysis

Yes

48

60.0

19

52.8

0.807

No

3

3.8

1

2.8

 

Not mentioned

29

36.2

16

44.4

 

 Potential biases listed

Yes

38

47.5

16

44.4

0.760

No

42

52.5

20

55.6

 

 Limitation(s) listed

Yes

65

81.3

24

66.7

0.086

No

15

18.7

12

33.3

 
  1. aAffiliation countries of first and corresponding authors were analysed here. Most of them (110/116) were from the same affiliation or income-level country, for those different (6/116) the higher income-level was used for classification
  2. bThe one outcome listed as “other” was knowledge about HPV vaccine