Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 166419

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
ĎKnowledge is treasure of a wise man.í The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help oneís reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journalsĖNo manuscriptsĖNo authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2012 | Month : June | Volume : 6 | Issue : 5 | Page : 828 - 831

Quality Assessment of Immunization Programme for Children Under Five in Davangere Taluk of South India

Rashmi Kundapur, Akash Bang, Vijay Kumar. B, Ashwini Kumar, Sanjeev Badiger, Animesh Jain

1. Corresponding Author, 2. Associate Professor, Department Of Paediatrics Mahatma Ghandhi Institute Of Medical Sciences, Wardha, Maharastra, India. 3. Professor, Department of Community Medicine J.J.M.Medical College Davangere, Karnataka India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine Kasturba Medical College Manipal University, Karnataka India. 5. Associate professor, Department of CommunityMedicine, K.S.Hegde Medical Academy. Nitte University, Mangalore- 18, Karnataka, India. 6. Associate professor, Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal University Karnataka India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr.Rashmi Associate Professor, Dept of Community Medicine K.S.Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Mangalore-18, India. Phone: 9880496567 E-mail: rashmi.kundapur@gmail.com

Abstract

Background: Although immunization coverage has increased in recent times in India, the quality of the Indian national immunization programme is still debatable. So, this study was conducted to assess the quality of documentation of immunization and health education to mother during Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) which is the national immunization programme of India and stresses on childhood Immunization against diseases of public health importance. The quality of maintenance of cold chain was also assessed in the study along with other factors.

Method: This cross sectional study involved female Junior Health Worker (JHW) of Davangere taluk in South India as participants. These were selected based on lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS). Each Junior Health worker Female (initially called multipurpose workers) who did immunization was considered as 1 lot. The numbers of lots rejected were considered for analysis and if rejection was higher than the allowed defect (obtained from LQAS table) the quality was considered poor.

Results: Identification of needed vaccine by the JHW was poor as determined by LQAS technique. Vaccination status of children and vaccine recommendation for sick children was poor. Care of vaccine was good except for contamination during loading. Vaccination technique practiced by female JHW of Davangere taluk was poor. EPI education given to mother had failed in many places by LQAS. Maintenance of cold chain and supply of vaccine was good. Knowledge about immunization process among service providers was 100% about all vaccine.

Conclusion: The quality of immunization sessions were not up to the mark.

Keywords

Quality assessment, Immunization, under five years, Primary health care

Introduction
The Universal Immunization Programme was started in India in 1985, with an efficient coverage as one of its vital objectives. In a large country like India, the coverage and quality is area specific. Also, there are various reasons for the quality of the immunization and the immunization failure in India (1).

The quality of health care has been defined (WHO 1988) as ‚ÄúProp¬¨er performance (according to standards) of interventions that we know to be safe, that are affordable to the society and that have the ability to produce an impact on the mortality, morbidity, dis¬¨ability and malnutrition in humans‚ÄĚ(2).

Quality assessment is important to determine whether the pri¬¨mary health care service is provided according to the established norms. Although the immunization coverage has increased, the quality of the immunization programme is still questionable. The Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) is a sampling method in which a ‚Äúlot‚ÄĚ is the sampling unit. One lot may have more ob¬¨servations, but the sampling units are used to assess the quality of the service and the immunization coverage. LQAS methods have been adapted in various settings from industries to primary health care, for which only a small sample size is required. The methods can differentiate between whether or not the perfor¬¨mance targets have been met (2).

So, this study was conducted to assess the quality of the docu¬mentation of immunization and health education to the mother during the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI). The quality of the maintenance of the cold chain (the process which maintains the potency of the vaccine under the required tempera¬ture from the manufacturing unit to the area where the immuniza¬tion is conducted) was also assessed.

Material and Methods

This cross sectional study, after getting its approval from the eth¬¨ics committee of J.J.M. Medical College, was conducted on the female junior health workers (JHWs) who were selected by using LQAS, from the Davangere Taluk of south India, which was similar to any low to medium literate and developed taluk of the country. LQAS is a sampling technique in which the sampling unit is called a ‚Äėlot‚Äô. We used the service provider as a single lot. This technique needs a predetermined maximum and a minimum level to select the sample size. The authors set 90% as the maximum and 65% as the minimum predestined level for the quality. By considering the above maximum and minimum percentages (the percentages were arbitrarily chosen, considering the overall state coverage range) and by using the LQAS (Table/Fig 3), the sample size was deter¬¨mined to be 16 lots. The lots sample size was determined by using the lots table on the predetermined maximum and minimum qual¬¨ity requirements. As there was one female JHW at every centre, 16 female JHWs from 16 centres were selected by using random numbers. The acceptable sample size was 13 and the allowed de¬¨fect was 3 according to the LQAS table.

To reduce the observational variance, a single observer who was unfamiliar and an external candidate were used, who visited all the 16 centres without any prior intimation. To decrease the bias which could occur due to a single observation (as this observation could be a wrong information on the activity of the health worker), at least 10 observations of the immunization (one observation was one child being immunized by one female JHW in a single immunization session of the centre) were made for one sample unit. The quality was considered as acceptable if 9 out of 10 observations were absolutely right in each lot.2,4 According to the rapid assessment checklist (Agha Khan Foundation)5, the questions were framed to focus on the service delivery by the service provider, the quality of the vaccines which were used (cold chain maintenance) and the EPI education which was given to the mother.3 For the EPI education, the questions were also assessed for their priority for e.g: The issue of the next vaccination session was given higher priority and the responsibility of the attending mothers in educating other mothers about the vaccination was given lower priority.

The identification of the needed vaccine included reviewing the health card and other health related data of the child, vaccination of the minor ill child and knowing the vaccination status of other children who were at home.

Statistical analysis
If the number of lots which were rejected were higher than the allowed defect, their quality was considered as poor and the lots were considered as failed. On the other hand, if the number of rejected lots were within the allowed defect, their quality was considered as good and the lots were passed as per the LQAS guidelines. The percentage was calculated by using 160 (i.e. 10 x 16) samples as a denominator with 10 observations and 16 lots.

Results

We reviewed 16 JHWs in the Davangere Taluk, from which we found that the identification of the needed vaccine was poor (Table/Fig 1). Almost all the immunization cards which were given to the mothers in the earlier sessions of the immunization were reviewed. But the enquiry on the vaccination status of other children in the house was poor (> 3 defect = fail). The vaccine recommendation for a sick child (a child with any illness who came to the health centre for treatment) was poor (> 3 defect= fail). (Only 9% of the sick children were vaccinated by the health workers)

The overall care of the vaccine was of good quality according to the LQAS, as the Vaccine Vial Monitor (VVM) check, the correct label check and the ice coverage during the session were adequate. The loading of the vaccine without contamination (We considered it as a contamination when either the needle or the syringe weren’t changed for a new child’s vaccination.) was poor (> 3 had failed to do so). 100% of them maintained a cold chain at the level of the vaccine delivery. 81.25% of the female JHWs checked the VVM and the label, but only 68% of them loaded the vaccine without contamination (Table/Fig 2). [Table/ Fig 3] gives information about the EPI education in which the importance of completing the vac¬cine, encouraging the mothers to educate others in society, ex¬plaining the side effects to the mothers and verifying whether the message reached the mothers failed according to the LQAS (>3 defect) (Table/Fig 3). But the stress on the measles vaccination at 9 months and the education on the next vaccination session for the child was good (Table/Fig 3). 100% of the service providers gave information about the next vaccination session and 81% stressed on the measles vaccination. 75% explained the side effects, 56% gave information on the completion of the immunization and 69% verified the mother’s knowledge. Also, 50% encouraged the moth¬er to educate others. The documentation was good. This was con¬cluded after checking the health workers records and the repeat vaccinations on the child’s card. We could see that 87.5% of the health workers had done it perfectly right, whereas the rest had not recorded the vaccination on the child’s card. When the moth¬ers/care takers were interviewed at the exit, 100% of them cor¬rectly recalled the days of the vaccination and of the next return for the immunization, but they were not clear of the side effects and they lacked motivation for enhancing the programme by the next visit and to get other children in their neighbourhood for the vaccination.

The maintenance of a cold chain and the supply was good (Table/Fig 4). The refrigerators were working, there was a temperature log and the cold chain monitor and the vaccine sufficiency was good. The female JHW failed to record the temperature regularly during her local schedule (>3 defect).

The knowledge of the workers was very good, as was assessed by a direct interview with key questions after the immunization session and also the supply was prompt and adequate. Despite the 100% knowledge of the service providers (Table/Fig 5), the proper iden¬tification of the needed vaccine and some vaccination techniques failed (Table/Fig 1) & (Table/Fig 2).

Discussion

This study revealed the poor quality in the identification (the health workers did not pay attention to the card review for the status of other vaccinations and to the status of the vaccina¬tion of other children in the same house) and in the vaccination of sick children, as was seen in earlier studies too, (6),(7). In an earlier study, 32% people were unaware of the need for a vac¬cine, which was identical to that which was seen in our study (6). In a study which was conducted by the National Health and Family Welfare, only 18% sick children were vaccinated, while in our study, relatively more sick children were vaccinated. The use of a sterile syringe failed, which was seen even in earlier studies, as only 50% of the health workers used sterile syringes (6). This is not be a problem today and it will not be in the future also, as there is supply of auto disposable syringes and needles for vac¬cination now-a-days.

The NHFS (National Health and family Survey which was con¬ducted by government of India) and a study on the review of the immunization programme said that 33% had a fear of side effects, which is similar to that which was seen in our study. The NHFS study (6) also stated that 32% of the parents/guardians did not bring the children because they were ill. But the EPI education on immunization was good in our study and it was poor in the earlier studies (6),(7). It was very evident that none of the service 830providers had concentrated much on the EPI education though it seemed that the status was much better than in earlier studies, nor on the quality of the service, as everyone carried out the service as a part of their work. In an earlier study (8), the mothers did not know how many vaccinations their children had to receive or by what age they had to complete them, which was much improved in our study population. The JHW(F) had been on improvement as compared to earlier reports (6),(7). The poor performance in the quality was also dependent on the workload of the JHWs(F). Each worker had to vaccinate around 25-30 children in 2-3 hours. The knowledge of the workers was very good and also the supply was prompt and adequate, which could improve the quality in future. In our study, as the service provider was observed and as there was an evident presence of someone during the service provision, so the quality might have been spuriously improved, which was a limitation of our study. Similarly, the mothers’ knowledge during their exit interview may have been high, as they were interviewed within a short span of time and also within the campus of the service provider. But the strength of this study was that it was one of the studies which concentrated not on the estimate of the coverage, but on the quality of the service in immunization. This study concentrated on the EPI education of the mothers and also on the mothers’ knowledge on vaccination. It was also a study on the quality of the service, which was done by using the LQAS method. In addition, the LQAS method gives only a rough estimate; therefore, further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Conclusion

Overall, the quality of the service was not bad, but there existed some areas which needed more attention, such as contaminated loading, unsterile syringes, and a deficient knowledge on the EPI education. The health workers failed to keep up their standards in these works.

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the contributions of all the Health workers and district authorities of Davangere. Also we thank the department of Commun ity Medicine, J.J.M.Medical college for all the help

References

1.
Bhattacharjee J, Singh J, Sharma RS. Reasons for the immunization failure in infants in north India. Indian Journal of Community Medicine 1999; 27(4) .
2.
Roeman MI, Montoya C. Quality assessment and assurance in primary health care. WHO Publication 1998; 105.
3.
Tanfif T, Hoque S, Siddiqui M. Using Lot Quality Assurance Sampling to improve the immunization coverage in Bangladesh. Bulletin of WHO 2001;79(6):501-05.
4.
Baseline surveys and regular monitoring by using Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) ‚ÄďA manual for the participants and teachers for baseline surveys and regular monitoring by using LQAS for assessing the field programs in community health. NGO Networks for health, December 2001 available in http://ceecis.org/iodine/10_monitoring/06_guidelines_lqas/10_lqas_1.pdf.
5.
Sharples J. Assessing the quality of the service. Module 6, Aga Khan foundation, Geneva, 1993.
6.
Govt of India. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-2) Key findings. 2005.
7.
Cutts FT, Glik DC, Gordon A, Parker K, Diallo S, Haba F, et al. Application of multiple methods to study the immunization programme in an urban area of Guinea. Bull World Health Organ. 1990; 68(6):769-76.
8.
Wang YY, Wang Y, Zhang JX, Kang CY, Duan P. Status of the mother’s KAP on child immunization in minority areas like the Guizhou Province. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 2007 Apr 18; 39(2):136-9.

DOI and Others

ID: JCDR/2012/4025:2246

Date of Submission: Nov 03, 2011
Date of peer review: Jan 07, 2011
Date of acceptance: Jan 23, 2012
Date of Publishing: Jun 22, 2012

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com