Search

Background: Understanding community preferences for vaccination services is crucial for improving coverage and satisfaction. There are three main approaches for COVID-19 vaccination in Indonesia: health facility-based, community-based, and outreach approaches. This study aims to assess how the vaccination approaches impact user satisfaction levels. Methods: This study was part of a large household survey involving 12,120 respondents across nine districts in Bali Province. The study population comprised all residents aged ≥12 years who had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination. Samples were selected through three stages of systematic random sampling. Data were collected through interviews using structured questionnaires, which included socio-demographic characteristics, vaccination services, and satisfaction levels. Analysis was performed using Chi Square test and logistic regression, with the entire process incorporating weighting factors. Results: A total of 12,120 respondents reported receiving their first dose of COVID-19 vaccination. The satisfaction level among vaccine recipients (partial, complete, and booster doses) was high (84.31%). Satisfaction within each SERVQUAL dimension was highest in tangibles (96.10%), followed by responsiveness (93.25%), empathy (92.48%), assurance (92.35%), and reliability (92.32%). There was no significant difference in the overall SERVQUAL score between the health facility and community-based approaches. However, the latter slightly improved user satisfaction across three dimensions: tangibles (adjusted odds ratio, AOR = 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.21–1.90), reliability (AOR = 1.67, 95%CI = 1.42–1.96), and assurance (AOR = 1.26, 95%CI = 1.07–1.48). Conclusion: During the pandemic, both health facility and community-based approaches resulted in a high satisfaction level. It is recommended that the government prioritise and optimise community-based programs and health facility-based delivery in future vaccination initiatives, especially during public health emergencies. Without effective treatments, with emerging variants and waning immunity, vaccination remains our primary defence against COVID-19. Maintaining high population immunity is crucial. Both health facility and community-based approaches to vaccination yielded high satisfaction during the pandemic. It is recommended that the government prioritise and optimise these programs for future vaccination initiatives, especially during public health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The incidence of Japanese Encephalitis (JE) in Bali Province remains high, and is one among the highest in Indonesia. The Indonesian Government initiated the JE vaccination campaign followed by a JE vaccine introduction program in Bali Province in 2018. The JE vaccination program then has been fully integrated into the provincial routine immunization program since 2019. We conducted a retrospective economic analysis of JE vaccination program in Bali Province, Indonesia; considering multiple vaccination strategies. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytic model comparing two vaccination strategies with no vaccination from the societal and government perspectives. These vaccination strategies were: (1) JE vaccination campaign and introduction program, and (2) a routine JE vaccination program. We compared costs and outcomes for three hypothetical cohorts of 100,000 children followed from birth to the age of 10 years, with impacts measured throughout the child's life-time. We measured the economic consequences as costs per case, per death, and per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. A routine JE immunization program was the most cost-effective strategy with a cost per DALYs averted of US$ 212.59 and US$ 94.09 from the government and societal perspectives respectively. In contrast, costs per DALYs averted through the JE vaccination campaign and introduction strategy was US$ 1,473.53 and US$ 1,224.20 from the government and societal perspectives respectively. Both JE vaccination strategies are cost-effective but they are not cost-saving when compared to no immunization program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]