The use of mass campaigns in the expanded program on immunization: A review of reported advantages and disadvantages

The use of mass immunization campaigns (MICs) has been and remains controversial. To evaluate these campaigns, the authors review the literature relating to their effectiveness, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness in controlling diseases and raising immunization coverage levels, and their impact on the subsequent development of routine immunization services. Well-conducted campaigns have increased vaccine coverage levels and decreased disease morbidity and mortality. Their use in the Americas has been associated with the apparent elimination of poliomyelitis. However, unless health care infrastructure is improved, or campaigns are repeated, gains in coverage levels may not be sustained. Studies suggest that MICs are often not as cost-effective for raising coverage as the delivery of vaccines through routine services, but the use of coverage as the only outcome measure is questionable. Mass immunization campaigns can increase awareness of vaccination and may be appropriate in situations where new programs are to be initiated, in refugee situations where people congregate into areas with little infrastructure, and in disease eradication efforts when specific time goals are set. Little information is available on whether MICs strengthen or interfere with the development of routine services. To be successful, MICs require a well-coordinated and planned effort on the part of national authorities with the identification of specific goals, intensive social promotion, and strong management. In addition, research is needed to clarify how MICs should be evaluated.