Implementation context and stakeholder perspectives on routine immunization data among lower-level private for-profit providers in an urban setting: experiences from Kampala, Uganda.

Background: Lower-level private for-profit health service providers form part of the pluralistic health systems delivering immunization services in urban areas of sub-Saharan Africa. However, their operational context is less documented since the conventional national Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) programmes tend to support delivery through public structures. Yet, private providers contribute greatly to immunization service coverage in urban settings. This paper explores the operational level context and stakeholders' perspectives regarding immunization data among lower-level private for-profit service providers in the city of Kampala, Uganda. The objective of this baseline assessment was to document the current implementation context of immunization data among urban lower-level private for-profit immunization service providers to inform implementation research to improve immunization data in Kampala, Uganda.

Methods: The study adopted an exploratory qualitative design where key informant interviews and in-depth interviews were conducted. Analysis was guided by the health systems building-block framework, which informed the design of the codebook with coding done in Atlas.ti, a qualitative data management software.

Results: Overall, private for-profit immunization service providers reflected a context consisting of both barriers and opportunities underlying immunization data management practices. The barriers identified included: high staff turnover; data overload and manipulation tendencies; a transient population that access immunization services from different service providers without data linkage systems; computation of catchment populations, which affects utilization coverage data; financial barriers to the collection of community-level data; and inadequate facilitation leading to lean human resources at EPI departments managing immunization data from private providers. Nonetheless, opportunities to improve immunization data included the ability to widen data coverage through their services, enhanced public-private-partnership through data sharing arrangements, linkage of urban data among providers, improved recording of urban surveillance data, additional human resource to record data, widened scope for capturing adverse events data, improved community data linkages, and transitioning from paper-based to electronic data capture.

Conclusions: Opportunities to improve urban immunization data management through private for-profit providers exist amidst numerous barriers. This calls for innovative strategies by the programme managers to design interventions with specific emphasis on addressing barriers inherent among urban lower-level private for-profit service providers if immunization data management among these entities is to be improved.