Background Poor access to immunisation services remains a major barrier to achieving equity and expanding vaccination coverage in many sub-Saharan African countries. In Kenya, the extent to which spatial access affects immunisation coverage is not well understood. The aim of this study was to quantify spatial accessibility to immunising health facilities and determine its influence on immunisation uptake in Kenya while controlling for potential confounders. Methods Spatial databases of immunising facilities, road network, land use and elevation were used within a cost friction algorithim to estimate the travel time to immunising health facilities. Two travel scenarios were evaluated; (1) Walking only and (2) Optimistic scenario combining walking and motorized transport. Mean travel time to health facilities and proportions of the total population living within 1-h to the nearest immunising health facility were computed. Data from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (KDHS 2014), was used to estimate the effect of mean travel time at survey cluster units for both fully immunised status and third dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DPT3) vaccine using multi-level logistic regression models. Results Nationally, the mean travel time to immunising health facilities was 63 and 40 min using the walking and the optimistic travel scenarios respectively. Seventy five percent of the total population were within one-hour of walking to an immunising health facility while 93% were within one-hour considering the optimistic scenario. There were substantial variations across the country with 62%(29/47) and 34%(16/47) of the counties with < 90% of the population within one-hour from an immunising health facility using scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. Travel times > 1-h were significantly associated with low immunisation coverage in the univariate analysis for both fully immunised status and DPT3 vaccine. Children living more than 2-h were significantly less likely to be fully immunised [AOR:0.56(0.33–0.94) and receive DPT3 [AOR:0.51(0.21–0.92) after controlling for household wealth, mother’s highest education level, parity and urban/rural residence. Conclusion Travel time to immunising health facilities is a barrier to uptake of childhood vaccines in regions with suboptimal accessibility (> 2-h). Strategies that address access barriers in the hardest to reach communities are needed to enhance equitable access to immunisation services in Kenya.

BackgroundResponse to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for precision public health reflecting our improved understanding of who is the most vulnerable and their geographical location. We created three vulnerability indices to identify areas and people who require greater support while elucidating health inequities to inform emergency response in Kenya.MethodsGeospatial indicators were assembled to create three vulnerability indices; Social VulnerabilityIndex (SVI), Epidemiological Vulnerability Index (EVI) and a composite of the two, that is, Social Epidemiological Vulnerability Index (SEVI) resolved at 295 subcounties in Kenya. SVI included 19 indicators that affect the spread of disease; socioeconomic deprivation, access to services and population dynamics, whereas EVI comprised 5 indicators describing comorbidities associated with COVID-19 severe disease progression. The indicators were scaled to a common measurement scale, spatially overlaid via arithmetic mean and equally weighted. The indices were classified into seven classes, 1–2 denoted low vulnerability and 6–7, high vulnerability. The population within vulnerabilities classes was quantified.ResultsThe spatial variation of each index was heterogeneous across Kenya. Forty-nine northwestern and partly eastern subcounties (6.9 million people) were highly vulnerable, whereas 58 subcounties (9.7 million people) in western and central Kenya were the least vulnerable for SVI. For EVI, 48 subcounties (7.2 million people) in central and the adjacent areas and 81 subcounties (13.2 million people) in northern Kenya were the most and least vulnerable, respectively. Overall (SEVI), 46 subcounties (7.0 million people) around central and southeastern were more vulnerable, whereas 81 subcounties (14.4 million people) were least vulnerable.ConclusionThe vulnerability indices created are tools relevant to the county, national government and stakeholders for prioritisation and improved planning. The heterogeneous nature of the vulnerability indices underpins the need for targeted and prioritised actions based on the needs across the subcounties.

BackgroundDespite significant declines in under five mortality (U5M) over the last 3 decades, Kenya did not achieve Millennium Development Goal 4 (MDG 4) by 2015. To better understand trends and inequalities in child mortality, analysis of U5M variation at subnational decision making units is required. Here the comprehensive compilation and analysis of birth history data was used to understand spatio-temporal variation, inequalities and progress towards achieving the reductions targets of U5M between 1965 and 2013 and projected to 2015 at decentralized health planning units (counties) in Kenya.MethodsTen household surveys and three censuses with data on birth histories undertaken between 1989 and 2014 were assembled. The birth histories were allocated to the respective counties and demographic methods applied to estimate U5M per county by survey. To generate a single U5M estimate for year and county, a Bayesian spatio-temporal Gaussian process regression was fitted accounting for variation in sample size, surveys and demographic methods. Inequalities and the progress in meeting the goals set to reduce U5M were evaluated subnationally.ResultsNationally, U5M reduced by 61·6%, from 141·7 (121·6–164·0) in 1965 to 54·5 (44·6–65·5) in 2013. The declining U5M was uneven ranging between 19 and 80% across the counties with some years when rates increased. By 2000, 25 counties had achieved the World Summit for Children goals. However, as of 2015, no county had achieved MDG 4. There was a striking decline in the levels of inequality between counties over time, however, disparities persist. By 2013 there persists a 3·8 times difference between predicted U5M rates when comparing counties with the highest U5M rates against those with the lowest U5M rates.ConclusionKenya has made huge progress in child survival since independence. However, U5M remains high and heterogeneous with substantial differences between counties. Better use of the current resources through focused allocation is required to achieve further reductions, reduce inequalities and increase the likelihood of achieving Sustainable Development Goal 3·2 on U5M by 2030.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6474-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: The spatial variation in antenatal care (ANC) utilisation is likely associated with disparities observed in maternal and neonatal deaths. Most maternal deaths are preventable through services offered during ANC; however, estimates of ANC coverage at lower decision-making units (sub-county) is mostly lacking. In this study, we aimed to estimate the coverage of at least four ANC (ANC4) visits at the sub-county level using the 2014 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS 2014) and identify factors associated with ANC utilisation in Kenya. Methods: Data from the KDHS 2014 was used to compute sub-county estimates of ANC4 using small area estimation (SAE) techniques which relied on spatial relatedness to yield precise and reliable estimates at each of the 295 sub-counties. Hierarchical mixed-effect logistic regression was used to identify factors influencing ANC4 utilisation. Sub-county estimates of factors significantly associated with ANC utilisation were produced using SAE techniques and mapped to visualise disparities. Results: The coverage of ANC4 across sub-counties was heterogeneous, ranging from a low of 17% in Mandera West sub-county to over 77% in Nakuru Town West and Ruiru sub-counties. Thirty-one per cent of the 295 subcounties had coverage of less than 50%. Maternal education, household wealth, place of delivery, marital status, age at first marriage, and birth order were all associated with ANC utilisation. The areas with low ANC4 utilisation rates corresponded to areas of low socioeconomic status, fewer educated women and a small number of health facility deliveries. Conclusion: Suboptimal coverage of ANC4 and its heterogeneity at sub-county level calls for urgent, focused and localised approaches to improve access to antenatal care services. Policy formulation and resources allocation should rely on data-driven strategies to guide national and county governments achieve equity in access and utilisation of health interventions.

Background: Response to the COVID-19 pandemic calls for precision public health reflecting our improved understanding of who is the most vulnerable and their geographical location. We created three vulnerability indices to identify areas and people who require greater support while elucidating health inequities to inform emergency response in Kenya. Methods: Geospatial indicators were assembled to create three vulnerability indices; social (SVI), epidemiological (EVI) and a composite of the two (SEVI) resolved at 295 sub-counties in Kenya. SVI included nineteen indicators that affect the spread of disease; socio-economic inequities, access to services and population dynamics while EVI comprised five indicators describing comorbidities associated with COVID-19 severe disease progression. The indicators were scaled to a common measurement scale, spatially overlaid via arithmetic mean and equally weighted. The indices were classified into seven classes, 1-2 denoted low-vulnerability and 6-7 high-vulnerability. The population within vulnerabilities classes was quantified. Results: The spatial variation of each index was heterogeneous across Kenya. Forty-nine north-western and partly eastern sub-counties (6.9 m people) were highly vulnerable while 58 sub-counties (9.7 m people) in western and central Kenya were the least vulnerable for SVI. For EVI, 48 sub-counties (7.2 m people) in central and the adjacent areas and 81 sub-counties (13.2 m people) in northern Kenya were the most and least vulnerable respectively. Overall (SEVI), 46 sub-counties (7.0 m people) around central and south-eastern were more vulnerable while 81 sub-counties (14.4 m people) that were least vulnerable. Conclusion: The vulnerability indices created are tools relevant to the county, national government and stakeholders for prioritization and improved planning especially in highly vulnerable sub-counties where cases have not been confirmed. The heterogeneous nature of the vulnerability highlights the need to address social determinants of health disparities, strengthen the health system and establish programmes to cushion against the negative effects of the pandemic.