{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033503277494537506, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012381646030589949, 'mean_word_length': 5.302752293577981, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of house-to-house versus fixed-site oral poliovirus vaccine delivery strategies in a mass immunization campaign in Egypt.

Among poliomyelitis eradication activities recommended by WHO are national immunization days. Most campaigns have delivered oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) from fixed sites, reaching 80-90% of target populations. Although house-to-house vaccination provides nearly universal coverage, countries have been reluctant to use this approach because it is considered more costly and logistically difficult. To quantify the cost-effectiveness of both these strategies, we compared the vaccine coverage and vaccination costs per child for house-to-house and fixed-site delivery (38% and 13% higher, respectively), the costs per child vaccinated were similar. This was due primarily to the high coverage levels achieved in house-to-house delivery (100% versus 86%) and the reduced vaccine wastage. Vaccinating children at highest risk of infection was only 25-50% as expensive on a per child basis using house-to-house delivery, since such children were less likely to visit fixed sites. These findings may not be generalizable to other countries where labour costs are higher and the population density lower; however, house-to-house delivery may prove to be the most cost-effective eradication strategy by ensuring universal access to immunization.