4.6 Article

Timeliness Vaccination of Measles Containing Vaccine and Barriers to Vaccination among Migrant Children in East China

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 8, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073264

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. United Nations Children's Fund China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The reported coverage rates of first and second doses of measles containing vaccine (MCV) are almost 95% in China, while measles cases are constantly being reported. This study evaluated the vaccine coverage, timeliness, and barriers to immunization of MCV1 and MCV2 in children aged from 8-48 months. Methods: We assessed 718 children aged 8-48 months, of which 499 children aged 18-48 months in September 2011. Face to face interviews were administered with children's mothers to estimate MCV1 and MCV2 coverage rate, its timeliness and barriers to vaccine uptake. Results: The coverage rates were 76.9% for MCV1 and 44.7% for MCV2 in average. Only 47.5% of surveyed children received the MCV1 timely, which postpone vaccination by up to one month beyond the stipulated age of 8 months. Even if coverage thus improves with time, postponed vaccination adds to the pool of unprotected children in the population. Being unaware of the necessity for vaccination and its schedule, misunderstanding of side-effect of vaccine, and child being sick during the recommended vaccination period were significant preventive factors for both MCV1 and MCV2 vaccination. Having multiple children, mother's education level, household income and children with working mothers were significantly associated with delayed or missing MCV1 immunization. Conclusions: To avoid future outbreaks, it is crucial to attain high coverage levels by timely vaccination, thus, accurate information should be delivered and a systematic approach should be targeted to high-risk groups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available