4.6 Article

Racial Disparities in Receipt of Influenza and Pneumococcus Vaccinations Among US Nursing-Home Residents

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 100, Issue -, Pages S256-S262

Publisher

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.173468

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [R01AG032264]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG032264] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. We examined racial disparities in receipt and documentation of influenza and pneumococcus vaccinations among nursing-home residents. Methods. We performed secondary analyses of data from a nationally representative survey of White (n=11448) and Black (n=1174) nursing-home residents in 2004. Bivariate and multivariate analyses determined racial disparities in receipt of influenza vaccination in 2003 and 2004, receipt of pneumococcus vaccination ever, and having a documented history for each vaccination. Results. The overall vaccination rate was 76.2% for influenza and 48.5% for pneumococcus infection. Compared with Whites, Blacks showed a 13% lower vaccination rate and a 5% higher undocumentation rate for influenza, and a 15% lower vaccination rate and a 7% higher undocumentation rate for pneumococcus. For influenza, the odds ratio (OR) for Blacks being unvaccinated was 1.84 (P <=.001), and the OR for Blacks having undocumented vaccination was 1.85 (P=.001). For pneumococcus infection, the OR for Blacks being unvaccinated was 1.70 (P <=.001), and the OR for Blacks having undocumented vaccination was 1.95 (P <=.001). Stratified analyses confirmed persistent racial disparities among subpopulations. Conclusions. Racial disparities exist in vaccination coverage among US nursing-home residents. Targeted interventions to improve vaccination coverage for minority nursing-home residents are warranted. (Am J Public Health. 2010;100:S256-S262. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.173468)

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