4.4 Article

Risk factors for delay in age-appropriate vaccination

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS
Volume 119, Issue 2, Pages 144-155

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1177/003335490411900207

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To estimate the risk factors of children experiencing delay in age-appropriate vaccination using a nationally representative population of children, and to compare risk factors for vaccination delay with those based on up-to-date vaccination status models. Methods. The authors compared predictors of delay in age-appropriate vaccination with those for children who were not up-to-date, using a nationally representative sample of children from five years of pooled data (1992-1996) from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Immunization Supplement. Duration of delay was calculated for the DTP4, Polio3, MMR1 doses and 4:11 series using age-appropriate vaccination standards; up-to-date status (i.e., whether or not a dose was received) was also determined. Adjusted odds ratios were estimated using multivariate logistic regression for models of vaccination delay and up-to-date vaccination status. Results. Absence of a two-parent household, large family size, parental education, Medicaid enrollment, absence of a usual provider, no insurance coverage, and households without a telephone were significantly related to increased odds of a child experiencing vaccination delay (pless than or equal to0.05). Conclusions. Many of the risk factors observed in models of vaccination delay were not found to be significant in risk models based upon up-to-date status. Consequently, risk models of delays in age-appropriate vaccination may foster identification of children at increased risk for inadequate vaccination. Populations at increased risk of inadequate vaccination can be more clearly identified through risk models of delays in age-appropriate vaccination.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available