4.0 Article

New opportunity for vaccinating older people: Well-child clinic visits

期刊

PEDIATRICS INTERNATIONAL
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 45-51

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-200X.2011.03474.x

关键词

23-valent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine; older people; vaccination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Streptococcus pneumoniae causes considerable morbidity and mortality in the elderly. As aging of the population is making the health of the elderly a universal priority, preventive measures, such as vaccination, will become increasingly important. Methods: We designed a prospective interventional study to determine whether recommendations to vaccinate grandparents of children attending well-child clinics would increase the pneumococcal vaccination rate in the elderly. Children younger than 5 years of age, attending a university well-child clinic from 1 May to 31 September 2008 who had grandparents over 65 years of age were eligible. A survey including the questions about the demographic characteristics of children, their parents and grandparents over 65 was carried out by face-to-face interview with the parents. High-risk medical conditions and vaccination history of grandparents was also noted and the benefits and necessity of pneumococcal vaccination (23vPPV) for the elderly was emphasized. Four months later these families were contacted to determine whether this intervention had increased the pneumococcal vaccination rates of the elderly. Results: Information was obtained from 938 grandparents of 545 children. Before the interview, among all grandparents, only 0.9% were vaccinated with 23vPPV. Four months after this intervention, immunization coverage increased to 19.1%. The sex of the grandchild (OR: 1.99) and previous hepatitis B or influenza immunization of the grandparents (OR: 2.73) were the significant parameters accounting for higher immunization rates. Conclusion: Reminding elderly grandparents about vaccines in well-child clinics could be an opportunity in this field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据