4.5 Article

Potential impact of COVID-19 pandemic on vaccination coverage in children: A case study of measles-containing vaccine administration in the United States (US)

期刊

VACCINE
卷 39, 期 8, 页码 1201-1204

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.11.074

关键词

Measles vaccination coverage; Covid-19; Immunization impact

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The COVID-19 pandemic and stay-at-home orders have caused a significant decrease in routine vaccine administration. In the United States, sustained catch-up efforts of 15% outside stay-at-home orders may be necessary to achieve projected vaccination coverage similar to previous years. Permanent decreases in vaccine administration could lead to projected vaccination coverage levels below 80%. Modeling measles vaccination coverage under various scenarios provides useful information on the potential impact of under-immunization.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and stay-at-home orders have caused an unprecedented decrease in the administration of routinely recommended vaccines. However, the impact of this decrease on overall vaccination coverage in a specific birth cohort is not known. Methods: We projected measles vaccination coverage for the cohort of children becoming one year old in 2020 in the United States, for different durations of stay-at-home orders, along with varying catch-up vaccination efforts. Results: A 15% sustained catch-up rate outside stay-at-home orders (compared to what would be expected via natality information) may be necessary to achieve projected vaccination coverage similar to previous years. Permanent decreases in vaccine administration could lead to projected vaccination coverage levels below 80%. Conclusion: Modeling measles vaccination coverage under a range of scenarios provides useful information about the potential magnitude and impact of under-immunization. Sustained catch-up efforts are needed to assure that measles vaccination coverage remains high. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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