4.5 Article

Timeliness of vaccination in infants followed by primary-care pediatricians in France

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 1018-1023

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2017.1409318

关键词

children; immunization delay; pediatricians; timeliness; vaccine

资金

  1. Guigoz
  2. Biocodex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vaccination status is more often evaluated by up-to-date vaccination coverage rather than timeliness of immunization. Delaying vaccination may be dangerous during infancy. The aim of this study was to identify the importance of potentially dangerous vaccination delay (previously defined) and determinants of these delays. We conducted a national, prospective, vaccination survey in June 2014, with primary care pediatricians. Children, 2 to 24 months of age, were included. Data about vaccination were extracted from their health books. Additional data were collected through a standardized questionnaire. Vaccine coverage rate and timeliness were calculated. Variables associated with a potentially dangerous vaccination delay as previously defined were determined by a multivariable analysis. Among the 443 included children (mean age 10.8 months, 49% males), 13% to 58% of vaccine doses according to vaccine type were done with a potentially dangerous delay. Globally, 47% of children had at least one potentially dangerous immunization delay. We identified two risk factors of potentially dangerous delayed immunization globally: an increasing age of the child (adjusted odds ratio: 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-1.3, p < 10(-3)), and a working mother (adjusted OR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.2-4.7, p = 0.01). Despite a good vaccine coverage rate, a large number of children had a potentially dangerous vaccination delay. A high level of vigilance regarding these immunization delays, and particularly to the patients sharing the risk factors of immunization delay identified here, can increase quality and effectiveness of the vaccine protection.

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