OBJECTIVE: We examined the timeliness of vaccine administration among children aged 24 to 35 months for each state of the United States and the District of Columbia. METHODS: We analyzed the timeliness of vaccinations in the 2000-2002 National Immunization Survey. We used a modified Bonferroni adjustment to compare a reference state with all other states. RESULTS: Receipt of all vaccinations as recommended ranged from 2% (Mississippi) to 26% (Massachusetts), with western states having less timeliness than eastern states. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination coverage measures usually focus on the number of vaccinations accumulated by specified ages. Our analysis of timeliness of administration shows that children rarely receive all vaccinations as recommended. State health departments can use timeliness of vaccinations along with other measures to determine children's susceptibility to vaccine-preventable diseases and to evaluate the quality of vaccination programs. States can use the modified Bonferroni comparison to appropriately compare their results with other states.
OBJECTIVE: We examined the timeliness of vaccine administration among children aged 24 to 35 months for each state of the United States and the District of Columbia. METHODS: We analyzed the timeliness of vaccinations in the 2000-2002 National Immunization Survey. We used a modified Bonferroni adjustment to compare a reference state with all other states. RESULTS: Receipt of all vaccinations as recommended ranged from 2% (Mississippi) to 26% (Massachusetts), with western states having less timeliness than eastern states. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination coverage measures usually focus on the number of vaccinations accumulated by specified ages. Our analysis of timeliness of administration shows that children rarely receive all vaccinations as recommended. State health departments can use timeliness of vaccinations along with other measures to determine children's susceptibility to vaccine-preventable diseases and to evaluate the quality of vaccination programs. States can use the modified Bonferroni comparison to appropriately compare their results with other states.
Authors: William L Atkinson; Larry K Pickering; Benjamin Schwartz; Bruce G Weniger; John K Iskander; John C Watson Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2002-02-08
Authors: P J Smith; M P Battaglia; V J Huggins; D C Hoaglin; A Rodén; M Khare; T M Ezzati-Rice; R A Wright Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lawrence E Barker; Philip J Smith; Robert B Gerzoff; Elizabeth T Luman; Mary M McCauley; Tara W Strine Journal: Stat Med Date: 2005-02-28 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Trung Dac Nguyen; Anh Duc Dang; Pierre Van Damme; Cuong Van Nguyen; Hong Thi Duong; Herman Goossens; Heidi Theeten; Elke Leuridan Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2015 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Natalia V Oster; Emily C Williams; Joseph M Unger; Polly A Newcomb; Elizabeth N Jacobson; M Patricia deHart; Janet A Englund; Annika M Hofstetter Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lynn A Blewett; Gestur Davidson; Matthew D Bramlett; Holly Rodin; Mark L Messonnier Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2008-06-03 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Ousseny Zerbo; Sharareh Modaressi; Kristin Goddard; Edwin Lewis; Bruce H Fireman; Matthew F Daley; Stephanie A Irving; Lisa A Jackson; James G Donahue; Lei Qian; Darios Getahun; Frank DeStefano; Michael M McNeil; Nicola P Klein Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 16.193