| Literature DB >> 21320348 |
Wilhelmina L M Ruijs1, Jeannine L A Hautvast, Koos van der Velden, Sjoerd de Vos, Hans Knippenberg, Marlies E J L Hulscher.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Netherlands has experienced epidemics of vaccine preventable diseases largely confined to the Bible belt, an area where -among others- orthodox protestant groups are living. Lacking information on the vaccination coverage in this minority, and its various subgroups, control of vaccine preventable diseases is focused on the geographical area of the Bible belt. However, the adequacy of this strategy is questionable. This study assesses the influence of presence of various orthodox protestant subgroups (orthodox protestant denominations, OPDs) on municipal vaccination coverage in the Bible belt.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21320348 PMCID: PMC3048528 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Orthodox protestant denominations on national level in the Netherlands
| Denomination | Datasource | Members | Living in municipalities |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restored Reformed Church | Central | 52690 | 6870 (13%) |
| Reformed Congregations | Church | 103272 | 27258 (26%) |
| Reformed Congregations | Church | 24405 | 3483 (14%) |
| Old Reformed Congregations** | Central | 21192 | 5647 (27%) |
| Christian Reformed Churches*** | Church | 17547 | 6183 (35%) |
| Total | 219106 | 49441 (23%) | |
*including Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands, not synodally related (buiten verband)
**including Free Old Reformed Congregations (Vrije Oud Gereformeerde Gemeenten)
***orthodox protestant subgroup, not including evangelical or intermediate subgroups
Characterization of the municipalities and geographical entities, including vaccination coverage
| Municipality or | N | Mean % OPD | Vaccination coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Without OPD | 297 | - | 96.9 (2.1) |
| With ≥ 1 OPD | 135 | 4.9 (7.3) | 93.5 (4.7) |
| 1 OPD | 60 | 1.4 (2.3) | 96.0 (1.6) |
| 2 OPDs | 31 | 4.6 (7.1) | 94.3 (3.5) |
| 3 OPDs | 22 | 8.7 (8.1) | 91.9 (5.5) |
| 4 OPDs | 18 | 8.9 (6.7) | 89.4 (5.1) |
| 5 OPDs | 4 | 20.6 (15.5) | 82.4 (8.6) |
* % OPD members = total number of members of all OPDs in the municipality combined, proportional to the population of the municipality
Figure 1Number of OPDs per municipality or geographical entity
Influence of OPD membership ratios on municipal vaccination coverage
| N = 135 municipalities or geographical | N = 128 municipalities or geographical | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | p | b | t | p | r | p | b | t | p | |
| Constant | 97.15 | 313.20 | <0.001 | 97.00 | 296.91 | <0.001 | ||||
| % Restored Reformed Church* | -0.45 | <0.001 | -0.37 | -7.32 | <0.001 | -0.46 | <0.001 | -0.43 | -4.97 | <0.001 |
| % Reformed Congregations* | -0.63 | <0.001 | -0.49 | -10.85 | <0.001 | -0.65 | <0.001 | -0.41 | -6.78 | <0.001 |
| % Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands* | -0.66 | <0.001 | -1.57 | -9.17 | <0.001 | -0.61 | <0.001 | -1.70 | -6.27 | <0.001 |
| % Old Reformed Congregations* | -0.65 | <0.001 | -1.22 | -6.83 | <0.001 | -0.61 | <0.001 | -1.37 | -5.86 | <0.001 |
| % Christian Reformed Churches* | -0.38 | <0.001 | -0.36 | -4.00 | <0.001 | -0.14 | ns# | |||
| % Nonwestern immigrants** | 0.23 | <0.001 | -0.07 | -2.54 | <0.05 | 0.17 | <0.05 | -0.06 | -2.22 | <0.05 |
| % With income support** | 0.22 | <0.05 | 0.18 | <0.05 | ||||||
| Level of urbanization*** | 0.28 | <0.001 | 0.24 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Explained variance | 85% | 73% | ||||||||
Results of bivariate correlation and multiple regression analysis, showing influence of OPD membership ratios, immigration, socio-economical status and urbanization on vaccination coverage (in municipalities and geographical entities with OPDs, and leaving out outliers)
* % OPD = membership ratio of OPD = percentage of municipal population that is member of the named orthodox protestant denomination
** % = percentage of municipal population consisting of non western immigrants respectively percentage of municipal population with income support
*** dichotomized variable: rural = 0, urban = 1
# ns = not significant
Influence of votes for SGP on municipal vaccination coverage
| N = 135 municipalities or geographical | N = 128 municipalities or geographical | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | p | b | t | p | r | p | b | t | p | |
| Constant | 96.25 | 212.55 | <0.001 | 95.81 | 336.14 | <0.001 | ||||
| Votes for SGP* | -0.66 | <0.001 | -6.40 | -9.42 | <0.001 | -0.66 | <0.001 | -5.24 | -9.75 | <0.001 |
| % Non western immigrants** | 0.23 | <0.001 | 0.17 | <0.05 | ||||||
| % With income support** | 0.22 | <0.05 | 0.18 | <0.05 | ||||||
| Level of urbanization*** | 0.28 | <0.001 | 1.54 | 1.69 | 0.094 | 0.24 | <0.001 | |||
| Explained variance | 45% | 43% | ||||||||
Results of bivariate correlation and multiple regression analysis, showing influence of votes for SGP, immigration, socio-economical status and urbanization on vaccination coverage (in municipalities and geographical entities with OPDs, and leaving out outliers)
* dichotomized variable: < 5% votes for SGP = 0, >5% votes for SGP = 1
** % = percentage of municipal population consisting of non western immigrants respectively percentage of municipal population with income support
*** dichotomized variable: rural = 0, urban = 1