Charles R Beck1, Rachel Cloke, Éamonn O'Moore, Richard Puleston. 1. Clinical Sciences Building, Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the custodial hepatitis B vaccination programme performance and examine these data by geographical region and prison category. DESIGN: Retrospective ecological study. DATA SOURCE: Health Protection Agency (HPA) published data. SETTING: Custodial primary healthcare providers located in prisons across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 147 prisons which reported vaccination data between July 2003 and April 2010 to the HPA Prison Infection Prevention team. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hepatitis B vaccination coverage (July 2003 to April 2010) and uptake (December 2007 to April 2010). RESULTS: Median hepatitis B vaccination coverage was 22% (interquartile range [IQR] 5-49%) and uptake was 36% (IQR 16-59%). Vaccination coverage varied significantly between July 2003 and November 2007 compared to December 2007 and April 2010 (median 12% [IQR 2-31%] versus median 48% [IQR 26-67%], Mann-Whitney W=14,689,158.0, p<0.001). There was significant variation between vaccination coverage (Kruskal-Wallis H=613.44, DF=9, p<0.001) and uptake (Kruskal-Wallis H=247.99, DF=9, p<0.001) across the HPA regions. Compared to England and Wales, estimated population median vaccination coverage was significantly (p≤0.05) lower in three regions and one prison category and higher in four regions and seven prison categories; estimated population median vaccination uptake was significantly lower in three regions and three prison categories and higher in two regions and four prison categories. CONCLUSION: Prisoners are a vulnerable group with a high prevalence of hepatitis B infection and the custodial setting plays an important role in the delivery of hepatitis B vaccination to this hard to reach group. This study suggests that variation in hepatitis B vaccination coverage and uptake may exist by geographical region and prison category. Further research is required to confirm and identify possible explanations for our findings. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: To describe the custodial hepatitis B vaccination programme performance and examine these data by geographical region and prison category. DESIGN: Retrospective ecological study. DATA SOURCE: Health Protection Agency (HPA) published data. SETTING: Custodial primary healthcare providers located in prisons across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 147 prisons which reported vaccination data between July 2003 and April 2010 to the HPA Prison Infection Prevention team. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hepatitis B vaccination coverage (July 2003 to April 2010) and uptake (December 2007 to April 2010). RESULTS: Median hepatitis B vaccination coverage was 22% (interquartile range [IQR] 5-49%) and uptake was 36% (IQR 16-59%). Vaccination coverage varied significantly between July 2003 and November 2007 compared to December 2007 and April 2010 (median 12% [IQR 2-31%] versus median 48% [IQR 26-67%], Mann-Whitney W=14,689,158.0, p<0.001). There was significant variation between vaccination coverage (Kruskal-Wallis H=613.44, DF=9, p<0.001) and uptake (Kruskal-Wallis H=247.99, DF=9, p<0.001) across the HPA regions. Compared to England and Wales, estimated population median vaccination coverage was significantly (p≤0.05) lower in three regions and one prison category and higher in four regions and seven prison categories; estimated population median vaccination uptake was significantly lower in three regions and three prison categories and higher in two regions and four prison categories. CONCLUSION: Prisoners are a vulnerable group with a high prevalence of hepatitis B infection and the custodial setting plays an important role in the delivery of hepatitis B vaccination to this hard to reach group. This study suggests that variation in hepatitis B vaccination coverage and uptake may exist by geographical region and prison category. Further research is required to confirm and identify possible explanations for our findings. Copyright Â
Authors: Josiah D Rich; Curt G Beckwith; Alexandria Macmadu; Brandon D L Marshall; Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein; Joseph J Amon; M-J Milloy; Maximilian R F King; Jorge Sanchez; Lukoye Atwoli; Frederick L Altice Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rachid Rafia; Peter J Dodd; Alan Brennan; Petra S Meier; Vivian D Hope; Fortune Ncube; Sarah Byford; Hiong Tie; Nicola Metrebian; Jennifer Hellier; Tim Weaver; John Strang Journal: Addiction Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Nancy Vicente-Alcalde; Jose Tuells; Cecilia M Egoavil; Esther Ruescas-Escolano; Cesare Altavilla; Pablo Caballero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nancy Vicente-Alcalde; Esther Ruescas-Escolano; Zitta Barrella Harboe; José Tuells Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 3.390