Douglas J Opel1, James A Taylor, Chuan Zhou, Sheryl Catz, Mon Myaing, Rita Mangione-Smith. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle2Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Acceptance of childhood vaccinations is waning, amplifying interest in developing and testing interventions that address parental barriers to immunization acceptance. OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive validity and test-retest reliability of the Parent Attitudes About Childhood Vaccines survey (PACV), a recently developed measure of vaccine hesitancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort of English-speaking parents of children aged 2 months and born from July 10 through December 10, 2010, who belonged to an integrated health care delivery system based in Seattle and who returned a completed baseline PACV. Parents who completed a follow-up survey 8 weeks later were included in the reliability analysis. Parents who remained continuous members in the delivery system until their child was 19 months old were included in the validity analysis. EXPOSURE: The PACV, scored on a scale of 0 to 100 (100 indicates high vaccine hesitancy). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Child's immunization status as measured by the percentage of days underimmunized from birth to 19 months of age. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-seven parents completed the baseline PACV (response rate, 50.5%), and 220 (66.5%) completed the follow-up survey. Of the 437 parents who completed a baseline survey, 310 (70.9%) maintained continuous enrollment. Compared with parents who scored less than 50, parents who scored 50 to 69 on the survey had children who were underimmunized for 8.3% (95% CI, 3.6%-12.8%) more days from birth to 19 months of age; those who scored 70 to 100, 46.8% (40.3%-53.3%) more days. Baseline and 8-week follow-up PACV scores were highly concordant (ρ = 0.844). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Scores on the PACV predict childhood immunization status and have high reliability. Our results should be validated in different geographic and demographic samples of parents.
IMPORTANCE: Acceptance of childhood vaccinations is waning, amplifying interest in developing and testing interventions that address parental barriers to immunization acceptance. OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive validity and test-retest reliability of the Parent Attitudes About Childhood Vaccines survey (PACV), a recently developed measure of vaccine hesitancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort of English-speaking parents of children aged 2 months and born from July 10 through December 10, 2010, who belonged to an integrated health care delivery system based in Seattle and who returned a completed baseline PACV. Parents who completed a follow-up survey 8 weeks later were included in the reliability analysis. Parents who remained continuous members in the delivery system until their child was 19 months old were included in the validity analysis. EXPOSURE: The PACV, scored on a scale of 0 to 100 (100 indicates high vaccine hesitancy). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Child's immunization status as measured by the percentage of days underimmunized from birth to 19 months of age. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-seven parents completed the baseline PACV (response rate, 50.5%), and 220 (66.5%) completed the follow-up survey. Of the 437 parents who completed a baseline survey, 310 (70.9%) maintained continuous enrollment. Compared with parents who scored less than 50, parents who scored 50 to 69 on the survey had children who were underimmunized for 8.3% (95% CI, 3.6%-12.8%) more days from birth to 19 months of age; those who scored 70 to 100, 46.8% (40.3%-53.3%) more days. Baseline and 8-week follow-up PACV scores were highly concordant (ρ = 0.844). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Scores on the PACV predict childhood immunization status and have high reliability. Our results should be validated in different geographic and demographic samples of parents.
Authors: Radmila Prislin; Mark H Sawyer; Philip R Nader; Maureen Goerlitz; Michelle De Guire; Sandy Ho Journal: Prev Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Elizabeth T Luman; Lawrence E Barker; Kate M Shaw; Mary Mason McCauley; James W Buehler; Larry K Pickering Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paula M Frew; Raphiel Murden; C Christina Mehta; Allison T Chamberlain; Alan R Hinman; Glen Nowak; Judith Mendel; Ann Aikin; Laura A Randall; Allison L Hargreaves; Saad B Omer; Walter A Orenstein; Robert A Bednarczyk Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Salini Mohanty; Caroline M Joyce; Paul L Delamater; Nicola P Klein; Daniel Salmon; Saad B Omer; Alison M Buttenheim Journal: Vaccine Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Tammy A Santibanez; Kimberly H Nguyen; Stacie M Greby; Allison Fisher; Paul Scanlon; Achal Bhatt; Anup Srivastav; James A Singleton Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Gretchen J Domek; Sean T O'Leary; Sheana Bull; Michael Bronsert; Ingrid L Contreras-Roldan; Guillermo Antonio Bolaños Ventura; Allison Kempe; Edwin J Asturias Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Rachel M Cunningham; G Brady Kerr; Jessica Orobio; Flor M Munoz; Armando Correa; Natalie Villafranco; Ana C Monterrey; Douglas J Opel; Julie A Boom Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Leila C Sahni; Julie A Boom; Sarah S Mire; Leandra N Berry; Lauren R Dowell; Charles G Minard; Rachel M Cunningham; Robin P Goin-Kochel Journal: Child Health Care Date: 2020-03-17
Authors: Aaron S Wallace; Kathleen Wannemuehler; George Bonsu; Melissa Wardle; Mawuli Nyaku; Kwame Amponsah-Achiano; John F Dadzie; Frederick O Sarpong; Walter A Orenstein; Eli S Rosenberg; Saad B Omer Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 3.641