Rodrigo Jiménez-García1, Valentín Hernandez-Barrera2, Cristina Rodríguez-Rieiro3, Pilar Carrasco Garrido4, Ana López de Andres5, Isabel Jimenez-Trujillo6, María D Esteban-Vasallo7, Maria Felicitas Domínguez-Berjón8, Javier de Miguel-Diez9, Jenaro Astray-Mochales10. 1. Preventive Medicine and Public Health Department, Rey Juan Carlos University, Avda de Atenas s/n, Alcorcón, 28922 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: rodrigo.jimenez@urjc.es. 2. Preventive Medicine and Public Health Department, Rey Juan Carlos University, Avda de Atenas s/n, Alcorcón, 28922 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: valentin.hernandez@urjc.es. 3. Preventive Medicine and Public Health Department, Rey Juan Carlos University, Avda de Atenas s/n, Alcorcón, 28922 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: rodriguezrieiro@gmail.com. 4. Preventive Medicine and Public Health Department, Rey Juan Carlos University, Avda de Atenas s/n, Alcorcón, 28922 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: pilar.carrasco@urjc.es. 5. Preventive Medicine and Public Health Department, Rey Juan Carlos University, Avda de Atenas s/n, Alcorcón, 28922 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: ana.lopez@urjc.es. 6. Preventive Medicine and Public Health Department, Rey Juan Carlos University, Avda de Atenas s/n, Alcorcón, 28922 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: Isabel.jimenez@urjc.es. 7. Department of Epidemiology, Directorate of Health Promotion and Prevention, Ministry of Health, Community of Madrid, C/ Julián Camarillo, 4B, 28037 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: maria.estebanv@salud.madrid.org. 8. Department of Epidemiology, Directorate of Health Promotion and Prevention, Ministry of Health, Community of Madrid, C/ Julián Camarillo, 4B, 28037 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: felicitas.dominguez@salud.madrid.org. 9. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Gregorio Marañon Hospital, Calle Doctor Esquerdo, 46, 28007 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: javier.miguel@salud.madrid.org. 10. Department of Epidemiology, Directorate of Health Promotion and Prevention, Ministry of Health, Community of Madrid, C/ Julián Camarillo, 4B, 28037 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: jenaro.astray@salud.madrid.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aim to compare influenza vaccination coverages obtained using two different methods; a population based computerized vaccination registry and self-reported influenza vaccination status as captured by a population survey. METHODS: The study was conducted in the Autonomous Community of Madrid (ACM), Spain, and refers to the 2011/12 influenza vaccination campaign. Information on influenza vaccination status according to a computerized registry was extracted from the SISPAL database and crossed with the electronic clinical records in primary care (ECRPC). Self-reported vaccine uptake was obtained from subjects living in the ACM included in the 2011-12 Spanish National Health Survey (SNHS). Independent study variables included: age, sex, immigrant status and the presence of high risk chronic conditions. Vaccination coverages were calculated according to study variables. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios were computed to assess concordance. RESULTS: The study population included 5,245,238 adults living in the ACM in year 2011 with an individual ECRPC and 1449 adult living the ACM and interviewed in the SNHS from October 2011 to June 2012. The weighted vaccination coverage for the study population according to self-reported data was 19.77% and 15.04% from computerized registries resulting in a crude prevalence ratio (cPR) of 1.31 (95% CI 1.20-1.44) so self-reported data significantly overestimated 31% the registry coverage. Self-reported coverages are always higher than registry based coverages when the study population is stratified by the study variables. Self-reported overestimation was higher among men than women, younger age groups, immigrants and those without chronic conditions. Both methods provide the most concordant estimations for the target population of the influenza vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Self-report influenza vaccination uptake overestimates vaccination registries coverages. The validity of self-report seems to be negatively affected by socio-demographic variables and the absence of chronic conditions. Possible strategies must be considered and implemented to improve both coverage estimation methods.
OBJECTIVES: We aim to compare influenza vaccination coverages obtained using two different methods; a population based computerized vaccination registry and self-reported influenza vaccination status as captured by a population survey. METHODS: The study was conducted in the Autonomous Community of Madrid (ACM), Spain, and refers to the 2011/12 influenza vaccination campaign. Information on influenza vaccination status according to a computerized registry was extracted from the SISPAL database and crossed with the electronic clinical records in primary care (ECRPC). Self-reported vaccine uptake was obtained from subjects living in the ACM included in the 2011-12 Spanish National Health Survey (SNHS). Independent study variables included: age, sex, immigrant status and the presence of high risk chronic conditions. Vaccination coverages were calculated according to study variables. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios were computed to assess concordance. RESULTS: The study population included 5,245,238 adults living in the ACM in year 2011 with an individual ECRPC and 1449 adult living the ACM and interviewed in the SNHS from October 2011 to June 2012. The weighted vaccination coverage for the study population according to self-reported data was 19.77% and 15.04% from computerized registries resulting in a crude prevalence ratio (cPR) of 1.31 (95% CI 1.20-1.44) so self-reported data significantly overestimated 31% the registry coverage. Self-reported coverages are always higher than registry based coverages when the study population is stratified by the study variables. Self-reported overestimation was higher among men than women, younger age groups, immigrants and those without chronic conditions. Both methods provide the most concordant estimations for the target population of the influenza vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Self-report influenza vaccination uptake overestimates vaccination registries coverages. The validity of self-report seems to be negatively affected by socio-demographic variables and the absence of chronic conditions. Possible strategies must be considered and implemented to improve both coverage estimation methods.
Authors: Jill M Ferdinands; Manjusha Gaglani; Emily T Martin; Don Middleton; Arnold S Monto; Kempapura Murthy; Fernanda P Silveira; H Keipp Talbot; Richard Zimmerman; Elif Alyanak; Courtney Strickland; Sarah Spencer; Alicia M Fry Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Carmen S Arriola; Nancy Vasconez; Mark Thompson; Sara Mirza; Ann C Moen; Joseph Bresee; Ivy Talavera; Alba María Ropero Journal: Vaccine Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Mary Patricia Nowalk; Helen Eleni Aslanidou D'Agostino; Richard K Zimmerman; Sean G Saul; Michael Susick; Jonathan M Raviotta; Theresa M Sax; G K Balasubramani Journal: Vaccine Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Kimberly N Weaver; Michael D Kappelman; Robert S Sandler; Christopher F Martin; Wenli Chen; Kristen Anton; Millie D Long Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Annette K Regan; Donna B Mak; Hannah C Moore; Lauren Tracey; Richard Saker; Catherine Jones; Paul V Effler Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Ivo M Foppa; Jill M Ferdinands; Sandra S Chaves; Michael J Haber; Sue B Reynolds; Brendan Flannery; Alicia M Fry Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 7.196