Peng-Jun Lu1, Alissa O'Halloran2, Walter W Williams2, Rafael Harpaz3. 1. Immunization Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: plu@cdc.gov. 2. Immunization Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Shingles (herpes zoster) causes substantial morbidity, especially among older adults. The shingles vaccine has been recommended for people aged ≥60 years since 2006. This study assessed recent shingles vaccination at national and state levels among adults aged ≥60 years. METHODS: The 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data were analyzed in 2015 to assess shingles vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥60 years at national and state levels. Multivariable logistic regression and predictive marginal models identified factors independently associated with vaccination. RESULTS: Shingles vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥60 years was 31.8% (95% CI=31.4%, 32.2%). Among states, shingles vaccination coverage ranged from 17.8% (95% CI=15.8%, 20.0%) in Mississippi to 46.6% (95% CI=44.3%, 48.8%) in Vermont, with a median of 33.3%. Coverage was <25% in four states and >40% in nine states. For all states, coverage was significantly higher among non-Hispanic whites compared with non-white races except for Oregon, with coverage differences ranging from -33.2% in the District of Columbia to 0.9% in Oregon and a median of -16.0%. Characteristics independently associated with vaccination were age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, employment status, household income, region, perceived health status, health insurance status, personal healthcare provider, routine checkup status, and whether reporting that cost was a barrier to seeing a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage varied dramatically by state. State-level comparisons may aid in designing tailored intervention programs through sharing of best practices. Strategies are needed to mitigate financial barriers for both provider and patients, improve awareness, and increase provider recommendation of the vaccine. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Shingles (herpes zoster) causes substantial morbidity, especially among older adults. The shingles vaccine has been recommended for people aged ≥60 years since 2006. This study assessed recent shingles vaccination at national and state levels among adults aged ≥60 years. METHODS: The 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data were analyzed in 2015 to assess shingles vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥60 years at national and state levels. Multivariable logistic regression and predictive marginal models identified factors independently associated with vaccination. RESULTS: Shingles vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥60 years was 31.8% (95% CI=31.4%, 32.2%). Among states, shingles vaccination coverage ranged from 17.8% (95% CI=15.8%, 20.0%) in Mississippi to 46.6% (95% CI=44.3%, 48.8%) in Vermont, with a median of 33.3%. Coverage was <25% in four states and >40% in nine states. For all states, coverage was significantly higher among non-Hispanic whites compared with non-white races except for Oregon, with coverage differences ranging from -33.2% in the District of Columbia to 0.9% in Oregon and a median of -16.0%. Characteristics independently associated with vaccination were age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, employment status, household income, region, perceived health status, health insurance status, personal healthcare provider, routine checkup status, and whether reporting that cost was a barrier to seeing a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage varied dramatically by state. State-level comparisons may aid in designing tailored intervention programs through sharing of best practices. Strategies are needed to mitigate financial barriers for both provider and patients, improve awareness, and increase provider recommendation of the vaccine. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: S J Rolnick; E D Parker; J D Nordin; B D Hedblom; F Wei; T Kerby; J M Jackson; A L Crain; G Euler Journal: Vaccine Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Doug Campos-Outcalt; Michelle Jeffcott-Pera; Pamela Carter-Smith; Bellinda K Schoof; Herbert F Young Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Gregory A Poland; Abigail M Shefer; Mary McCauley; Peggy S Webster; Patricia N Whitley-Williams; Georges Peter Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Junling Wang; Lindsay J Ford; La'Marcus Wingate; Sarah Frank Uroza; Nina Jaber; Cindy T Smith; Richard Randolph; Steve Lane; Stephan L Foster Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2013 Jan-Feb
Authors: Nour A Baalbaki; Joseph P Fava; Melanie Ng; Ezinwanne Okorafor; Asad Nawaz; Wesley Chiu; Abdulbaset Salim; Raymond Cha; Paul E Kilgore Journal: Infect Dis Ther Date: 2019-10-03