Meghan Weinberg1, Stephanie Dietz2, Rachel Potter3, Robert Swanson3, Corinne Miller3, Jevon McFadden4. 1. Epidemic Intelligence Service, Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA; Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, 333 S. Grand Avenue, Lansing, MI 48909, USA. Electronic address: weinbergm1@michigan.gov. 2. Epidemiology Workforce Branch, Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. 3. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, 333 S. Grand Avenue, Lansing, MI 48909, USA. 4. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, 333 S. Grand Avenue, Lansing, MI 48909, USA; Career Epidemiology Field Officer Program, Division of State and Local Readiness, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding vaccine safety and pain have prompted certain parents to limit the number of shots their child receives per visit. We estimated the prevalence of shot-limited children in Michigan, described their characteristics, assessed whether shot-limited children were up-to-date on recommended vaccinations, and investigated possible intervention points for vaccination education. METHODS: We analyzed vaccination registry and birth record data of children born in Michigan during 2012 who had ⩾2 vaccination visits, with ⩾1 visits after age 5months. Shot-limited was defined as receiving ⩽2 shots at all visits through age 24months. Nonlimited children received >2 shots at ⩾1 visits. Up-to-date vaccination was based on receipt of a seven-vaccine series and was determined at ages 24months and 35months. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated using risk regression. RESULTS: Of 101,443 children, a total of 2,967 (3%) children were shot-limited. Mothers of shot-limited children were more likely to be white (RR: 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-1.2), college graduate (RR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.9-2.0), and married (RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.5-1.5). Compared with nonlimited children, shot-limited children were more likely to be born in a nonhospital setting (RR: 11.7; 95% CI: 9.4-14.6) and have a midwife attendant (RR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.7-2.1). Shot-limited children were less likely to be up-to-date on recommended vaccinations (RR: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.2-0.3); this association was stronger for those with a midwife birth attendant (RR: 0.1; 95% CI: 0.1-0.2) rather than a medical doctor (RR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.2-0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Shot-limited children are less likely to be up-to-date on vaccinations, possibly leading to increased risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. This association was stronger for those with a midwife birth attendant. This analysis should prompt targeted education, such as to midwives, concerning risks associated with shot-limiting behavior. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding vaccine safety and pain have prompted certain parents to limit the number of shots their child receives per visit. We estimated the prevalence of shot-limited children in Michigan, described their characteristics, assessed whether shot-limited children were up-to-date on recommended vaccinations, and investigated possible intervention points for vaccination education. METHODS: We analyzed vaccination registry and birth record data of children born in Michigan during 2012 who had ⩾2 vaccination visits, with ⩾1 visits after age 5months. Shot-limited was defined as receiving ⩽2 shots at all visits through age 24months. Nonlimited children received >2 shots at ⩾1 visits. Up-to-date vaccination was based on receipt of a seven-vaccine series and was determined at ages 24months and 35months. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated using risk regression. RESULTS: Of 101,443 children, a total of 2,967 (3%) children were shot-limited. Mothers of shot-limited children were more likely to be white (RR: 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-1.2), college graduate (RR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.9-2.0), and married (RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.5-1.5). Compared with nonlimited children, shot-limited children were more likely to be born in a nonhospital setting (RR: 11.7; 95% CI: 9.4-14.6) and have a midwife attendant (RR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.7-2.1). Shot-limited children were less likely to be up-to-date on recommended vaccinations (RR: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.2-0.3); this association was stronger for those with a midwife birth attendant (RR: 0.1; 95% CI: 0.1-0.2) rather than a medical doctor (RR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.2-0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Shot-limited children are less likely to be up-to-date on vaccinations, possibly leading to increased risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. This association was stronger for those with a midwife birth attendant. This analysis should prompt targeted education, such as to midwives, concerning risks associated with shot-limiting behavior. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Authors: Julie Leask; Helen E Quinn; Kristine Macartney; Marianne Trent; Peter Massey; Chris Carr; John Turahui Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Philip J Smith; Sharon G Humiston; Trish Parnell; Kirsten S Vannice; Daniel A Salmon Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Amanda F Dempsey; Sarah Schaffer; Dianne Singer; Amy Butchart; Matthew Davis; Gary L Freed Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jason M Glanz; David L McClure; Sean T O'Leary; Komal J Narwaney; David J Magid; Matthew F Daley; Simon J Hambidge Journal: Vaccine Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 3.641
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: Matthew F Daley; Liza M Reifler; Jo Ann Shoup; Komal J Narwaney; Elyse O Kharbanda; Holly C Groom; Michael L Jackson; Steven J Jacobsen; Huong Q McLean; Nicola P Klein; Joshua T B Williams; Eric S Weintraub; Michael M McNeil; Jason M Glanz Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 5.043