Yuping Tsai1, Megan C Lindley2, Fangjun Zhou2, Shannon Stokley2. 1. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: ytsai@cdc.gov. 2. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To access urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use among Medicaid-enrolled adolescents and examine its association with residence county characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: We used the 2016 Medicaid T-MSIS Analytic File to estimate adolescents' use of vaccination services, defined as the proportion of adolescents aged 11-18 years with ≥ 1 vaccination visit in a county. We used linear regression and the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition method to examine the association between county characteristics and urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use. RESULTS: The analysis included 2,473 counties located in 38 states. The mean proportion of adolescents making ≥ 1 vaccination visit at the county level was low (36.09%) and was lower in rural than in urban counties (31.99% vs. 36.85%, p < .01). The number of primary care physicians (PCPs) was positively associated with vaccination service use in rural counties; in urban counties, % of households without a vehicle was negatively associated with vaccination service use. The decomposition results showed that 66.78% (3.24 percentage points) of the urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use could be attributed to urban-rural differences in the county characteristics included in the study. Characteristics measuring access to care (number of PCPs), social and economic factors (% adults with at least a bachelor's degree and % children in poverty), quality of care (influenza vaccination rates and preventable hospital stays), and demographics (% non-Hispanic black, % Hispanic, and % females) played a role in urban-rural disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in county characteristics could partly explain the observed urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use among low-income adolescents. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To access urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use among Medicaid-enrolled adolescents and examine its association with residence county characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: We used the 2016 Medicaid T-MSIS Analytic File to estimate adolescents' use of vaccination services, defined as the proportion of adolescents aged 11-18 years with ≥ 1 vaccination visit in a county. We used linear regression and the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition method to examine the association between county characteristics and urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use. RESULTS: The analysis included 2,473 counties located in 38 states. The mean proportion of adolescents making ≥ 1 vaccination visit at the county level was low (36.09%) and was lower in rural than in urban counties (31.99% vs. 36.85%, p < .01). The number of primary care physicians (PCPs) was positively associated with vaccination service use in rural counties; in urban counties, % of households without a vehicle was negatively associated with vaccination service use. The decomposition results showed that 66.78% (3.24 percentage points) of the urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use could be attributed to urban-rural differences in the county characteristics included in the study. Characteristics measuring access to care (number of PCPs), social and economic factors (% adults with at least a bachelor's degree and % children in poverty), quality of care (influenza vaccination rates and preventable hospital stays), and demographics (% non-Hispanic black, % Hispanic, and % females) played a role in urban-rural disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in county characteristics could partly explain the observed urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use among low-income adolescents. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adolescents; Health care disparities; Medicaid; Rural health; Vaccination
Authors: Nancy D Berkman; Stacey L Sheridan; Katrina E Donahue; David J Halpern; Karen Crotty Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Fangjun Zhou; Abigail Shefer; Jay Wenger; Mark Messonnier; Li Yan Wang; Adriana Lopez; Matthew Moore; Trudy V Murphy; Margaret Cortese; Lance Rodewald Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Gordon Gong; Scott G Phillips; Catherine Hudson; Debra Curti; Billy U Philips Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Traci N Bethea; Russell P Lopez; Yvette C Cozier; Laura F White; Michael D McClean Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Tanja Y Walker; Laurie D Elam-Evans; David Yankey; Lauri E Markowitz; Charnetta L Williams; Benjamin Fredua; James A Singleton; Shannon Stokley Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 17.586