OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of an alternative vaccination programme (VP) with Mumps-Measles-Rubella (MMR) vaccine at the ages of 12 and 15 months compared with the standard VP (MMR at the ages of 14-15 months and 9 years). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The area of activity of the 'Lek and Merwede' Extramural Health Care Department. METHOD: Data from general practitioners (GPs) and from an inquiry among parents of 873 children born in a 1.5 year period (randomly taken among 4500 children) and given the alternative MMR VP, were used. The inquiry took place during a measles epidemic in 1993. A non-response study was also executed among the parents. RESULTS: The response of the GPs was low (14 cases reported by 8 out of 90 GPs). Eighty-two per cent of the parents responded. There was no correlation between (non-)response and the alternative VP. The vaccination was effective and no significant differences between standard and alternative VP were found. CONCLUSION: Vaccination protects against measles. An alternative VP could theoretically be more effective, but because of the excellent results of the standard VP differences could not be detected.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of an alternative vaccination programme (VP) with Mumps-Measles-Rubella (MMR) vaccine at the ages of 12 and 15 months compared with the standard VP (MMR at the ages of 14-15 months and 9 years). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The area of activity of the 'Lek and Merwede' Extramural Health Care Department. METHOD: Data from general practitioners (GPs) and from an inquiry among parents of 873 children born in a 1.5 year period (randomly taken among 4500 children) and given the alternative MMR VP, were used. The inquiry took place during a measles epidemic in 1993. A non-response study was also executed among the parents. RESULTS: The response of the GPs was low (14 cases reported by 8 out of 90 GPs). Eighty-two per cent of the parents responded. There was no correlation between (non-)response and the alternative VP. The vaccination was effective and no significant differences between standard and alternative VP were found. CONCLUSION: Vaccination protects against measles. An alternative VP could theoretically be more effective, but because of the excellent results of the standard VP differences could not be detected.