ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2004
Factors influencing the uptake of childhood immunisation in rural areas.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Behavioral interventions for vaccination uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023Pooled it
- Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage.BMC public health · 2018Pooled it
- Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Impact of adverse publicity on MMR vaccine uptake: a population based analysis of vaccine uptake records for one million children, born 1987-2004.Archives of disease in childhood · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildhood vaccination has been vigorously debated in recent years. Professional and parental confidence in the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in particular has been shaken, as reflected by its decreased uptake.
aimTo investigate the influence of practice type and the method of vaccination call/recall on childhood immunisation coverage.
designAnalysis of childhood immunisation uptake rates.
settingGeneral practices in the Highland NHS Health Board area in Scotland.
methodData on the immunisation uptake of individual practices in the region were obtained from the Information and Statistics Division of NHS Scotland.
resultsUptake of all vaccines in children reaching the age of 2 years was lower in practices using their own call/recall system than those engaged with the national system. Inducement practices achieved lower uptake than non-inducement practices for every immunisation studied, with the differences ranging from 4.7% to 7.8%. Compared with group practices, uptake of all vaccines was less for single-handed practices, with the differences ranging from 2.4% to 11.4%. A logistic regression analysis found that high uptake of the diphtheria and meningococcus group C vaccines by the age of 24 months was significantly associated with use of the national call/recall system. Only inducement practice status was significantly associated with reduced uptake in children aged 12 months.
conclusionsEngagement with the national call/recall system was associated with higher immunisation coverage for children reaching the age of 2 years. Inducement status was associated with low uptake of vaccinations in children reaching the age of 1 year.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14965390PMC1314804What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.