ArticleVaccine2016
Does frequent residential mobility in early years affect the uptake and timeliness of routine immunisations? An anonymised cohort study.
Article in Vaccine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Residential mobility and receipt of measles, mumps and rubella vaccination: analysis of linked primary care electronic health records in a London region.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
- Immunisation status of children receiving care and support in Wales: a national data linkage study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Review
- Including household effects in Big Data research: the experience of building a longitudinal residence algorithm using linked administrative data in Wales.International journal of population data science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are conflicting findings regarding the impact of residential mobility on immunisation status. Our aim was to determine whether there was any association between residential mobility and take up of immunisations and whether they were delayed in administration.
methodsWe carried out a cohort analysis of children born in Wales, UK. Uptake and time of immunisation were collected electronically. We defined frequent movers as those who had moved: 2 or more times in the period prior to the final scheduled on-time date (4 months) for 5 in 1 vaccinations; and 3 or more times in the period prior to the final scheduled on-time date (12 months) for MMR, pneumococcal and meningitis C vaccinations. We defined immunisations due at 2-4 months delayed if they had not been given by age 1; and those due at 12-13 months as delayed if they had not been given by age 2.
resultsUptake rates of routine immunisations and whether they were given within the specified timeframe were high for both groups. There was no increased risk (odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) between frequent movers compared to non-movers for the uptake of: primary MMR 1.08 (0.88-1.32); booster Meningitis C 1.65 (0.93-2.92); booster pneumococcal 1.60 (0.59-4.31); primary 5 in 1 1.28 (0.92-1.78); and timeliness: primary MMR 0.92 (0.79-1.07); booster Meningitis C 1.26 (0.77-2.07); booster pneumococcal 1.69 (0.23-12.14); and primary 5 in 1 1.04 (0.88-1.23). DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that children who move home frequently are not adversely affected in terms of the uptake of immunisations and whether they were given within a specified timeframe. Both were high and may reflect proactive behaviour in the primary healthcare setting to meet Government coverage rates for immunisation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.