Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31869328›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2019

The 2016 California policy to eliminate nonmedical vaccine exemptions and changes in vaccine coverage: An empirical policy analysis.

Sindiso Nyathi, Hannah C Karpel, Kristin L Sainani, Yvonne Maldonado, Peter J Hotez, Eran Bendavid, Nathan C Lo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. A call for community-shared decisions.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. A review of immunization legislation for children in English- and Dutch-speaking Caribbean countries.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sindiso NyathiDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2040-2835
Hannah C KarpelNew York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, United States of America.
Kristin L SainaniDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Yvonne MaldonadoDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5664-5583
Peter J HotezTexas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, Departments of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8770-1042
Eran BendavidCenter for Population Health Sciences, Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8364-4711
Nathan C LoDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5407-2005
Stanford University · USBaylor University · USNew York University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccine hesitancy, the reluctance or refusal to receive vaccination, is a growing public health problem in the United States and globally. State policies that eliminate nonmedical ("personal belief") exemptions to childhood vaccination requirements are controversial, and their effectiveness to improve vaccination coverage remains unclear given limited rigorous policy analysis. In 2016, a California policy (Senate Bill 277) eliminated nonmedical exemptions from school entry requirements. The objective of this study was to estimate the association between California's 2016 policy and changes in vaccine coverage. METHODS AND

findingsWe used a quasi-experimental state-level synthetic control analysis and a county-level difference-in-differences analysis to estimate the impact of the 2016 California policy on vaccination coverage and prevalence of exemptions to vaccine requirements (nonmedical and medical). We used publicly available state-level data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on coverage of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination, nonmedical exemption, and medical exemption in children entering kindergarten. We used county-level data individually requested from state departments of public health on overall vaccine coverage and exemptions. Based on data availability, we included state-level data for 45 states, including California, from 2011 to 2017 and county-level data for 17 states from 2010 to 2017. The prespecified primary study outcome was MMR vaccination in the state analysis and overall vaccine coverage in the county analysis. In the state-level synthetic control analysis, MMR coverage in California increased by 3.3% relative to its synthetic control in the postpolicy period (top 2 of 43 states evaluated in the placebo tests, top 5%), nonmedical exemptions decreased by 2.4% (top 2 of 43 states evaluated in the placebo tests, top 5%), and medical exemptions increased by 0.4% (top 1 of 44 states evaluated in the placebo tests, top 2%). In the county-level analysis, overall vaccination coverage increased by 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9%-5.8%, p < 0.001), nonmedical exemptions decreased by 3.9% (95% CI 2.4%-5.4%, p < 0.001), and medical exemptions increased by 2.4% (95% CI 2.0%-2.9%, p < 0.001). Changes in vaccination coverage across counties after the policy implementation from 2015 to 2017 ranged from -6% to 26%, with larger increases in coverage in counties with lower prepolicy vaccine coverage. Results were robust to alternative model specifications. The limitations of the study were the exclusion of a subset of US states from the analysis and the use of only 2 years of postpolicy data based on data availability.

conclusionsIn this study, implementation of the California policy that eliminated nonmedical childhood vaccine exemptions was associated with an estimated increase in vaccination coverage and a reduction in nonmedical exemptions at state and county levels. The observed increase in medical exemptions was offset by the larger reduction in nonmedical exemptions. The largest increases in vaccine coverage were observed in the most "high-risk" counties, meaning those with the lowest prepolicy vaccine coverage. Our findings suggest that government policies removing nonmedical exemptions can be effective at increasing vaccination coverage.

Indexed as

Policy MakingCaliforniaChildChild, PreschoolHealth PolicyHumansMeaslesPublic HealthSchoolsUnited StatesVaccinationVaccination CoverageVaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID31869328
PMCPMC6927583
OpenAlexW2994700265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.