ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2021
[Geographic analyses as a foundation for evidence-based public health interventions: the example identification and typology of risk clusters for mumps, measles, and rubella].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2021. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modeling mumps incidence in China: spatiotemporal clusters and evolving risk factors (2005-2020).BMC public health · 2025Article
- [Utilization of the influenza vaccination among individuals over 60 years: spatial variations and regional risk factors].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Article
- Detecting high-risk neighborhoods and socioeconomic determinants for common oral diseases in Germany.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- [Methods for analysing spatial data : Using the example of skin cancer prevalence in Germany].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdeally, health services and interventions to improve immunization rates should be tailored to local target populations, such as spatial clusters. However, to date, little attention has been paid to spatial clusters of underimmunization and have instead been typified based on small-scale data.
aimUsing the example of vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) in children, the present study aims to (1) identify the spatial distribution of insufficient MMR vaccination in Westphalia-Lippe on a small scale, (2) identify specific, spatial risk clusters with insufficient vaccination protection, and (3) describe spatial-neighborhood influencing factors of the different risk clusters as starting points for public health interventions. MATERIAL AND
methodsAccount data from the Kassenärztliche Vereinigung Westfalen-Lippe (KVWL) were used as a basis. Birth cohorts 2013-2016 of children with statutory health insurance were formed and aggregated at postcode level (n = 410). Statistically significant, spatially compact clusters and relative risks (RRs) of underimmunization were identified. Local risk models were estimated in binary logistic regressions based on spatial-neighborhood variables. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Two significant clusters of underimmunization were identified for each of the vaccination rates "at least one MMR vaccination" and "both MMR vaccinations." Significant risk factors for low immunization rates included age structure, socioeconomic variables, population density, medical coverage, and value attitude. The proposed methodology is suitable for describing spatial variations in vaccination behavior based on identified typologies for targeted evidence-based interventions.
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.