ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2025
[Findings from the Implementation of the Measles Protection Act after the First Three Years of its Introduction - Data from Darmstadt Dieburg (Hesse)].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundWhen the Measles Protection Act as part of the Infection Protection Act came into force 2020, various types of facilities were obliged to report. The public health department of the city of Darmstadt and the district of Darmstadt Dieburg aimed to find out to what extent these facilities have complied with the reporting obligation and whether any conclusions could be derived from the data on the vaccination status of the respective group of people.
methodReports from the facilities and the feedback from those affected (or their legal guardians) were reviewed and evaluated descriptively. They were divided into groups (1) schoolchildren, (2) children from other childcare facilities, (3) those in municipal accommodation for refugees and (4) those employed in one of these or in a medical facility (§§23, 33, 36 German Infection Protection Act).
results1,527 children (2.5% of all pupils in Darmstadt Dieburg) with incomplete or unknown immunity to measles were reported from 138 schools. 70% of these provided documentation of sufficient immunity after receivng the letter from the public health department, so that it can be concluded that less than 1% (0.76%) of children were without measles protection. 17 children with incomplete vaccination status were reported from the other childcare facilities. 3,986 people with incomplete vaccination status were reported from the refugee accommodation facilities, of which 566 (14.2%) submitted complete proof after receiving a letter from the public health department. A total of 17 employees were reported from the facilities according to §§23, 33 and 36 Infection Protection Act.
conclusionThe reporting obligation was met in very different ways by different facilities. No statement could be made about the vaccination status of the various groups of people affected by the Measles Protection Act, as it could not be assumed with certainty that the facilities had reported comprehensively.
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.