ArticleVaccine2024
Characterizing timeliness of recommended vaccinations among privately-insured children in the United States, 2009-2019.
Article in Vaccine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends early childhood vaccinations, but knowledge is limited about the magnitude and timing of vaccine delay for each recommended dose on a population level. We sought to characterize longitudinal patient-level patterns of early childhood vaccination schedule adherence.
methodsUsing the Merative MarketScan Commercial Database (2009-2019), we identified commercially-insured infants who received at least one timely dose of a 2-month recommended vaccine. We categorized the number of recommended vaccines administered on the same date at 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months of age (grace period: -7, +21 days). A Sankey diagram illustrated the number of vaccines received concomitantly during each age window and depicted transitions to different states over time (e.g., no vaccine delay to vaccine delay). For each vaccine dose, we estimated the cumulative incidence of receipt.
resultsAmong 1,239,364 eligible children, 28% of infants aged 4 months and 38% of infants aged 6 months did not receive timely, concomitant administration of all recommended vaccines. The number of timely vaccines received concomitantly and age at receipt varied most for doses recommended during the second year of life. Children with a previously delayed (versus timely) dose consistently experienced longer time to subsequent dose.
conclusionsNational coverage improved over time for all recommended vaccine doses under study, most notably for measles, mumps, and rubella. However, many children do not receive vaccines on schedule. Interventions to maintain adherence to the recommended schedule are needed early in life.
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.