Implementation of Health Recommendations after Initial Statutory Health Assessment

Croft, G

doi:10.1177/030857590903300212

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to circumstances while in care, children may experience medical neglect prior to entering care (Canadian Paediatric Society 2008) and require several catch-up vaccines upon entry into care. Second, consistent with previous studies (Hill et al 2003;Croft 2009), we found that vaccine coverage of children in care decreased with age. For example, coverage for the ageappropriate doses of MMR was 81.4% at age 2 and 65.3% at age 7.…”

Section: Factors Affecting Vaccination Among Children In Caresupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The literature suggests that a lack of coordination and information sharing between health and social services, as well as discontinuity of care, may lead to gaps in service provision for children in care. This may result in subpar delivery of immunization services and/or poor record-keeping of vaccinations administered, leading to lower vaccine coverage that becomes exaggerated over time (Hunter et al 2008;Croft 2009;Rodrigues 2004). An additional issue is that anecdotal reports from clinicians in our study setting noted that the lower coverage we observed in children in care may partially be explained by difficulties in obtaining informed consent to proceed with vaccination for children in care.…”

Section: Factors Affecting Vaccination Among Children In Carementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vaccine coverage of children in care of the child welfare system

Hermann

Simmonds

Bell

et al. 2018

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess vaccine coverage for a cohort of children who have been in the care of the child welfare system compared to children in the general population. Methods This retrospective cohort study used population-based administrative health data for a 2008 birth cohort of children from Alberta, Canada. We assessed coverage at ages 2 (n = 44,206) and 7 (n = 42,241) for three vaccines with different administration schedules for children in care (at any period before the age of assessment) and those who had never been in care, comparing them using risk differences and relative risks (RRs). We similarly assessed coverage for children not in care who shared characteristics of children in care.Results At age two, vaccination coverage for children in care ranged from 54.3% to 81.4%, depending on vaccine. In comparison, coverage for those not in care ranged from 74.2% to 87.4%. At age seven, coverage for children in care ranged from 53.1% to 65.3%, compared to 76.6% to 83.4% for those not in care. For all vaccines at both ages, the risk for being under-vaccinated was higher for children in care (e.g., diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b at age 7: RR 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] (1.74-2.32). Even for children not in care who had characteristics similar to children in care, we found children in care had lower coverage. Conclusion Children in care have consistently lower vaccine coverage than children not in care. Policies and practices should promote optimal access to vaccination for these children.

show abstract

Section: Factors Affecting Vaccination Among Children In Caresupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Factors Affecting Vaccination Among Children In Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Vaccine coverage of children in care of the child welfare system

Hermann

Simmonds

Bell

et al. 2018

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one London area, a review of case notes of LACYP who had an initial health assessment revealed that only a half of specific health recommendations had been carried out; obtaining immunization histories and administering outstanding vaccines were particular problems. Several initiatives were introduced to improve the situation: LACYP health staff were given access to the LA database providing them with up‐to‐date information including general practitioner (GP) details; children requiring immunization were referred to the LAC nurse; parents were encouraged to attend the initial health assessments enabling better capture of medical histories and referrals made were copied to the social worker with clear responsibilities and timescale stated (Croft, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunization of looked‐after children and young people: a review of the literature

Walton

Bedford

2017

Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, immunization of LACYP has been given a higher priority. However, the immunization figures produced by the Department for Education are problematic because of challenges in determining whether the child is 'up-to-date', and data are not comparable with the general population; ideally, this should be changed to correspond to routine immunization data. In the interim, for reporting purposes, the use of a tool to assist with determining a child's immunization status would be beneficial. When a child's immunization status is incomplete or unknown, Public Health England's algorithm for vaccination of individuals with uncertain or incomplete status should be used. Practice to improve immunization uptake amongst LACYP needs to be evaluated to develop evidence-based recommendations.

show abstract

“…The characteristics of included studies are presented in Appendix Table 1, (available online). The studies primarily came from the United Kingdom (n=15), 18,20,24,26,28,[30][31][32][33]36,38,39,41,43,46 the U.S. (n=9), 19,22,23,29,37,40,42,48,49 and Australia (n=6), 17,27,35,44,45,47 with a smaller number from Italy (n=1), 21 and Sweden (n=2). 25,34 They included 29 peer-reviewed journal publications, three government reports, and one thesis.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%