1996
DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170350029004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Methodological Issues in Determining Rates of Childhood Immunization in Office Practice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Research has demonstrated the important effect of different methodologies on the measurement of immunization coverage. [23][24][25][26][27] In particular, the limitations of using parental report have been well documented for immunization assessments, and a similar issue probably exists for lead screening. The use of medical record audits in this study overcomes that limitation and may partially explain the higher screening rates.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research has demonstrated the important effect of different methodologies on the measurement of immunization coverage. [23][24][25][26][27] In particular, the limitations of using parental report have been well documented for immunization assessments, and a similar issue probably exists for lead screening. The use of medical record audits in this study overcomes that limitation and may partially explain the higher screening rates.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous research has demonstrated that assessments based on medical record reviews alone are biased by the inclusion of inactive patients and missing immunization histories. 37 Prompted by physician concern, we assisted participants to develop an alternative definition of their active patient population. For the third assessment round, the alternative criteria yielded rates that were 18 percentage points higher than those based on the CDC standard criteria.…”
Section: Limitations and Methodological Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, they found that supplemental information supplied by parents increased vaccination coverage estimates by 3.6% over those estimates based solely on medical records. The findings of Darden et al 29 are reassuring because they suggest that misclassification may be a relatively small problem. Nonetheless, we would be remiss in failing to mention the possibility of confounding by such misclassifications.…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Darden et al 29 attempted to quantify the impact of these misclassifications on their office-based study. They found that when parent contact information was used to exclude inactive patients, vaccination coverage estimates increased by 4.5%.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%