The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2015
Keen on teen vaccines: improvement of adolescent vaccine coverage in rural North Carolina.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chung Richard J, Walter Emmanuel B, Kemper Alex R, Dayton Amanda
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To improve adolescent immunization coverage in a rural North Carolina county.
METHODS: Adolescent immunization coverage rates in an intervention and four comparison counties were compared over 1 year. We introduced practice-based interventions in seven practices centering on immunization registry-driven recall of adolescents for immunizations with postcard reminders (Phase 1), and 6 months later employed nontargeted school-generated telephone reminders to parents of adolescents (Phase 2).
RESULTS: Improvements in the intervention county among 11- to 12-year-olds occurred for first-dose human papillomavirus vaccine in both boys (overall change, 14.2%-32.1%) and girls (27.4%-43.4%) and the meningococcal vaccine (34.6%-49.4%). Improvements among adolescents 13-18 years were limited to human papillomavirus vaccine completion in boys (1.6%-4.2%). Improvements were greater during Phase 1 than Phase 2 and among younger adolescents. Coverage improvements in the comparison counties were smaller than those observed in the intervention county.
CONCLUSIONS: A resource-light two-phase intervention led to modest improvements in immunization coverage, most notably in the largest adolescent practice in the county, and suggested potential for further gains, particularly among younger adolescents.
METHODS: Adolescent immunization coverage rates in an intervention and four comparison counties were compared over 1 year. We introduced practice-based interventions in seven practices centering on immunization registry-driven recall of adolescents for immunizations with postcard reminders (Phase 1), and 6 months later employed nontargeted school-generated telephone reminders to parents of adolescents (Phase 2).
RESULTS: Improvements in the intervention county among 11- to 12-year-olds occurred for first-dose human papillomavirus vaccine in both boys (overall change, 14.2%-32.1%) and girls (27.4%-43.4%) and the meningococcal vaccine (34.6%-49.4%). Improvements among adolescents 13-18 years were limited to human papillomavirus vaccine completion in boys (1.6%-4.2%). Improvements were greater during Phase 1 than Phase 2 and among younger adolescents. Coverage improvements in the comparison counties were smaller than those observed in the intervention county.
CONCLUSIONS: A resource-light two-phase intervention led to modest improvements in immunization coverage, most notably in the largest adolescent practice in the county, and suggested potential for further gains, particularly among younger adolescents.