IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2012.301035_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: A randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial

Author

Listed:
  • Kempe, A.
  • Saville, A.
  • Dickinson, L.M.
  • Eisert, S.
  • Reynolds, J.
  • Herrero, D.
  • Beaty, B.
  • Albright, K.
  • Dibert, E.
  • Koehler, V.
  • Lockhart, S.
  • Calonge, N.

Abstract

Objectives. We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of populationbased recall (Pop-recall) versus practice-based recall (PCP-recall) at increasing immunizations among preschool children. Methods. This cluster-randomized trial involved children aged 19 to 35 months needing immunizations in 8 rural and 6 urban Colorado counties. In Pop-recall counties, recall was conducted centrally using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). In PCP-recall counties, practices were invited to attend webinar training using CIIS and offered financial support for mailings. The percentage of up-to-date (UTD) and vaccine documentation were compared 6 months after recall. A mixed-effects model assessed the association between intervention and whether a child became UTD. Results. Ten of 195 practices (5%) implemented recall in PCP-recall counties. Among children needing immunizations, 18.7% became UTD in Pop-recall versus 12.8% in PCP-recall counties (P

Suggested Citation

  • Kempe, A. & Saville, A. & Dickinson, L.M. & Eisert, S. & Reynolds, J. & Herrero, D. & Beaty, B. & Albright, K. & Dibert, E. & Koehler, V. & Lockhart, S. & Calonge, N., 2013. "Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: A randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(6), pages 1116-1123.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2012.301035_2
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301035
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301035?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2012.301035_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.