IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/200090121917-1920_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes and practices regarding varicella vaccination among physicians in Minnesota: Implications for public health and provider education

Author

Listed:
  • Ehresmann, K.R.
  • Mills, W.A.
  • Loewenson, P.R.
  • Moore, K.A.

Abstract

Objectives. This study sought to determine physicians' attitudes and practices regarding varicella vaccine. Methods. A sample of Minnesota family and pediatricians was surveyed in January 1997. Results. Of 255 physicians surveyed, 108 (42%) reported routinely offering varicella vaccine. Physicians who perceived their professional organization's recommendations as 'very important' were more likely to routinely offer varicella vaccine. Physicians who preferred natural disease over vaccination and those concerned about waning immunity were less likely to routinely offer vaccine. Conclusions. Recommendations of professional organizations have encouraged varicella vaccine use and may further enhance future use. Differences in pediatricians' and family physicians' attitudes and practices regarding this vaccine suggest that education of providers by specialty may be needed to increase acceptance of newly licensed vaccines.

Suggested Citation

  • Ehresmann, K.R. & Mills, W.A. & Loewenson, P.R. & Moore, K.A., 2000. "Attitudes and practices regarding varicella vaccination among physicians in Minnesota: Implications for public health and provider education," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 90(12), pages 1917-1920.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2000:90:12:1917-1920_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:2000:90:12:1917-1920_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.