IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0128656.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vaccination Coverage and Compliance with Three Recommended Schedules of 10-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine during the First Year of Its Introduction in Brazil: A Cross-Sectional Study

Author

Listed:
  • Fabricia Oliveira Saraiva
  • Ruth Minamisava
  • Maria Aparecida da Silva Vieira
  • Ana Luiza Bierrenbach
  • Ana Lucia Andrade

Abstract

Pneumococcal 10-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV10) was introduced to Brazil’s National Immunization Program (NIP) in 2010. During the first year of vaccine introduction three schedules were used to deal with age at initiation of PCV for catch-up purposes: 3 primary doses + 1 booster (for children aged ≤6 months), a catch-up schedule of 2 doses + 1 booster (7-11 months), and a catch-up schedule of a single dose (12-15 months). The purpose of this study was to assess the magnitude and associated risk factors for under-vaccination or lack of on time vaccination six to eight months after PCV10 introduction. A household survey was conducted in the municipality of Goiania with 1,237 children, who were retroactively classified into one of three age groups, as a factor of the child’s age relatively to 30 days after PCV10 introduction. Socioeconomic characteristics and vaccination dates were obtained during home interviews. Vaccination coverage was defined as the percentage of children who completed the recommended number of doses. Compliance with recommended schedules was defined as the percentage of children who received all valid doses at the NIP recommended time interval. Adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) of variables independently associated with coverage and compliance were estimated by log binomial regression. Coverage of DTP-Hib was used for comparison purposes. Overall, vaccination coverage was 54.6% (95% CI 52.1-57.7%), lower than DTP-Hib coverage (93.0%; 95% CI 91.5-94.3%). Compliance with recommended schedules was 16.8% (95% CI: 14.7-18.6%). Children 7-11 months old had lower coverage (40.7%) and compliance (6.3%) compared to children aged 12-15 months (coverage: 88.8%; compliance: 35.6%) and ≤6 months old (coverage: 54%; compliance: 18.8%). Having private health insurance was associated with higher PCV10 coverage (PR=1.25; 95% CI: 1.06-1.47, p=0.007), and compliance (PR=1.09; 95% CI: 1.02-1.16, p=0.015). Although PCV10 coverage rapidly increased shortly after vaccination introduction, it was not matched by compliance with recommended schedules. Public initiatives should target compliance of PCV10 because of the burden of pneumococcal diseases on childhood morbidity and mortality.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabricia Oliveira Saraiva & Ruth Minamisava & Maria Aparecida da Silva Vieira & Ana Luiza Bierrenbach & Ana Lucia Andrade, 2015. "Vaccination Coverage and Compliance with Three Recommended Schedules of 10-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine during the First Year of Its Introduction in Brazil: A Cross-Sectional Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128656
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128656
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128656&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0128656?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julie Leask, 2011. "Target the fence-sitters," Nature, Nature, vol. 473(7348), pages 443-445, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rossen, Isabel & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Dunlop, Patrick D. & Lawrence, Carmen, 2019. "Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 23-27.
    2. Jiménez, Ángel V. & Stubbersfield, Joseph M. & Tehrani, Jamshid J., 2018. "An experimental investigation into the transmission of antivax attitudes using a fictional health controversy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 23-27.
    3. Katarzyna T. Bolsewicz & Maryke S. Steffens & Bianca Bullivant & Catherine King & Frank Beard, 2021. "“To Protect Myself, My Friends, Family, Workmates and Patients …and to Play My Part”: COVID-19 Vaccination Perceptions among Health and Aged Care Workers in New South Wales, Australia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-13, August.
    4. MacFarlane, Douglas & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Ecker, Ullrich K.H., 2020. "Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: A taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    5. Anderson, Kerri-Ann & Creanza, Nicole, 2023. "A cultural evolutionary model of the interaction between parental beliefs and behaviors, with applications to vaccine hesitancy," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 23-38.
    6. Sobo, Elisa J., 2016. "What is herd immunity, and how does it relate to pediatric vaccination uptake? US parent perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 187-195.

    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:plo:pone00:0128656. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.