AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O'Connor, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Pierce, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by O'Connor, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Pierce, H.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Child and Adolescent Health
August 2001, Vol 91, No. 8 | American Journal of Public Health 1273-1275
© 2001 American Public Health Association


RESEARCH

The Effect of Different Definitions of a Patient on Immunization Assessment

Mary E. O'Connor, MD, MPH, Barbara Maddocks, LPN, Cindie Modie, RN and Heather Pierce, BA

At the time of the study, all authors were with the Cuyahoga County Board of Health, Cleveland, Ohio. Mary E. O'Connor was also with Rainbow Babies and Childrens Hospital and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; she is now with Denver Health and Hospital and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Mary E. O'Connor MD, MPH, Westside Family Health Center, 1100 Federal Blvd, Denver CO 80204 (e-mail: moconnor{at}dhha.org).

Objectives. In this report, the authors compare immunization assessment using 2 definitions of a patient.

Methods. Two Clinical Assessment Software Application (CASA) assessments were performed. The first sampled 200 two-year-olds seen at least once since birth. The second sampled 200 two-year-olds seen in the previous year. Children with incomplete immunizations in the first sample were contacted.

Results. In the second sample, 72% of children had complete immunizations, compared with 46% in the first sample. In the first sample, 78% of children with incomplete immunizations had not been seen during the past year. Of 134 children in the first sample seen in the past year or successfully contacted, 75% had complete immunizations.

Conclusions. The CASA assessment's definition of a patient underestimates immunization rates.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CLIN PEDIATRHome page
P. M. Darden, J. A. Taylor, D. A. Brooks, J.W. Hendricks, M. Massoudi, J. M. Stevenson, and A. B. Bocian
How Should Immunization Rates Be Measured in the Office Setting? A Study from PROS and NMA PedsNet
Clinical Pediatrics, April 1, 2008; 47(3): 252 - 260.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Public HealthHome page
J. Stevenson, M. Massoudi, S. Stokley, and I. Bulim
CLINICAL ASSESSMENT SOFTWARE APPLICATION (CASA) AND IMMUNIZATION COVERAGE RATES
Am J Public Health, March 1, 2002; 92(3): 333 - 333.
[Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Public Health Association