[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
October 1996

Methodological Issues in Determining Rates of Childhood Immunization in Office Practice: A Study From Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS)

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston (Drs Darden and Recknor); Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (Dr Taylor); Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS), American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village, Ill (Drs Slora and Wasserman and Mss Hasemeier and Asmussen); and Department of Pediatrics, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington (Dr Wasserman).

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150(10):1027-1031. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170350029004

Objective:  To compare 3 methods for measuring pediatric office immunization rates.

Design:  Retrospective and prospective cross-sectional surveys.

Patients:  Children 2 and 3 years old from 15 pediatric practices in 11 states.

Methods:  Immunization rates were determined for each practice using 3 methods. The Consecutive method used data from the practice's medical records of patients seen consecutively in the office; the Chart method used data from randomly selected practice medical records; and the Active method (reference standard) used a combination of medical record data with a telephone interview to collect additional immunization data and current patient status, using data only on current patients. Analyses were based on a mean of 57, 62, and 51 (Consecutive, Chart, and Active method, respectively) patients per practice. Patients were considered fully immunized if they had received 4 doses of DTP/DT vaccine, 3 doses of OPV/IPV, and 1 dose of MMR vaccine by their second birthday. Comparisons were made using the paired t test.

Results:  The mean immunization rate by method was Consecutive, 81.5% (range, 51%-97%); Chart, 71.6% (range, 42%-94%); and Active, 79.6% (range, 53%-96%). Within a given practice, the differences between methods varied considerably (0 to 28 percentage points). The mean difference from the reference standard Active method was 8 percentage points (P<.001) for the Chart method and −1.9 percentage points (P=.36) for the Consecutive method. The largest difference was between the Consecutive and Chart methods (mean difference, 9.9 percentage points; P=.003). Practitioners uniformly found the Consecutive method easiest to implement.

Conclusions:  Practice-specific immunization rates are one of the few objective measures of the quality of preventive pediatric care. Pediatric practices monitoring their immunization rates should consider using the Consecutive method, a simple, acceptable, and valid measure of practice immunization rate.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150:1027-1031