Measles Outbreak in a Community with Very Low Vaccine Coverage, the Netherlands

Hof, Susan van den; Meffre, Christine; Spaendonck, M. A. E. Conyn-Van; Woonink, Frits; Melker, Hester E. de; Binnendijk, Rob van

doi:10.3201/eid0707.017743

Cited by 49 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Parents may be reluctant to vaccinate their children because they consider negative side-effects of vaccination as being more serious than negative effects of the concerned disease, such as complications [ 5 - 8 ]. This reluctance might be heightened when cases are published of severe side-effects of vaccination – spurious or otherwise – as happened in the past in, for example, the Netherlands [ 9 ] and the UK [ 10 ]. On the other hand, media attention for several cases of childhood infectious diseases such as meningitis may increase parents' perception of the risk of contracting the disease, and therefore their willingness to vaccinate [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parents' perceived vulnerability and perceived control in preventing Meningococcal C infection: a large-scale interview study about vaccination

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundParents' reported ambivalence toward large-scale vaccination programs for childhood diseases may be related to their perception of the risks of side-effects or safety of vaccination and the risk of contracting the disease. The aim of this study is to evaluate parents' perceptions of their child's risk contracting a Meningococcal C infection and parents' perceived control in preventing infection in relation to their evaluation of the safety, effectiveness and usefulness of vaccination.MethodsIn a large-scale interview study, a random sample of parents was interviewed after their children had received vaccination against Meningococcal C in a catch-up campaign. Questions were asked about the perceived relative vulnerability of their child contracting an infection, perceived control in preventing an infection, and parents' evaluation of the safety, usefulness and effectiveness of vaccination.Results61% of 2910 (N = 1763) parents who were approached participated. A higher perceived relative vulnerability of their own child contracting the disease was related to a more positive evaluation of the vaccination campaign, while a lower perceived vulnerability did not result in a more negative evaluation. A higher perceived control in being able to prevent an infection was, however, related to a more critical attitude toward the safety, usefulness and effectiveness of vaccination.ConclusionPerceived relative vulnerability contracting an infection and parents' perceived control in preventing an infection seem to influence parents' evaluation of the vaccination programme. Future studies should determine if, and under which circumstances, these perceptions also affect parents' vaccination behaviour and would be relevant to be taken into account when educating parents about vaccination.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parents' perceived vulnerability and perceived control in preventing Meningococcal C infection: a large-scale interview study about vaccination

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The measles and rubella serology results for the Netherlands include separate data for an orthodox religious underimmunized subpopulation that preferentially mixes and represents an important epidemiological group. Specifically, despite high immunization coverage in the general population, the Netherlands experienced measles and rubella outbreaks fueled by transmission in the underimmunized subpopulation. Experience with measles and rubella indicate that the clustering of underimmunized individuals represents a risk factor for transmission and indicates the need to characterize heterogeneity in the population modeled …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Measles and Rubella Serology Studies

Thompson

Odahowski²

2015

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Serological tests provide information about individual immunity from historical infection or immunization. Cross-sectional serological studies provide data about the age- and sex-specific immunity levels for individuals in the studied population, and these data can provide a point of comparison for the results of transmission models. In the context of developing an integrated model for measles and rubella transmission, we reviewed the existing measles and rubella literature to identify the results of national serological studies that provided cross-sectional estimates of population immunity at the time of data collection. We systematically searched PubMed, the Science Citation Index, and references we identified from relevant articles published in English. We extracted serological data for comparison to transmission model outputs. For rubella, serological studies of women of child-bearing age provide information about the potential risks of infants born with congenital rubella syndrome. Serological studies also document the loss of maternal antibodies, which occurs at different rates for the different viruses and according to the nature of the induced immunity (i.e., infection or vaccine). The serological evidence remains limited for some areas, with studies from developed countries representing a disproportionate part of the evidence. The collection and review of serological evidence can help program managers identify immunity gaps in the population, which may help them better understand the characteristics of individuals within their populations who may participate in transmission and manage risks.

show abstract

“…P1 presented with an itchy rash which is uncommon. A literature review revealed only one article describing an itching character of the measles exanthema [27]. P2 presented with erythema exsudativum multiforme.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%