FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2138859960> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2138859960 endingPage "352" @default.
• W2138859960 startingPage "347" @default.
• W2138859960 abstract "Previous studies from Africa have suggested that there is little benefit to be gained from early two-dose measles vaccination schedules. Two-dose schedules have been associated with no improvement in coverage due to immunization of the same individuals on both occasions, low return rate, high refusal rate, low vaccine efficacy, and fear of blunting of the antibody response. Because of the poor results achieved previously with two-dose measles vaccination schedules, we studied patterns of participation, reasons for non-participation, vaccination coverage and relative efficacy of a one-dose versus a two-dose schedule in connection with the implementation of an early two-dose trial in Guinea-Bissau.Children born from September 1994 to January 1996 were randomized into two groups receiving either two doses of measles vaccine at 6 and 9 months or one dose of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) at 6 months and measles vaccine at 9 months.At 6 months of age 86% (1869/2181) of the children participated, and at 9 months of age participation was 87% (1775/2035). The return rate for obtaining a second dose of vaccine was 93% (1647/1773). The main reason for not participating was travelling (78%). Around 50% of those who did not take part in one vaccination took part in the other. When only children participating the first time they were called for a measles vaccination were included, the measles vaccination coverage in the one-dose group was 59% versus 80% in the two-dose group, i.e. a 50% reduction in the risk of not being vaccinated (relative risk [RR] 0.50; confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.57). Few measles cases have occurred in the study area since the implementation of the trial making precise estimation of the relative efficacy of the two vaccine strategies difficult, but all seven clinically diagnosed measles cases occurred in the one-dose group making the relative efficacy for the two-dose group compared with the one-dose group 100% (95% CI: 35%-100%; two-tailed P = 0.016). When including maternal reports, the relative efficacy was 90% (95% exact confidence interval; two-tailed P = 25%-97%, P = 0.022).In this study of a two-dose measles immunization schedule at 6 and 9 months of age there was no sign of low participation or poor return rates. The risk of not being vaccinated was lower in the two-dose group than in the one-dose group, and the relative efficacy of a two-dose versus a one-dose schedule was high. Although our results were obtained within a trial where dedicated personnel informed every participant personally about the study, we believe our results indicate that with thorough information about the population it may be possible to achieve a higher coverage with a two-dose measles vaccination schedule than a one-dose schedule. A two-dose schedule may be a feasible way to resolve the problems of low coverage and severe measles infection among infants.Early 2-dose measles vaccination schedules in Africa have been associated with no improvement in coverage due to immunization of the same individuals on both occasions, low return rate, high refusal rate, low vaccine efficacy, and fear of blunting the antibody response. Findings are presented from the study of patterns of vaccination participation, reasons for nonparticipation, vaccination coverage, and the relative efficacy of a 1-dose versus 2-dose schedule in connection with the implementation of an early 2-dose trial in Guinea-Bissau. Children born from September 1994 to January 1996 were randomized into 2 groups receiving either 2 doses of measles vaccine at 6 and 9 months or 1 dose of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) at age 6 months and measles vaccine at 9 months. 93% of children returned to receive a second dose of vaccine, with the main reason for nonparticipation being the need to travel. About half of the children who did not participate in 1 vaccination took part in the other. There was no sign of low participation or poor return rates in this study of a 2-dose measles immunization schedule at ages 6 and 9 months. The risk of not being vaccinated was lower in the 2-dose group than in the 1-dose group, and the relative efficacy of a 2-dose versus 1-dose schedule was high. These results indicate that with thorough information about the population it may be possible to achieve higher coverage with a 2-dose measles vaccination schedule than with a 1-dose schedule. A 2-dose schedule may be a feasible way of resolving the problems of low coverage and severe measles infection among infants." @default.
• W2138859960 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2138859960 creator A5028407518 @default.
• W2138859960 creator A5041626117 @default.
• W2138859960 creator A5047770051 @default.
• W2138859960 creator A5049041807 @default.
• W2138859960 creator A5067192172 @default.
• W2138859960 creator A5075578514 @default.
• W2138859960 creator A5086752449 @default.
• W2138859960 date "1999-04-01" @default.
• W2138859960 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2138859960 title "Early two-dose measles vaccination schedule in Guinea-Bissau: good protection and coverage in infancy" @default.
• W2138859960 cites W1577654220 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W16220530 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W1847435924 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W1970733822 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W1996843061 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W2001820468 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W2008689085 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W2014480218 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W2046941008 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W2054408198 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W2127542361 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W2131779089 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W2160327946 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W2169209946 @default.
• W2138859960 cites W2289899098 @default.
• W2138859960 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/28.2.347" @default.
• W2138859960 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10342702" @default.
• W2138859960 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W2138859960 type Work @default.
• W2138859960 sameAs 2138859960 @default.
• W2138859960 citedByCount "40" @default.
• W2138859960 countsByYear W21388599602012 @default.
• W2138859960 countsByYear W21388599602013 @default.
• W2138859960 countsByYear W21388599602014 @default.
• W2138859960 countsByYear W21388599602015 @default.
• W2138859960 countsByYear W21388599602022 @default.
• W2138859960 countsByYear W21388599602023 @default.
• W2138859960 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2138859960 hasAuthorship W2138859960A5028407518 @default.
• W2138859960 hasAuthorship W2138859960A5041626117 @default.
• W2138859960 hasAuthorship W2138859960A5047770051 @default.
• W2138859960 hasAuthorship W2138859960A5049041807 @default.
• W2138859960 hasAuthorship W2138859960A5067192172 @default.
• W2138859960 hasAuthorship W2138859960A5075578514 @default.
• W2138859960 hasAuthorship W2138859960A5086752449 @default.
• W2138859960 hasBestOaLocation W21388599601 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C159654299 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C187212893 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C203014093 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C22070199 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C2776438120 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C2780441014 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C2780657872 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C2780791431 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C2780801004 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C4870876 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C144024400 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C149923435 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C159654299 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C187212893 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C203014093 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C22070199 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C2776438120 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C2780441014 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C2780657872 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C2780791431 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C2780801004 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C4870876 @default.
• W2138859960 hasConceptScore W2138859960C71924100 @default.
• W2138859960 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2138859960 hasLocation W21388599601 @default.
• W2138859960 hasLocation W21388599602 @default.
• W2138859960 hasOpenAccess W2138859960 @default.
• W2138859960 hasPrimaryLocation W21388599601 @default.
• W2138859960 hasRelatedWork W1975251018 @default.
• W2138859960 hasRelatedWork W2028252777 @default.
• W2138859960 hasRelatedWork W2066508216 @default.
• W2138859960 hasRelatedWork W2138859960 @default.
• W2138859960 hasRelatedWork W2351083769 @default.
• W2138859960 hasRelatedWork W2356932359 @default.
• W2138859960 hasRelatedWork W2378025613 @default.
• W2138859960 hasRelatedWork W2402503643 @default.
• W2138859960 hasRelatedWork W2406775941 @default.
• W2138859960 hasRelatedWork W2980699103 @default.
• W2138859960 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W2138859960 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2138859960 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2138859960 magId "2138859960" @default.
• W2138859960 workType "article" @default.