Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Pediatrics
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0009922807308743v1
47/3/252    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Darden, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Bocian, A. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Darden, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Bocian, A. B.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Childhood Immunization
*Immunization
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

How Should Immunization Rates Be Measured in the Office Setting? A Study From PROS and NMA PedsNet

Paul M. Darden*, James A. Taylor, Dennis A. Brooks, J. W. Hendricks, Mehran Massoudi, John M. Stevenson, and Alison B. Bocian

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dardenpm{at}musc.edu.


  Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare the validity and reliability of 2 sampling methods for measuring immunization rates to a reference standard in a national sample of pediatric office practices. The consecutive method involved patients seen consecutively in the office for any reason; the random record was a random selection of medical records; and the reference standard active method, data of a randomly selected subgroup of children in the random record survey were supplemented with information from a telephone interview. The consecutive method of assessing immunization rates results in rates that are, on average, higher and closer to the reference standard, but also more variable. The random record method rates are lower and further from the study reference standard compared with the consecutive method, but more precise. The consecutive method for measuring practice immunization rates could be a useful quality improvement tool as practices seek to improve immunization delivery and quality of care. It is inexpensive, simple, and easy to implement.

First published on December 5, 2007, doi:10.1177/0009922807308743

Clinical Pediatrics 2008;47:252.

A more recent version of this article appeared on April 1, 2008

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?