Kimmel S R, Puczynski S, McCoy R C, Puczynski M S
Department of Family Medicine, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo 43614, USA.
J Fam Pract. 1999 Aug;48(8):594-600.
When the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices added the sequential schedule to the poliovirus vaccine (PW) recommendations in 1997, primary care physicians expressed concern about its implementation. This study examines the practices and factors influencing the administration of sequential, oral, or inactivated PW schedules by family physicians and pediatricians.
A random sample of Ohio family physicians and pediatricians was surveyed between January and April 1998. Primary outcome measures included physicians' awareness of the 1997 recommendations, their recommendations to parents and caregivers, administration of current PW options, and the factors influencing their practices.
All physicians who immunize children (n = 263) reported awareness of the 1997 PW recommendations. Family physicians were more likely to recommend and administer oral polio vaccine than pediatricians (50% and 63% vs 17% and 28%; P < .001). Pediatricians were more likely to recommend and administer the sequential schedule than family physicians (66% and 67% vs 31% and 28%; P < .001). Choice of sequential schedule was related to the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis and liability (P < or = .05). Choice of an all oral polio vaccine schedule was related to cost of inactivated PW and increased number of injections (P < or = .05). One hundred eighty-two physicians (69%) indicated that they personally discuss PW options with parents or caregivers; only 41% have them read the required vaccine information sheets.
Differences exist between family physicians' and pediatricians' implementation of the 1997 PW recommendations. Physician choice of PW schedule is influenced by the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis, increased number of injections, liability concerns, and vaccine cost. Physicians need to inform parents of vaccine benefits and risks to comply with federal regulations.
1997年,免疫实践咨询委员会在脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗(PV)推荐方案中增加了序贯接种程序,基层医疗医生对该方案的实施表示担忧。本研究调查了家庭医生和儿科医生在序贯、口服或灭活脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗接种方案实施方面的做法及影响因素。
1998年1月至4月间,对俄亥俄州的家庭医生和儿科医生进行了随机抽样调查。主要观察指标包括医生对1997年推荐方案的知晓情况、对家长和护理人员的建议、当前脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗接种方案的实施情况以及影响其做法的因素。
所有为儿童接种疫苗的医生(n = 263)均表示知晓1997年脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗推荐方案。与儿科医生相比,家庭医生更倾向于推荐和接种口服脊髓灰质炎疫苗(分别为50%和63%,对比17%和28%;P < 0.001)。与家庭医生相比,儿科医生更倾向于推荐和实施序贯接种程序(分别为66%和67%,对比31%和28%;P < 0.001)。序贯接种程序的选择与疫苗相关麻痹型脊髓灰质炎风险及责任相关(P ≤ 0.05)。全口服脊髓灰质炎疫苗接种方案的选择与灭活脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗成本及注射次数增加相关(P ≤ 0.05)。182名医生(69%)表示他们会亲自与家长或护理人员讨论脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗接种方案;只有41%的医生让他们阅读所需的疫苗信息单。
家庭医生和儿科医生在实施1997年脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗推荐方案方面存在差异。医生对脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗接种方案的选择受疫苗相关麻痹型脊髓灰质炎风险、注射次数增加、责任担忧和疫苗成本影响。医生需要告知家长疫苗的益处和风险以符合联邦法规。