Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Archives of Disease in Childhood logoLink to Archives of Disease in Childhood
. 1993 Jul;69(1):110–114. doi: 10.1136/adc.69.1.110

Primary immunisations in Liverpool. I: Who withholds consent?

M Pearson 1, K Makowiecka 1, J Gregg 1, J Woollard 1, M Rogers 1, C West 1
PMCID: PMC1029421  PMID: 8024291

Abstract

The association between parents in Liverpool consenting to their children being invited for primary immunisations and five sociodemographic factors, namely sex, position of child in the family, family type, migration into Liverpool since birth, and local deprivation was examined. Rates of consent to invitation were over 97% for each antigen except pertussis, which had a consent rate of 83%. Consent to invitation for pertussis vaccine was least likely to have been given for boys, children with older siblings, those recorded as living with a single parent, and those in the most deprived areas. Local deprivation also had an effect on consent to the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. Migration into Liverpool had a significant effect on consent to invitation for all antigens except pertussis. The child's sex, family type, and local deprivation had no effect on consent to diphtheria, tetanus, and polio immunisations. Maximising pertussis vaccine uptake will require more attention to be paid to those parents who have been identified as being less likely to give consent. It is particularly important that consistent and clear advice about immunisations is made available to parents with two or more children, lone parents, and those living in materially deprived areas. Our findings challenge some of the assumptions underlying the principles of 'first parent visiting', at least so far as pertussis is concerned.

Full text

PDF
110

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baker M. R., Bandaranayake R., Schweiger M. S. Differences in rate of uptake of immunisation among ethnic groups. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Apr 7;288(6423):1075–1078. doi: 10.1136/bmj.288.6423.1075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Carter H., Jones I. G. Measles immunisation: results of a local programme to increase vaccine uptake. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985 Jun 8;290(6483):1717–1719. doi: 10.1136/bmj.290.6483.1717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cooke R. W. Trends in preterm survival and incidence of cerebral haemorrhage 1980-9. Arch Dis Child. 1991 Apr;66(4 Spec No):403–407. doi: 10.1136/adc.66.4_spec_no.403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gatrell A. C. Immunization against whooping cough in Salford: a spatial analysis. Soc Sci Med. 1986;23(10):1027–1032. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(86)90261-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Jarman B. Identification of underprivileged areas. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 May 28;286(6379):1705–1709. doi: 10.1136/bmj.286.6379.1705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jefferies S., McShane S., Oerton J., Victor C. R., Beardow R. Low immunization uptake rates in an inner-city health district: fact or fiction? J Public Health Med. 1991 Nov;13(4):312–317. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Li J., Taylor B. Comparison of immunisation rates in general practice and child health clinics. BMJ. 1991 Oct 26;303(6809):1035–1038. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6809.1035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Luker K. A., Chalmers K. I. Gaining access to clients: the case of health visiting. J Adv Nurs. 1990 Jan;15(1):74–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1990.tb01675.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mant D., Phillips A., Knightley M. Measles immunisation rates and the good practice allowance. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 Oct 18;293(6553):995–997. doi: 10.1136/bmj.293.6553.995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Marsh G. N., Channing D. M. Deprivation and health in one general practice. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 May 3;292(6529):1173–1176. doi: 10.1136/bmj.292.6529.1173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Morris R., Carstairs V. Which deprivation? A comparison of selected deprivation indexes. J Public Health Med. 1991 Nov;13(4):318–326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. New S. J., Senior M. L. "I don't believe in needles": qualitative aspects of a study into the uptake of infant immunisation in two English health authorities. Soc Sci Med. 1991;33(4):509–518. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90333-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nicoll A., Elliman D., Begg N. T. Immunisation: causes of failure and strategies and tactics for success. BMJ. 1989 Sep 30;299(6703):808–812. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6703.808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Nicoll A., Jenkinson D. Decision making for routine measles/MMR and whooping cough immunisation. BMJ. 1988 Aug 6;297(6645):405–407. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6645.405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pearson M., Makowiecka K., Gregg J., Woollard J., Rogers M., West C. Primary immunisations in Liverpool. II: Is there a gap between consent and completion? Arch Dis Child. 1993 Jul;69(1):115–119. doi: 10.1136/adc.69.1.115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. While A. Child health clinic attendance during the first two years of life. Public Health. 1990 Mar;104(2):141–146. doi: 10.1016/s0033-3506(05)80365-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. White J. M., Gillam S. J., Begg N. T., Farrington C. P. Vaccine coverage: recent trends and future prospects. BMJ. 1992 Mar 14;304(6828):682–684. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6828.682. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Archives of Disease in Childhood are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES