Skip to main content
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1998 Nov 3;159(9):1091–1097.

Evaluation of rubella screening in pregnant women

T W Gyorkos 1, T N Tannenbaum 1, M Abrahamowicz 1, G Delage 1, J Carsley 1, S Marchand 1
PMCID: PMC1229775  PMID: 9835876

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The rationale for rubella vaccination in the general population and for screening for rubella in pregnant women is the prevention of congenital rubella syndrome. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the prenatal rubella screening program in Quebec. METHODS: A historical cross-sectional study was designed. Sixteen hospitals with obstetric services were randomly selected, 8 from among the 35 "large" hospitals in the province (500 or more live births/year) and 8 from among the 50 "small" hospitals (fewer than 500 live births/year). A total of 2551 women were randomly selected from all mothers of infants born between Apr. 1, 1993, and Mar. 31, 1994, by means of stratified 2-stage sampling. The proportions of women screened and vaccinated were ascertained from information obtained from the hospital chart, the physician's office and the patient. RESULTS: The overall (adjusted) screening rate was 94.0%. The rates were significantly different between large and small hospitals (94.4% v. 89.6%). Five large hospitals and one small hospital had rates above 95.0%. The likelihood of not having been screened was statistically significantly higher for women who had been pregnant previously than for women pregnant for the first time (4.8% v. 1.4%; p < 0.001). Of the 200 women who were seronegative at the time of screening (8.4%), 79 had been vaccinated postpartum, had a positive serological result on subsequent testing or did not require vaccination, and 59 had not been vaccinated postpartum; for 62, subsequent vaccination status was unknown. INTERPRETATION: Continued improvement in screening practices is needed, especially in small hospitals. Because vaccination rates are unacceptably low, it is crucial that steps be taken to address this issue.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (319.8 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Berkeley M. I., Moffat M. A., Russell D. Surveillance of antibody to rubella virus in Grampian: closing the immunity gap. BMJ. 1991 Nov 9;303(6811):1174–1176. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6811.1174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Galazka A. Rubella in Europe. Epidemiol Infect. 1991 Aug;107(1):43–54. doi: 10.1017/s0950268800048664. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Garcia D. G., Ewert D. P., Mascola L. A survey of hospital postpartum and postabortion rubella vaccination policies in Los Angeles County, 1992. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1993 Sep;14(9):513–516. doi: 10.1086/646795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gershon A. A. Present and future challenges of immunizations on the health of our patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1995 May;14(5):445–449. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199505001-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Givens K. T., Lee D. A., Jones T., Ilstrup D. M. Congenital rubella syndrome: ophthalmic manifestations and associated systemic disorders. Br J Ophthalmol. 1993 Jun;77(6):358–363. doi: 10.1136/bjo.77.6.358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lee S. H., Ewert D. P., Frederick P. D., Mascola L. Resurgence of congenital rubella syndrome in the 1990s. Report on missed opportunities and failed prevention policies among women of childbearing age. JAMA. 1992 May 20;267(19):2616–2620. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Miller C. L., Miller E., Waight P. A. Rubella susceptibility and the continuing risk of infection in pregnancy. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987 May 16;294(6582):1277–1278. doi: 10.1136/bmj.294.6582.1277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Miller E., Cradock-Watson J. E., Pollock T. M. Consequences of confirmed maternal rubella at successive stages of pregnancy. Lancet. 1982 Oct 9;2(8302):781–784. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(82)92677-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Orenstein W. A., Preblud S. R., Bart K. J., Hinman A. R. Methods of assessing the impact of congenital rubella infection. Rev Infect Dis. 1985 Mar-Apr;7 (Suppl 1):S22–S28. doi: 10.1093/clinids/7.supplement_1.s22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Robertson S. E., Cochi S. L., Bunn G. A., Morse D. L., Preblud S. R. Preventing rubella: assessing missed opportunities for immunization. Am J Public Health. 1987 Oct;77(10):1347–1349. doi: 10.2105/ajph.77.10.1347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Stamos J. K., Rowley A. H. Timely diagnosis of congenital infections. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1994 Oct;41(5):1017–1033. doi: 10.1016/s0031-3955(16)38843-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES