Impact of combination MMRV vaccine on first-dose coverage for measles and varicella: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Combination vaccines decrease the number of needles required, addressing a common concern of parents. However, some parents are hesitant about combination vaccines and/or want to opt out of certain vaccine components. This study assessed whether introduction of the combination MMRV vaccine influenced coverage levels for measles- and varicella-containing vaccines. Study and methods This was a population-based study of children born in Alberta, Canada between 2006 and 2012. We utilized administrative health data to evaluate coverage for the first dose of measles- and varicella-containing vaccines at the age of 24 months (i.e. between 2008 and 2014) before and after introduction of the combination MMRV vaccine in 2010. Among those who were vaccinated, we assessed whether any children continued to receive separate vaccines after the combination vaccine was introduced. Results Of 308,212 children, 272,345 (88.36%) were vaccinated with measles- and/or varicella-containing vaccines at the age of 24 months. Although coverage for measles-containing vaccines did not change overall between 2008 and 2014, coverage for varicella vaccine increased in the years following the introduction of MMRV. After the combination vaccine introduction, 96.55% of vaccinated children (n = 121,131) received MMRV vaccine. Conclusion Vaccine coverage for varicella increased after the introduction of the combination MMRV vaccine, and there was a narrowing in the gap between MMR and varicella coverage. Very few children received separate vaccines after the introduction of the combination MMRV vaccine. These findings suggest that combination vaccines are acceptable to most parents and increase coverage for varicella in our setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".