DTaP combination vaccine use and adherence: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite universal recommendation of the 4-dose diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTaP) vaccine series, coverage and timeliness in the US remain suboptimal. DTaP-containing combination vaccines (i.e. quadrivalent and pentavalent) are presumed to improve vaccine coverage rates and timeliness, but research supporting this claim is limited. We sought to investigate the associations between DTaP-containing vaccine use and adherence to the recommended DTaP immunization schedule among children in the US. Using a large claims database, we identified privately insured children born between 2009 and 2016 that received ≥1 DTaP-containing vaccine and had ≥24 months of enrollment from birth, excluding those with DTaP vaccinations not aligned with approved dose indications. Children were classified by DTaP-containing vaccine receipt: combination vaccines only, stand-alone vaccines only, or a mixture of both. Outcome measures included: 1) completion of the 4-dose series and 2) timely receipt of doses. Outcomes were adjusted for gender, birth year, race, and socioeconomic status. The study cohort contained 412,441 children. Of these, 40.5% (167,084) received combination vaccines only, 14.9% (61,342) received stand-alone vaccines only, and 44.6% (184,015) received a mixture of both. Combination vaccine recipients were nearly 3 times as likely to complete the 4-dose series (OR 2.93 (95% CI: 2.88, 2.99)) and for all doses received, more than 4 times as likely to receive doses on time (OR 4.12 (4.04, 4.21), relative to stand-alone vaccine recipients. Significance disparities in adherence were also observed, where minorities were up to 30% less likely (OR 0.70 (0.68, 0.71)) to complete the 4-dose series and up to 27% less likely (OR 0.73 (0.72, 0.75)) to receive doses on time, relative to white children. Our findings demonstrated that adherence to the recommended DTaP immunization schedule was significantly greater among combination vaccine recipients, relative to stand-alone recipients. Further research is needed to investigate underlying causes of disparities in adherence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".