Attitudinal and Demographic Predictors of Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine (MMR) Uptake during the UK Catch-Up Campaign 2008–09: Cross-Sectional Survey Predictors of Catch-Up MMR Vaccine Uptake
2011

Predictors of MMR Vaccine Uptake during the UK Catch-Up Campaign

Sample size: 365 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Katrina Brown, Graham Fraser, Mary Ramsay, Ruth Shanley, Noel Cowley, Johan van Wijgerden, Penelope Toff, Michelle Falconer, Michael Hudson, John Green, J. Simon Kroll, Charles Vincent, Nick Sevdalis

Primary Institution: Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

Hypothesis

Demographics and attitudes may be central to understanding predictors of MMR vaccine uptake during catch-up campaigns.

Conclusion

Catch-up MMR invitations may effectively move children from 0 to 1 MMR doses, while attitudinal interventions highlighting social benefits may effectively move children from 1 to 2 MMR doses.

Supporting Evidence

  • Perceived social desirability/benefit of MMR uptake was a significant predictor of catch-up MMR uptake.
  • Younger child age was associated with higher MMR uptake.
  • Receipt of catch-up invitation predicted uptake only in the unimmunised group.
  • Attitudes and demographics explained 28% of MMR uptake in the unimmunised group.
  • Catch-up MMR uptake differed significantly between unimmunised and partially immunised children.

Takeaway

The study looked at why some parents choose to get their kids vaccinated with the MMR vaccine during a special campaign, finding that social attitudes and invitations play a big role.

Methodology

Cross-sectional self-administered questionnaire with objective behavioural outcome.

Potential Biases

Parent report of receipt of MMR invitation may be subject to recall bias.

Limitations

The modest response rate may have compromised the generalisability of the sample to the wider population.

Participant Demographics

Parents of children aged 5–18 years with less than 2 MMR doses.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI = 1.09–2.87

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pone.0019381

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication