Inequities in COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Among Pregnant Persons, by Disaggregated Race and Ethnicity - Massachusetts, May 2021-October 2022.

National estimates suggest that COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant persons is lower among those identifying as Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) and non-Hispanic Black or African American. When examining COVID-19 vaccination coverage during pregnancy by race and ethnicity, however, data are typically limited to large, aggregate categories that might obscure within-group inequities. To address this, Massachusetts examined COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant persons by combinations of 12 racial and 34 ethnic groupings. Among 102,275 persons with a live birth in Massachusetts during May 1, 2021-October 31, 2022, receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy was 41.6% overall and was highest among persons who identified as Asian (55.0%) and lowest among those who identified as Hispanic (26.7%). However, within all broad racial and ethnic groupings, disparities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage were identified when the data were disaggregated into more granular categories; for example, COVID-19 vaccination coverage ranged from 10.8%-61.1% among pregnant persons who identified as Hispanic. Disaggregated analyses reveal diverse experiences within broad racial and ethnic groupings. This information can be used to guide outreach to pregnant persons in communities with lower rates of COVID-19 vaccination coverage during pregnancy.

Accuracy of birth certificate head circumference measurements: Massachusetts, 2012-2013.

BACKGROUND: Zika virus has recently emerged as a novel cause of microcephaly. CDC has asked states to rapidly ascertain and report cases of Zika-linked birth defects, including microcephaly. Massachusetts added head circumference to its birth certificate (BC) in 2011. The accuracy of head circumference measurements from state vital records data has not been reported. METHODS: We sought to assess the accuracy of Massachusetts BC head circumference measurements by comparing them to measurements for 2,217 infants born during 2012-2013 captured in the Massachusetts Birth Defects Monitoring Program (BDMP) data system. BDMP contains information abstracted directly from infant medical records and served as the true head circumference value (i.e., gold standard) for analysis. We calculated the proportion of head circumference measurements in agreement between the BC and BDMP data. We assigned growth chart head circumference percentile categories to each BC and BDMP measurement, and calculated the sensitivity and specificity of BC-based categories to predict BDMP-based categories. RESULTS: No difference was found in head circumference measurements between the two sources in 77.9% (n = 1,727) of study infants. The sensitivity of BC-based head circumference percentile categories ranged from 85.6% (<3rd percentile) to 92.7% (≥90th percentile) and the specificity ranged from 97.6% (≥90th percentile) to 99.3% (<3rd percentile). CONCLUSIONS: BC head circumference measurements agreed with those abstracted from the medical chart the majority of the time. Head circumference measurements on the BC were more specific than sensitive across all standardized growth chart percentile categories.