Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 9 de 9
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Vaccine ; 2024 Jan 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38238113

RESUMO

During the COVID-19 vaccination rollout from March 2021- December 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 110 primary and 1051 subrecipient partners at the national, state, local, and community-based level to improve COVID-19 vaccination access, confidence, demand, delivery, and equity in the United States. The partners implemented evidence-based strategies among racial and ethnic minority populations, rural populations, older adults, people with disabilities, people with chronic illness, people experiencing homelessness, and other groups disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. CDC also expanded existing partnerships with healthcare professional societies and other core public health partners, as well as developed innovative partnerships with organizations new to vaccination, including museums and libraries. Partners brought COVID-19 vaccine education into farm fields, local fairs, churches, community centers, barber and beauty shops, and, when possible, partnered with local healthcare providers to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Inclusive, hyper-localized outreach through partnerships with community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, vaccination providers, and local health departments was critical to increasing COVID-19 vaccine access and building a broad network of trusted messengers that promoted vaccine confidence. Data from monthly and quarterly REDCap reports and monthly partner calls showed that through these partnerships, more than 295,000 community-level spokespersons were trained as trusted messengers and more than 2.1 million COVID-19 vaccinations were administered at new or existing vaccination sites. More than 535,035 healthcare personnel were reached through outreach strategies. Quality improvement interventions were implemented in healthcare systems, long-term care settings, and community health centers resulting in changes to the clinical workflow to incorporate COVID-19 vaccine assessments, recommendations, and administration or referrals into routine office visits. Funded partners' activities improved COVID-19 vaccine access and addressed community concerns among racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as among people with barriers to vaccination due to chronic illness or disability, older age, lower income, or other factors.

2.
J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc ; 11(6): 257-266, 2022 Jun 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35333347

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pediatric international travelers account for nearly half of measles importations in the United States. Over one third of pediatric international travelers depart the United States without the recommended measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations: 2 doses for travelers ≥12 months and 1 dose for travelers 6 to <12 months. METHODS: We developed a model to compare 2 strategies among a simulated cohort of international travelers (6 months to <6 years): (1) No pretravel health encounter (PHE): travelers depart with baseline MMR vaccination status; (2) PHE: MMR-eligible travelers are offered vaccination. All pediatric travelers experience a destination-specific risk of measles exposure (mean, 30 exposures/million travelers). If exposed to measles, travelers' age and MMR vaccination status determine the risk of infection (range, 3%-90%). We included costs of medical care, contact tracing, and lost wages from the societal perspective. We varied inputs in sensitivity analyses. Model outcomes included projected measles cases, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($/quality-adjusted life year [QALY], cost-effectiveness threshold ≤$100 000/QALY). RESULTS: Compared with no PHE, PHE would avert 57 measles cases at $9.2 million/QALY among infant travelers and 7 measles cases at $15.0 million/QALY among preschool-aged travelers. Clinical benefits of PHE would be greatest for infants but cost-effective only for travelers to destinations with higher risk for measles exposure (ie, ≥160 exposures/million travelers) or if more US-acquired cases resulted from an infected traveler, such as in communities with limited MMR coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Pretravel MMR vaccination provides the greatest clinical benefit for infant travelers and can be cost-effective before travel to destinations with high risk for measles exposure or from communities with low MMR vaccination coverage.


Assuntos
Sarampo , Caxumba , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão) , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Lactente , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola , Caxumba/prevenção & controle , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão)/prevenção & controle , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Vacinação
3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(30): 1036-1039, 2021 Jul 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34324478

RESUMO

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and health care personnel (HCP) working in these facilities are at high risk for COVID-19-associated mortality. As of March 2021, deaths among LTCF residents and HCP have accounted for almost one third (approximately 182,000) of COVID-19-associated deaths in the United States (1). Accordingly, LTCF residents and HCP were prioritized for early receipt of COVID-19 vaccination and were targeted for on-site vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program (2). In December 2020, CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) launched COVID-19 vaccination modules, which allow U.S. LTCFs to voluntarily submit weekly facility-level COVID-19 vaccination data.* CDC analyzed data submitted during March 1-April 4, 2021, to describe COVID-19 vaccination coverage among a convenience sample of HCP working in LTCFs, by job category, and compare HCP vaccination coverage rates with social vulnerability metrics of the surrounding community using zip code tabulation area (zip code area) estimates. Through April 4, 2021, a total of 300 LTCFs nationwide, representing approximately 1.8% of LTCFs enrolled in NHSN, reported that 22,825 (56.8%) of 40,212 HCP completed COVID-19 vaccination.† Vaccination coverage was highest among physicians and advanced practice providers (75.1%) and lowest among nurses (56.7%) and aides (45.6%). Among aides (including certified nursing assistants, nurse aides, medication aides, and medication assistants), coverage was lower in facilities located in zip code areas with higher social vulnerability (social and structural factors associated with adverse health outcomes), corresponding to vaccination disparities present in the wider community (3). Additional efforts are needed to improve LTCF immunization policies and practices, build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and promote COVID-19 vaccination. CDC and partners have prepared education and training resources to help educate HCP and promote COVID-19 vaccination coverage among LTCF staff members.§.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Pessoal de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Ocupações/estatística & dados numéricos , Instituições Residenciais , Cobertura Vacinal/estatística & dados numéricos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(39): 1391-1397, 2020 Oct 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33001873

RESUMO

Vaccination of pregnant women with influenza vaccine and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) can decrease the risk for influenza and pertussis among pregnant women and their infants. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all women who are or might be pregnant during the influenza season receive influenza vaccine, which can be administered at any time during pregnancy (1). ACIP also recommends that women receive Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably during the early part of gestational weeks 27-36 (2,3). Despite these recommendations, vaccination coverage among pregnant women has been found to be suboptimal with racial/ethnic disparities persisting (4-6). To assess influenza and Tdap vaccination coverage among women pregnant during the 2019-20 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted during April 2020. Among 1,841 survey respondents who were pregnant anytime during October 2019-January 2020, 61.2% reported receiving influenza vaccine before or during their pregnancy, an increase of 7.5 percentage points compared with the rate during the 2018-19 season. Among 463 respondents who had a live birth by their survey date, 56.6% reported receiving Tdap during pregnancy, similar to the 2018-19 season (4). Vaccination coverage was highest among women who reported receiving a provider offer or referral for vaccination (influenza = 75.2%; Tdap = 72.7%). Compared with the 2018-19 season, increases in influenza vaccination coverage were observed during the 2019-20 season for non-Hispanic Black (Black) women (14.7 percentage points, to 52.7%), Hispanic women (9.9 percentage points, to 67.2%), and women of other non-Hispanic (other) races (7.9 percentage points, to 69.6%), and did not change for non-Hispanic White (White) women (60.6%). As in the 2018-19 season, Hispanic and Black women had the lowest Tdap vaccination coverage (35.8% and 38.8%, respectively), compared with White women (65.5%) and women of other races (54.0%); in addition, a decrease in Tdap vaccination coverage was observed among Hispanic women in 2019-20 compared with the previous season. Racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage decreased but persisted, even among women who received a provider offer or referral for vaccination. Consistent provider offers or referrals, in combination with conversations culturally and linguistically tailored for patients of all races/ethnicities, could increase vaccination coverage among pregnant women in all racial/ethnic groups and reduce disparities in coverage.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Difteria, Tétano e Coqueluche Acelular/administração & dosagem , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde/etnologia , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Gestantes/etnologia , Cobertura Vacinal/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Etnicidade/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gravidez , Grupos Raciais/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos , Adulto Jovem
5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 69(2): 306-315, 2019 07 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30312374

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Measles importations and the subsequent spread from US travelers returning from abroad are responsible for most measles cases in the United States. Increasing measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination among departing US travelers could reduce the clinical impact and costs of measles in the United States. METHODS: We designed a decision tree to evaluate MMR vaccination at a pretravel health encounter (PHE), compared with no encounter. We derived input parameters from Global TravEpiNet data and literature. We quantified Riskexposure to measles while traveling and the average number of US-acquired cases and contacts due to a measles importation. In sensitivity analyses, we examined the impact of destination-specific Riskexposure, including hot spots with active measles outbreaks; the percentage of previously-unvaccinated travelers; and the percentage of travelers returning to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage. RESULTS: The no-encounter strategy projected 22 imported and 66 US-acquired measles cases, costing $14.8M per 10M travelers. The PHE strategy projected 15 imported and 35 US-acquired cases at $190.3M per 10M travelers. PHE was not cost effective for all international travelers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $4.6M/measles case averted), but offered better value (ICER <$100 000/measles case averted) or was even cost saving for travelers to hot spots, especially if travelers were previously unvaccinated or returning to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage. CONCLUSIONS: PHEs that improve MMR vaccination among US international travelers could reduce measles cases, but are costly. The best value is for travelers with a high likelihood of measles exposure, especially if the travelers are previously unvaccinated or will return to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage.


Assuntos
Doenças Transmissíveis Importadas/economia , Doenças Transmissíveis Importadas/prevenção & controle , Análise Custo-Benefício , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/economia , Sarampo/economia , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , Doença Relacionada a Viagens , Adulto , Doenças Transmissíveis Importadas/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Sarampo/epidemiologia , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/administração & dosagem , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Adulto Jovem
6.
MMWR Surveill Summ ; 66(11): 1-28, 2017 05 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28472027

RESUMO

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Overall, the prevalence of illness attributable to vaccine-preventable diseases is greater among adults than among children. Adults are recommended to receive vaccinations based on their age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, prior vaccinations, and other considerations. Updated vaccination recommendations from CDC are published annually in the U.S. Adult Immunization Schedule. Despite longstanding recommendations for use of many vaccines, vaccination coverage among U.S. adults is low. PERIOD COVERED: August 2014-June 2015 (for influenza vaccination) and January-December 2015 (for pneumococcal, tetanus and diphtheria [Td] and tetanus and diphtheria with acellular pertussis [Tdap], hepatitis A, hepatitis B, herpes zoster, and human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccination). DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a continuous, cross-sectional national household survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population. In-person interviews are conducted throughout the year in a probability sample of households, and NHIS data are compiled and released annually. The survey objective is to monitor the health of the U.S. population and provide estimates of health indicators, health care use and access, and health-related behaviors. RESULTS: Compared with data from the 2014 NHIS, increases in vaccination coverage occurred for influenza vaccine among adults aged ≥19 years (a 1.6 percentage point increase compared with the 2013-14 season to 44.8%), pneumococcal vaccine among adults aged 19-64 years at increased risk for pneumococcal disease (a 2.8 percentage point increase to 23.0%), Tdap vaccine among adults aged ≥19 years and adults aged 19-64 years (a 3.1 percentage point and 3.3 percentage point increase to 23.1% and to 24.7%, respectively), herpes zoster vaccine among adults aged ≥60 years and adults aged ≥65 years (a 2.7 percentage point and 3.2 percentage point increase to 30.6% and to 34.2%, respectively), and hepatitis B vaccine among health care personnel (HCP) aged ≥19 years (a 4.1 percentage point increase to 64.7%). Herpes zoster vaccination coverage in 2015 met the Healthy People 2020 target of 30%. Aside from these modest improvements, vaccination coverage among adults in 2015 was similar to estimates from 2014. Racial/ethnic differences in coverage persisted for all seven vaccines, with higher coverage generally for whites compared with most other groups. Adults without health insurance reported receipt of influenza vaccine (all age groups), pneumococcal vaccine (adults aged 19-64 years at increased risk), Td vaccine (adults aged ≥19 years, 19-64 years, and 50-64 years), Tdap vaccine (adults aged ≥19 years and 19-64 years), hepatitis A vaccine (adults aged ≥19 years overall and among travelers), hepatitis B vaccine (adults aged ≥19 years, 19-49 years, and among travelers), herpes zoster vaccine (adults aged ≥60 years), and HPV vaccine (males and females aged 19-26 years) less often than those with health insurance. Adults who reported having a usual place for health care generally reported receipt of recommended vaccinations more often than those who did not have such a place, regardless of whether they had health insurance. Vaccination coverage was higher among adults reporting one or more physician contacts in the past year compared with those who had not visited a physician in the past year, regardless of whether they had health insurance. Even among adults who had health insurance and ≥10 physician contacts within the past year, depending on the vaccine, 18.2%-85.6% reported not having received vaccinations that were recommended either for all persons or for those with specific indications. Overall, vaccination coverage among U.S.-born adults was higher than that among foreign-born adults, with few exceptions (influenza vaccination [adults aged 19-49 years and 50-64 years], hepatitis A vaccination [adults aged ≥19 years], and hepatitis B vaccination [adults aged ≥19 years with diabetes or chronic liver conditions]). INTERPRETATION: Coverage for all vaccines for adults remained low but modest gains occurred in vaccination coverage for influenza (adults aged ≥19 years), pneumococcal (adults aged 19-64 years with increased risk), Tdap (adults aged ≥19 years and adults aged 19-64 years), herpes zoster (adults aged ≥60 years and ≥65 years), and hepatitis B (HCP aged ≥19 years); coverage for other vaccines and groups with vaccination indications did not improve. The 30% Healthy People 2020 target for herpes zoster vaccination was met. Racial/ethnic disparities persisted for routinely recommended adult vaccines. Missed opportunities to vaccinate remained. Although having health insurance coverage and a usual place for health care were associated with higher vaccination coverage, these factors alone were not associated with optimal adult vaccination coverage. HPV vaccination coverage for males and females has increased since CDC recommended vaccination to prevent cancers caused by HPV, but many adolescents and young adults remained unvaccinated. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS: Assessing factors associated with low coverage rates and disparities in vaccination is important for implementing strategies to improve vaccination coverage. Evidence-based practices that have been demonstrated to improve vaccination coverage should be used. These practices include assessment of patients' vaccination indications by health care providers and routine recommendation and offer of needed vaccines to adults, implementation of reminder-recall systems, use of standing-order programs for vaccination, and assessment of practice-level vaccination rates with feedback to staff members. For vaccination coverage to be improved among those who reported lower coverage rates of recommended adult vaccines, efforts also are needed to identify adults who do not have a regular provider or insurance and who report fewer health care visits.


Assuntos
Vigilância da População , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Vacinas/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estados Unidos , Adulto Jovem
7.
Am J Epidemiol ; 185(7): 562-569, 2017 04 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28338902

RESUMO

We assessed the status of measles elimination in the United States using outbreak notification data. Measles transmissibility was assessed by estimation of the reproduction number, R, the average number of secondary cases per infection, using 4 methods; elimination requires maintaining R at <1. Method 1 estimates R as 1 minus the proportion of cases that are imported. Methods 2 and 3 estimate R by fitting a model of the spread of infection to data on the sizes and generations of chains of transmission, respectively. Method 4 assesses transmissibility before public health interventions, by estimating R for the case with the earliest symptom onset in each cluster (Rindex). During 2001-2014, R and Rindex estimates obtained using methods 1-4 were 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68, 0.76), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.70), 0.45 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.49), and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.57, 0.69), respectively. Year-to-year variability in the values of R and Rindex and an increase in transmissibility in recent years were noted with all methods. Elimination of endemic measles transmission is maintained in the United States. A suggested increase in measles transmissibility since elimination warrants continued monitoring and emphasizes the importance of high measles vaccination coverage throughout the population.


Assuntos
Erradicação de Doenças/estatística & dados numéricos , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , Adolescente , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Erradicação de Doenças/métodos , Surtos de Doenças/prevenção & controle , Surtos de Doenças/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Programas de Imunização , Lactente , Sarampo/epidemiologia , Sarampo/transmissão , Vacina contra Sarampo/uso terapêutico , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
8.
Clin Infect Dis ; 61(4): 615-8, 2015 Aug 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25979309

RESUMO

Between 2001 and 2014, 78 reported measles cases resulted from transmission in US healthcare facilities, and 29 healthcare personnel were infected from occupational exposure, 1 of whom transmitted measles to a patient. The economic impact of preventing and controlling measles transmission in healthcare facilities was $19 000-$114 286 per case.


Assuntos
Infecção Hospitalar/epidemiologia , Sarampo/epidemiologia , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/economia , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/métodos , Infecção Hospitalar/transmissão , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Instalações de Saúde , Humanos , Sarampo/transmissão , Exposição Ocupacional , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
9.
Am J Epidemiol ; 176(6): 519-26, 2012 Sep 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22952308

RESUMO

In estimates of illness severity from the spring wave of the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, reported case fatality proportions were less than 0.05%. In prior pandemics, subsequent waves of illness were associated with higher mortality. The authors evaluated the burden of the pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1) outbreak in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, in the fall of 2009, when increased influenza activity heralded the second wave of the pandemic in the United States. Using data from a community survey, existing surveillance systems, public health laboratories, and local hospitals, they estimated numbers of pH1N1-associated illnesses, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths occurring in metropolitan Atlanta during the period August 16, 2009-September 26, 2009. The authors estimated 132,140 pediatric and 132,110 adult symptomatic cases of pH1N1 in metropolitan Atlanta during the investigation time frame. Among children, these cases were associated with 4,560 ED visits, 190 hospitalizations, 51 ICU admissions, and 4 deaths. Among adults, they were associated with 1,130 ED visits, 590 hospitalizations, 140 ICU admissions, and 63 deaths. The combined symptomatic case hospitalization proportion, case ICU admission proportion, and case fatality proportion were 0.281%, 0.069%, and 0.024%, respectively. Influenza burden can be estimated using existing data and local surveys. The increased severity reported for subsequent waves in past pandemics was not evident in this investigation. Nevertheless, the second pH1N1 pandemic wave led to substantial numbers of ED visits, hospitalizations, and deaths in metropolitan Atlanta.


Assuntos
Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N1 , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Pandemias , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Saúde da População Urbana/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Georgia/epidemiologia , Inquéritos Epidemiológicos , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Influenza Humana/mortalidade , Influenza Humana/terapia , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Vigilância da População , Estações do Ano , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA