ARTICLE
Underimmunization of American Indian and Alaska
Native Children
Amy V. Groom, MPHa,b, Michael L. Washington, PhDa, Philip J. Smith, PhDa, Ralph T. Bryan, MDb,c
aImmunization Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, andcOffice of Minority Health and Health Disparities, Office of Strategy and
Innovation, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia;bDivision of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention, Office of Public Health
Support, Indian Health Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico
The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
What’s Known on This Subject
Previous studies have found that immunization coverage for American Indian/Alaska Native children has been similar to coverage for other racial groups. Those studies used NIS data from 1998 to 2000 (pooled) and 2001.
What This Study Adds
This is the first study to use NIS data from 2000 to 2005 to examine immunization coverage at a national level for American Indian/Alaska Native children.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE.The goal was to determine whether disparities in childhood immunization coverage exist between American Indian/Alaska Native children and non-Hispanic white children.
METHODS.We compared immunization coverage with the 4
diphtheria-tetanus-pertus-sis, 3 poliovirus, 1 measles-mumps-rubella, 3 Haemophilus influenza type b, and 3
hepatitis B(4:3:1:3:3) series and its individual vaccine components (ⱖ4 doses of
diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine; ⱖ3 doses of oral or inactivated polio
vaccine;ⱖ1 dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine;ⱖ3 doses ofHaemophilus
influenzaetype b vaccine; and ⱖ3 doses of hepatitis B vaccine) between American
Indian/Alaska Native children and non-Hispanic white children from 2000 to 2005, using data from the National Immunization Survey.
RESULTS.Although immunization coverage increased for both populations from 2001 to 2004, American Indian/Alaska Native children had significantly lower immuni-zation coverage, compared with non-Hispanic white children, over that time period. In 2005, coverage continued to increase for American Indian/Alaska Native children but decreased for non-Hispanic white children, and no statistically significant dis-parity in 4:3:1:3:3 coverage was evident in that year.
CONCLUSIONS.Disparities in immunization coverage for American Indian/Alaska Native children have been present, but unrecognized, since 2001. The absence of a disparity in coverage in 2005 is encouraging but is tempered by the fact that coverage for non-Hispanic white children decreased in that year.
A
MERICAN INDIAN (AI)and Alaska Native (AN) children receive immunizations in a variety of settings, including Indian Health Service (IHS) and tribal health facilities, urban Indian health organizations, other federal, state, or local public providers, and private providers. Like many minority racial/ethnic populations, theyexperience a disproportionate burden of morbidity and mortality resulting from a number of health conditions and
often face barriers accessing health care services.1–5Despite persistent health and health care disparities, there have
been improvements in the overall health status of AI/AN populations. Before the use of hepatitis A vaccine, for
example, hepatitis A infection rates among AI/AN individuals were⬎5 times higher than rates in other racial/ethnic
populations. Since the advent of hepatitis A vaccination programs, hepatitis A rates have decreased 99% for AI/AN populations, compared with the prevaccine era, and are now approximately the same as or lower than those of other
racial/ethnic populations.6In recent decades, rates of deaths of AI/AN individuals resulting from other infectious
diseases and pregnancy-associated complications have decreased and life expectancy has increased.1,4
Some studies suggest that improvements in overall immunization coverage among AI/AN children have also occurred and that disparities in coverage between AI/AN and non-AI/AN populations have declined or even
disappeared.7,8In Alaska, for example, AN children seem to have higher immunization coverage levels than non-AN
children.9Relatively high immunization coverage levels for AI/AN children, despite a high prevalence of risk factors
for underimmunization, have been attributed to improved access to immunizations through the Vaccines for
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/ peds.2007-1794
doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1794
Key Words
American Indian, Alaska Native, immunization assessment, health disparities
Abbreviations
AI—American Indian AN—Alaska Native IHS—Indian Health Service NIS—National Immunization Survey 4:3:1:3:— 4 diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, 3 poliovirus, 1 measles-mumps-rubella, 3Haemophilus influenzatype b, and 3 hepatitis B
DT— diphtheria and tetanus toxoids DTP— diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-pertussis DTaP— diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis
Hib—Haemophilus influenzatype b
Accepted for publication Sep 12, 2007
Address correspondence to Amy V. Groom, MPH, Indian Health Service, Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention, 5300 Homestead Rd NE, Albuquerque, NM 87110. E-mail: amy.groom@ihs.gov
Children program, broader access to primary care ser-vices, and public health outreach efforts by the IHS and
tribal health programs.7,9
The IHS is the federal agency charged with providing health care to AI/AN individuals who are members of
one of the ⬎560 federally recognized tribes. The IHS
provides a range of health services, including immuni-zations, to eligible patients in 35 states. Immunization coverage is monitored on an ongoing basis by using electronic medical records, and reports on coverage lev-els are issued quarterly. IHS data indicate that childhood immunization coverage levels for the IHS user popula-tion (ie, AI/AN persons who received direct or contract care at an IHS-funded facility at least once in the past 3 years) are increasing and are similar to coverage levels
for the general US population.10The number of children
included in IHS reports has been steadily increasing as more rigorous reporting requirements have been
imple-mented, and reports currently include ⬃25 000 AI/AN
children 19 to 35 months of age each quarter.10
IHS immunization data, however, apply only to AI/AN children vaccinated at IHS, tribal, or urban Indian health facilities and may not be indicative of coverage in the wider AI/AN population across the United States. On
the basis of the IHS user population,⬃40% of 2-year-old
AI/AN children receive services from the IHS (IHS, Di-vision of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention, unpub-lished data, 2007). The most-recent studies that compre-hensively evaluated the immunization coverage among AI/AN children nationally used pooled data from 1998
through 20007or data limited to a single year (2001) of
the National Immunization Survey (NIS).8Because
com-prehensive, up-to-date information about AI/AN child-hood immunization coverage is lacking, we analyzed NIS data for each year from 2000 through 2005. The objectives of this study were to document, on a national level, the presence or absence of immunization coverage disparities between AI/AN children and other racial/ ethnic groups during each year from 2000 through 2005 and to assess whether residence in counties with IHS service availability was associated with improved AI/AN childhood immunization coverage.
METHODS
The NIS is a random-digit-dialed telephone survey that estimates national and state-level vaccine coverage lev-els for children 19 to 35 months of age. NIS methods have been described in detail in previous
publica-tions.11–13
We analyzed data from 2000 through 2005 and for
each year calculated coverage with a combination ofⱖ4
doses of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (DT), or diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and any pertussis vaccine
(DTAP), ⱖ3 doses of oral or inactivated polio vaccine,
ⱖ1 dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, ⱖ3
doses ofHaemophilus influenzaetype b (Hib) vaccine, and
ⱖ3 doses of hepatitis B vaccine. This group of vaccines is
referred to as the 4:3:1:3:3 series. In addition to the series coverage, we calculated coverage with the individ-ual vaccines for each year of the study. All analyses were
conducted by using the statistical software packages SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and SUDAAN 9.0 (Re-search Triangle Institute, Re(Re-search Triangle Park, NC), which allows the sampling weights and the sampling design of the NIS to be taken into account.
To help achieve maximal sample sizes, we defined the AI/AN group as all non-Hispanic children who were identified by their parents as being either AI/AN alone or AI/AN in combination with any other race (“AI/AN all”) for the purposes of this study. Hispanic children were excluded from the AI/AN group, because they may in-clude AI children from Central or South America. To determine whether there were differences in coverage estimates depending on the definition used for the AI/AN population, we compared 4:3:1:3:3 coverage es-timates for the AI/AN alone and AI/AN all groups. We
used a 2-sidedttest with an␣level of .05 to determine
whether coverage rates were significantly different be-tween the 2 groups.
To measure disparities in coverage, 4:3:1:3:3 coverage levels were calculated for AI/AN children and compared with coverage estimates for 2 other groups of children, namely, (1) non-Hispanic white children and (2) all non-AI/AN children, that is, all children of any race or ethnicity not identified as AI/AN. Because we hypothe-sized that the coverage level for AI/AN children would be lower than the coverage level for either of the 2
comparison populations, we used a 1-sidedttest with an
␣level of .05 to determine whether the coverage level
for the AI/AN group was statistically significantly lower. To estimate the impact that the availability of IHS services might have had on immunization coverage lev-els, we used IHS service counties, also known as contract health services delivery areas, as a proxy for determining access to IHS services. IHS service counties are defined by IHS and represent the catchment area for IHS-funded services (Fig 1). We compared 4:3:1:3:3 coverage levels for AI/AN children residing in an IHS service county with coverage levels for AI/AN children residing outside
an IHS service county. One-sidedttests with an␣level
of .05 were used for this analysis.
RESULTS
The yearly sample size for children whose parents iden-tified them as AI/AN alone ranged from 268 to 486, compared with 424 to 510 for children who were iden-tified as AI/AN all. The white sample ranged from 10 317 to 13 700 children, and the non-AI/AN sample ranged from 17 139 to 23 137 children. The difference in 4:3:1: 3:3 coverage rates for the AI/AN alone group versus the AI/AN all group was not significant in any year (Table 1). For all subsequent analyses, we defined AI/AN chil-dren as chilchil-dren who were identified as AI/AN all.
Analysis of 4:3:1:3:3 coverage stratified according to the component vaccines revealed that, in any single year (including 2005), there were at least 2 vaccines for which coverage was significantly lower for AI/AN chil-dren, compared with white children. In 2002 and 2004, coverage with all component vaccines in the 4:3:1:3:3 combination was significantly lower for AI/AN children. Coverage with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and per-tussis vaccine, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, or diph-theria and tetanus toxoids and any pertussis vaccine was significantly lower for AI/AN children in all 6 years (Table 2).
In each of the 6 years studied, the majority of AI/AN children in the NIS samples (54%– 65%) resided within an IHS service county. Higher coverage levels for AI/AN children residing in IHS service counties were not ob-served in any year. In 2002, 4:3:1:3:3 coverage for AI/AN children residing in an IHS service county was significantly lower than that for AI/AN children residing
outside an IHS service county (P⬎.05) (Table 3). There
were no significant differences in any other year.
DISCUSSION
Observed Disparities in Immunization Coverage
During 4 of the 6 years of NIS data included in this study, AI/AN children were underimmunized compared with
other children in the United States. Evidence for this health disparity was present when AI/AN children were compared with either non-Hispanic white children (2001–2004) or all non-AI/AN children (2002–2004). These previously unreported findings highlight an im-portant and potentially persistent health disparity and cast doubt on the existing perception that immunization coverage for AI/AN children is as good as, or better than, coverage for non-AI/AN children.
Although the apparent disappearance of this disparity in 2005 is encouraging, this observation should be inter-preted with caution. Despite relatively steady increases in preceding years (Fig 2 and Table 2), coverage for the comparison populations actually declined in 2005, and it is not clear from our data which factor (this decline or the increase in AI/AN coverage that year) had a greater impact on closing this gap in coverage. In addition, dis-parities did persist in 2005 for 2 component vaccines (DTP/DT/DTaP and Hib b vaccines), which suggests that the gap is not completely closed.
It is also encouraging to note that, overall, immuni-zation coverage seems to be improving for all races and, by 2005, coverage was at or near the Healthy People 2010 goal of 90% for most vaccines in the 4:3:1:3:3 series. As seen in Fig 2, however, the trends in coverage for AI/AN children over the 6 years of this study were more erratic than the steadier upward trends shown for the non-Hispanic white or non-AI/AN comparison pop-ulations. This volatility might be a reflection of measure-ment factors such as small sample sizes or sampling errors related to the methods used by the NIS but also could be an indication of increased vulnerability of the AI/AN population to known risk factors for low immu-nization coverage, such as lower socioeconomic status
and large family size.7 In the absence of larger sample
sizes, it is difficult to determine what is driving the overall volatility in immunization coverage for the AI/AN population.
National shortages of individual vaccines, such as the
TABLE 1 Estimated 4:3:1:3:3 Coverage for AI/AN Alone and AI/AN All Groups in 2000 –2005 (NIS)
Proportion (95% CI), %
AI/AN Alone AI/AN All
2000 73.2⫾5.0 71.0⫾5.5
2001 73.9⫾5.9 68.9⫾5.8
2002 59.6⫾8.4 62.1⫾7.5
2003 76.3⫾6.2 74.3⫾5.2
2004 77.5⫾5.4 72.1⫾5.4
2005 78.0⫾6.9 77.7⫾5.5
The AI/AN all group excludes Hispanic subjects. CI indicates confidence interval.
Contract County
No Yes
FIGURE 1
DTaP vaccine, may disproportionately affect AI/AN
chil-dren and other public-sector vaccine recipients.14,15 To
assess whether such shortages might explain the overall disparities in 4:3:1:3:3 coverage that we observed in 2001–2004, we also analyzed the individual vaccines in this series. We found no evidence to suggest that a decline in coverage with any one vaccine was responsi-ble for the lower 4:3:1:3:3 coverage levels experienced by AI/AN children during the years of this study. AI/AN children had significantly lower 4:3:1:3:3 coverage rates (2001–2004) during years with and without vaccine shortages.
We also found that immunization coverage levels were not significantly higher for AI/AN children residing in IHS service counties, compared with AI/AN children living outside IHS service counties. In 1 year, 2002, coverage levels in IHS service counties were actually lower. These findings could suggest that proximity to IHS services did not necessarily enhance immunization coverage for all AI/AN children; however, it is also pos-sible that coverage levels for AI/AN children residing in the IHS service counties might have been lower if IHS services had not been available. In addition, it is impor-tant to note that not all children residing in an IHS service county were necessarily eligible for or accessed IHS services; therefore, they might not have benefited from the immunization services offered by IHS.
Comparison With Previous Studies
Published studies that have addressed immunization coverage for AI/AN children are few in number and mixed in terms of comprehensiveness and comparabil-ity. The most-recent reviews of racial/ethnic disparities in childhood immunizations did not include AI/AN
chil-dren.16,17 Others, focusing on individual vaccines and
concluding that racial/ethnic disparities in vaccine cov-erage have been eliminated, did not address AI/AN
dis-parities directly.18,19Since 2000, only 2 publications
as-sessed AI/AN childhood immunization coverage directly
by using NIS data7,8; both studies concluded that
immu-TABLE 2 Vaccine Coverage for AI/AN Children and White Children in 2000 –2005 (NIS) Vaccines Proportion (95% CI), % 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 AI/AN White AI/AN White AI/AN White AI/AN White AI/AN White AI/AN White 4:3:1:3:3 71.0 ⫾ 5.5 75.6 ⫾ 1.0 68.9 ⫾ 5.8 a,b 75.2 ⫾ 1.0 62.1 ⫾ 7.5 a 77.7 ⫾ 1.0 74.3 ⫾ 5.2 a 82.5 ⫾ 0.9 72.1 ⫾ 5.4 a 83.8 ⫾ 0.9 77.7 ⫾ 5.5 82.1 ⫾ 1.1 ⱖ 4 doses of DTP/DT/DTaP 76.9 ⫾ 5.2 a 83.7 ⫾ 0.8 74.7 ⫾ 5.6 a 83.1 ⫾ 0.9 68.2 ⫾ 7.8 a 84.4 ⫾ 0.9 78.3 ⫾ 5.0 a 87.7 ⫾ 0.8 77.8 ⫾ 5.2 a 88.3 ⫾ 0.8 81.3 ⫾ 5.1 a 87.2 ⫾ 0.9 ⱖ 3 doses of IPV 89.8 ⫾ 3.2 89.9 ⫾ 0.7 86.3 ⫾ 4.7 89.6 ⫾ 0.7 79.4 ⫾ 8.1 a 91.2 ⫾ 0.7 90.1 ⫾ 3.7 93.0 ⫾ 0.6 85.8 ⫾ 4.6 a 92.4 ⫾ 0.7 87.1 ⫾ 4.9 91.6 ⫾ 0.8 ⱖ 1 dose of MMR vaccine 88.0 ⫾ 3.5 91.2 ⫾ 0.6 92.6 ⫾ 2.6 91.6 ⫾ 0.6 83.6 ⫾ 7.4 a 92.9 ⫾ 0.6 92.3 ⫾ 3.3 93.6 ⫾ 0.6 88.2 ⫾ 4.3 a 94.0 ⫾ 0.6 91.2 ⫾ 3.7 94.0 ⫾ 0.8 ⱖ 3 doses of Hib vaccine 89.2 ⫾ 4.2 a 94.1 ⫾ 0.5 91.0 ⫾ 4.1 93.9 ⫾ 0.6 83.0 ⫾ 8.3 a 94.1 ⫾ 0.6 90.9 ⫾ 3.7 a 95.2 ⫾ 0.5 89.8 ⫾ 4.2 a 94.9 ⫾ 0.6 89.5 ⫾ 4.6 a,b 94.3 ⫾ 0.6 ⱖ 3 doses of hepatitis B vaccine 89.3 ⫾ 4.2 90.9 ⫾ 0.6 84.1 ⫾ 5.1 a,b 89.6 ⫾ 0.7 80.1 ⫾ 8.2 a 90.9 ⫾ 0.7 93.5 ⫾ 3.2 93.3 ⫾ 0.6 88.5 ⫾ 4.4 a,b 93.0 ⫾ 0.6 90.8 ⫾ 4.1 93.2 ⫾ 0.7 The AI/AN group includes children identified as AI/AN all and excludes Hispanic children. IPV indicates inactivated polio vaccine; MMR, measles, mum ps, and rubella; CI, confidence interval. aSignificantly lower than the value for the white group, at ␣ ⫽ .05. bFor an explanation of statistical significance in the presence of overlapping confidence intervals, see ref 34.
Percent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
White Non-AI/AN AI/AN
a
FIGURE 2
Estimated 4:3:1:3:3 coverage from 2000 to 2005 (NIS).aNon-AI/AN include whites and
nization coverage for the AI/AN population was similar to coverage for other racial/ethnic groups. Differences between their methods and ours may explain why our findings led to different conclusions.
Our results also contrast with those of the IHS, in that IHS reports consistently show higher immunization
cov-erage levels than we report herein.1,10 IHS, however,
serves only a subset of the overall AI/AN population, and AI/AN people often have multiple sources of health care, with up to 49% having insurance through their
employ-ers, other private insurance, or Medicare.20 Although
most facilities supported by IHS are found in rural and
reservation areas, the majority (⬃60%) of the AI/AN
population resides in off-reservation and urban areas.21,22
Overall, ⬃46% of AI/AN individuals have no access to
IHS facilities.23 Because IHS data are limited to AI/AN
children accessing IHS-funded services, results of analy-ses using those data may not be comparable to results of analyses using data captured in the NIS and are not generalizable to all AI/AN children in the United States, particularly those residing in urban and other areas with limited access to IHS-funded services. Adding questions to the NIS to determine care provided by IHS would allow comparability between these 2 data sources and would facilitate assessment of the impact of IHS services on immunization coverage, as well as informing strate-gies to improve coverage for the AI/AN population.
Methodologic Challenges
Measuring health disparities affecting AI/AN popula-tions can be challenging, in part because of the small sample sizes found in various national surveys, of which
the NIS is just one example.24In its report on disparities
in health care, the Institute of Medicine found that⬍1%
of the studies it reviewed had sample sizes large enough
for meaningful analysis of AI/AN data.25,26 Within the
NIS, the sample of AI/AN children in any single year is relatively small, making it difficult to identify significant differences. Given this, our analysis illustrates the utility of looking for patterns over time, rather than focusing on a difference in any particular year. Although esti-mates for coverage for this population were erratic, we consistently found coverage rates to be lower for AI/AN children, which supports the idea that a disparity exists. Determining the magnitude of this disparity is difficult,
however. In 2003, for example, our point estimate for AI/AN 4:3:1:3:3 coverage was 74.3%, but with a confi-dence interval ranging from 69.1% to 79.5%. Compar-ing this range with that observed for non-Hispanic white
children in the same year (82.5⫾0.9%), the disparity
gap could be as wide as 14.3% or as narrow as 2.1%. Such a broad range adds to our uncertainty about the true magnitude of the disparity and makes decisions about the allocation of resources for public health intervention strategies even more difficult. Although we have shown that NIS data can identify disparities on an annual basis, looking for patterns over time may be more useful. Even with this type of analysis, how-ever, larger AI/AN sample sizes would be helpful for characterization of the magnitude of these disparities and would complement efforts to enhance local as-sessments.
Pooling several years of data is a common approach to
increasing sample sizes for AI/AN populations,3,7 but
there are limitations to this approach as well. In cases
where there is an aberrant or extreme trend inⱖ1 of the
years to be pooled, this approach may not be method-ologically appropriate. Pooling data also may conceal changes in an individual year. Finally, information gleaned from pooled data is not timely, which dimin-ishes its value for identifying emerging problems.
Small sample sizes in national surveys also limit the ability to perform geographically stratified analyses (eg, county, state, or regional levels) and generally require that data be aggregated on national or multiregional levels. Aggregating data in this manner may mask re-gional variations (and therefore differences across AI/AN tribal groups). For AI/AN health disparities, regional
variation is a relatively common observation.4,14,27 For
example, rates of immunization coverage for AN chil-dren in Alaska are consistently higher than rates of
coverage for the non-AN population residing in Alaska,9
and our finding of a disparity in immunization coverage between AI/AN and white children may not be applica-ble to AN children in Alaska.
Finally, racial misclassification significantly impedes our ability to detect and to monitor accurately AI/AN
health disparities.28–32Racial misclassification is less likely
to occur in NIS data sets because race is self-reported in the NIS, but it may be a problem as we look to additional immunization data sources, such as state immunization registries.
Limitations
The AI/AN samples within NIS data sets are relatively small, and findings may not be representative of the larger AI/AN population. Although telephone surveys such as the NIS may represent a cost-effective survey method, this approach has limitations when used to reach AI/AN populations. According to the 2000 US Census, 2.4% of the US population has no telephone service, compared with 11.9% of AI/AN homes. Within AI/AN populations, access to telephone service varies considerably according to tribe or geographic location, with 0.9% to 49.1% of individuals reporting no access to
telephone service.33
TABLE 3 Estimated 4:3:1:3:3 Coverage for AI/AN Children Residing In and Outside an IHS Service County (NIS)
Survey Year
Proportion (95% CI), % In IHS Service
County
Outside IHS Service County
2000 73.6⫾6.1 67.5⫾9.7
2001 73.2⫾6.2 65.4⫾9.1
2002 55.6⫾11.0a 70.0⫾8.4
2003 79.3⫾5.8 68.9⫾8.8
2004 72.9⫾6.4 71.3⫾9.1
2005 77.2⫾6.4 78.0⫾7.9
CI indicates confidence interval.
Using residence in an IHS service county as a proxy for access to IHS services may not depict accurately the impact of the IHS on immunization coverage levels, because the NIS samples might have included AI/AN children who were not eligible for, or did not access, IHS services in those counties. In addition, we did not control for other factors that may affect immunization coverage, such as income, education level, and family size. It may be that AI/AN children residing in an IHS service county had more risk factors for underimmunization than did AI/AN children residing outside IHS service areas and the similar-ity in immunization coverage levels between these 2 groups was a result of the provision of IHS services. Addi-tional analyses to examine these factors are needed.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analytic approaches were different from those of earlier studies, and our data source encompasses a broader range of AI/AN communities, compared with IHS data. The results of our analyses suggest that dispar-ities in immunization coverage for AI/AN children have been present, but unrecognized, since 2001. Our evalu-ation of immunizevalu-ation coverage for AI/AN children points to the need for several courses of action, including the development of improved strategies for the delivery of immunization services to AI/AN families, the issuance of authoritative guidance regarding consistent methods for analyzing and reporting AI/AN immunization cover-age levels (and eventually other AI/AN health-related data), and the development of more-robust means for monitoring immunization services for AI/AN children. Increasing AI/AN sample sizes in national surveys, in-cluding questions regarding the provision of IHS services to better ascertain the role of the IHS in delivering care to the AI/AN population, and conducting ongoing anal-yses of trends in immunization coverage may improve the monitoring of coverage for this population.
In addition, expanding efforts to ensure the inclusion of accurate race/ethnicity data in state-based immuniza-tion registries and implementing more broadly existing mechanisms to facilitate the inclusion of data on AI/AN children in state immunization registries should allow for better monitoring of coverage for this population on the local level. As data in state immunization registries become more complete, state-based evaluations of im-munization coverage for AI/AN populations and other racial/ethnic groups ultimately should allow for more-timely and more-precise identification of immunization disparities on a state-by-state basis and should allow for more local analysis within states.
Accurate and timely monitoring of immunization data is a prerequisite for the development of effective interventions and the elimination of disparities in im-munization coverage. Improvements in AI/AN immuni-zation data and methodologic approaches are needed to strengthen our ability to detect problems with the deliv-ery of immunization services to AI/AN families in a more-timely manner.
REFERENCES
1. Indian Health Service.Trends in Indian Health 2000 –2001. Rock-ville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2001 2. Anderson RN, Minin˜o AM, Fingerhut LA, Warner M, Heinen MA. Deaths: injuries, 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep.2004;52(21): 1– 86
3. Denny CH, Holtzman D, Goins RT, Croft JB. Disparities in chronic disease risk factors and health status between Ameri-can Indian/Alaska Native and white elders: findings from a telephone survey, 2001 and 2003. Am J Public Health.2005; 95(5):825– 827
4. Espey D, Paisano R, Cobb N. Regional patterns and trends in cancer mortality among American Indians and Alaska Natives, 1990 –2001.Cancer.2005;103(5):1045–1053
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in multiple risk factors for heart dis-ease and stroke: United States, 2003.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.2005;54(5):113–117
6. Bialek SR, Thoroughman DA, Hu D, et al. Hepatitis A incidence and hepatitis A vaccination among American Indians and Alaska Natives, 1990 –2001. Am J Public Health.2004;94(6): 996 –1001
7. Strine T, Mokdad A, Barker L, et al. Vaccination coverage of American Indian/Alaska Native children aged 19 to 35 months: findings from the National Immunization Survey, 1998 –2000.
Am J Public Health.2003;93(12):2046 –2049
8. Bramley D, Hebert P, Tuzzio L, Chassin M. Disparities in indig-enous health: a cross-country comparison between New Zea-land and the United States. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(5): 844 – 850
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccination cov-erage levels among Alaska Native children aged 19 –35 months: National Immunization Survey, United States, 2000 –2001.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.2003;52(30):710 –713
10. Indian Health Service. Quarterly immunization reports. Available at: www.ihs.gov/medicalprograms/epi/index.cfm?module⫽ health㛭issues&option⫽immunizations&cat⫽sub㛭3. Accessed March 11, 2008
11. Smith PJ, Rao JNK, Battaglia MP, et al. Compensating for provider nonresponse using response propensities to form ad-justment cells: the National Immunization Survey.Vital Health
Stat 2.2001;(133):1–17.
12. Smith P, Battaglia M, Huggins V, et al. Overview of the sam-pling design and statistical methods used in the National Im-munization Survey.Am J Prev Med.2001;20(4 suppl):17–24 13. Smith PJ, Hoaglin DC, Battaglia MP, Barker LE, Khare M.
Statistical methodology of the National Immunization Survey, 1994 –2002.Vital Health Stat 2.2005;(138):1–55.
14. Groom A, Cheek J, Bryan R. Effect of a national vaccine shortage on vaccine coverage for American Indian/Alaska Na-tive children.Am J Public Health.2006;96(4):697–701 15. Santibanez T, Santoli J, Barker L. Differential effects of the
DTaP and MMR vaccine shortages on timeliness of childhood vaccination coverage.Am J Public Health.2006;96(4):691– 696 16. Chu S, Barker L, Smith P. Racial/ethnic disparities in preschool
immunizations.Am J Public Health.2004;94(6):973–977 17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National, state,
and urban area vaccination coverage among children aged 19 –35 months: United States, 2005.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.2006;55(36):988 –993
18. Hutchins SS, Jiles R, Bernier R. Elimination of measles and of disparities in measles childhood vaccine coverage among racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States.J Infect Dis.2004;189(suppl 1):S146 –S152
success story in eliminating racial and ethnic disparities.
Pedi-atrics.2006;117(4):999 –1008
20. Zuckerman, S, Haley J, Roubideaux Y, Lillie-Blanton M. Health service access, use, and insurance coverage among American Indians/Alaska Natives and whites: what role does the Indian Health Service play?Am J Public Health.2005;94(1):53–59 21. Forquera R. Urban Indian Health. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J.
Kaiser Family Foundation; 2001. Publication 6006. Available at: www.kff.org/minorityhealth/6006-index.cfm. Accessed August 30, 2006
22. Ogunwale SU.We the People: American Indians and Alaska Natives
in the United States. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2006.
Available at: www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/censr-28.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2006
23. Office of Research on Women’s Health. Women of Color
Health Data Book. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of
Health; 2006
24. Waksberg J, Levine D, Marker D. Assessment of Major Federal Data Sets for Analyses of Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander Subgroups and Native Americans: Inventory of Selected Existing
Fed-eral Databases. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and
Human Services; 2000. Available at: aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/ minority-db00/task2/index.htm. Accessed August 30, 2006 25. Call K, McAlpine D, Johnson P, et al. Barriers to care among
American Indians in public health care programs. Med Care. 2006;44(6):595– 600
26. Smedley B, Stith A, Nelson A, eds.Unequal Treatment:
Confront-ing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press; 2003
27. Indian Health Service. Regional Differences in Indian Health
2000 –2001. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and
Hu-man Services; 2001
28. Korenbrot C, Ehlers S, Crouch J. Disparities in hospitalization of rural American Indians.Med Care.2003;41(5):626 – 636 29. Stehr-Green P, Bettles J, Robertson L. Effect of racial/ethnic
misclassification of American Indians and Alaska Natives on Washington death certificates, 1989 –1997.Am J Public Health. 2002;92(3):443– 444
30. Epstein M, Moreno R, Bacchetti P. The under-reporting of deaths of American Indian children in California, 1979 through 1993.Am J Public Health.1997;87(8):1363–1366 31. Thoroughman D, Frederickson D, Cameron H, et al. Racial
misclassification of American Indians in Oklahoma State sur-veillance data for sexually transmitted diseases.Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155(12):1137–1141
32. Grossman D. Measuring disparity among American Indians and Alaska Natives: who’s counting whom?Med Care.2003; 41(5):579 –581
33. US Census Bureau.Characteristics of American Indians and Alaska
Natives by Tribe and Language (PHC-5). Washington, DC: US
Census Bureau; 2000. Available at: www.census.gov/ census2000/pubs/phc-5.html. Accessed August 30, 2006 34. Schenker N, Gentleman J. On judging the significance of
dif-ferences by examining the overlap between confidence inter-vals.Am Stat.2001;55(3):182–186
PFIZER IS DENIED ACCESS TOJAMAFILES
“In a court case pitting Pfizer Inc’s corporate interests against a medical journal’s confidential article-review process, a federal magistrate rejected
Pfizer’s attempt to gain access to documents of the Journal of the American
Medical Association. The issue was disclosed in an editorial published online
Monday byJAMA’s editor, Catherine D. DeAngelis, and its counsel, Joseph P.
Thornton. The editorial is to be published inJAMA’s April 23/30 print edition,
but was posted early because of its broad public interest. Dr DeAngelis, in an interview, said she doesn’t know of previous cases in which a medical company sought to subpoena documents related to a medical journal’s
peer-review process. In this case, Pfizer has sought files fromJAMA, theArchives of
Internal Medicineand theNew England Journal of Medicinerelated to its pain-killing drugs Bextra, now off the market, and Celebrex, which still is for sale. The decision against Pfizer by US Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys in Chicago
earlier this month found in favor ofJAMAand theArchives of Internal Medicine;
theNew England Journal of Medicine matter has yet to be decided. In their
editorial, Dr DeAngelis and Mr Thornton noted that medical journals main-tain confidentiality of medical reviewers’ opinions so these independent doctors can ‘work in an unrestrained environment . . . Producing any of these documents, with or without names, would seriously compromise the process and the trusting relationship among the editors, authors and review-ers,’ they wrote.”
Burton TM.Wall Street Journal. March 25, 2008
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-1794
2008;121;938
Pediatrics
Amy V. Groom, Michael L. Washington, Philip J. Smith and Ralph T. Bryan
Underimmunization of American Indian and Alaska Native Children
Services
Updated Information &
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/5/938
including high resolution figures, can be found at:
References
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/5/938#BIBL
This article cites 23 articles, 1 of which you can access for free at:
Subspecialty Collections
_sub
http://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/vaccine:immunization
Vaccine/Immunization
b
http://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/infectious_diseases_su
Infectious Disease following collection(s):
This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in the
Permissions & Licensing
http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtml
in its entirety can be found online at:
Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or
Reprints
http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-1794
2008;121;938
Pediatrics
Amy V. Groom, Michael L. Washington, Philip J. Smith and Ralph T. Bryan
Underimmunization of American Indian and Alaska Native Children
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/5/938
located on the World Wide Web at:
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 1073-0397.