Kimiko Gosney1, Scott Hamstra
2, Michael Conklin
1, Kathy Fredrickson
1, and Amy V. Groom
3. (1) Arizona Department of Health Services, 150 N. 18th Ave, Suite 120, Phoenix, AZ, USA, (2) Sells Indian Hospital, PO Box 548, Sells, AZ, USA, (3) IHS National Epi Program, Indian Health Service/CDC, 5300 Homestead RD. NE, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Learning Objectives for this Presentation:
By the end of the presentation participants will be able to understand differences in immunization coverage between American Indian /Alaska Native (AI/AN) and non-AI/AN populations in Arizona.
Background:
The sentinel site study is funded by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grant to study immunization coverage using registry data. The Arizona registry (Arizona State Immunization Information System, ASIIS) is population-based. Immunization data are received from providers via web-based direct entry, file transfers from clinical and practice management systems, full-function HL-7 interfaces from the Indian Health Service (IHS) and tribal facilities, and a small percent of paper-based reporting. In the Arizona sentinel site region, 29% of the 1-2 year old population is AI/AN.
Objectives:
We compared immunization coverage rates for AI/AN vs. non-AI/AN children 19-35 months in seven counties comprising the northern half of Arizona, our sentinel site study area.
Methods:
We assessed the completeness of the data in ASIIS by comparing the number of AI/AN and non-AI/AN children aged 19-35 months in ASIIS to census projections. We calculated 4:3:1:3:3 coverage using ASIIS.
Results:
The proportions of AI/AN and non-AI/AN children included in ASIIS for the sentinel counties were similar to census projection estimates. Preliminary results show that 4:3:1:3:3 coverage levels in the seven counties combined were significantly higher for AI/AN children than for the non-AI/AN children, with an overall 4:3:1:3:3 coverage of 55.8 (95% CI 54.3 – 57.3) for AI/AN children compared to 34.9% (95% CI 34.0 – 35.8) for non-AI/AN children in those same counties.
Conclusions:
AI/AN children had significantly higher 4:3:1:3:3 coverage than non-AI/AN in the counties studied. Possible reasons may include active use of the IHS registry system, aggressive outreach provided by IHS and tribal facilities serving AI/AN children, and regular immunization assessments of AI/AN children by IHS and tribal facilities.
Web Page:
www.azdhs.gov/phs/asiis/index.htm
See more of Posters
See more of The 40th National Immunization Conference (NIC)