Cited by 6Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsChild and Adolescent Health

Comparing vaccination coverage of American Indian children with White children in North Dakota

Woinarowicz, Mary, Howell, Molly·2020·Public Health

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this study was to compare immunization rates of American Indian (AI) and White children in North Dakota and identify disparities in immunization rates by race.Study design The study design was to assess immunization coverage rates by race using immunization information system (IIS) data.Methods Data from the North Dakota Immunization Information System (NDIIS) for children aged 19-35 months during quarter four of 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 were used to assess and compare immunization coverage rates for AI and White children. NDIIS data were also analyzed for timeliness of vaccine administration, Vaccines for Children (VFC) status, and the number of doses still needed to be considered up to date (UTD) with routinely recommended immunizations.Results In quarter four of 2018 (Q4 2018), only 60% of AI children were UTD with the complete 4:3:1:3:3:1:4 vaccine series compared with 74.5% of White children of the same age. Fewer VFC-eligible AI children (59.1%) are UTD than VFC-eligible White children (68.7%). AI children were also more likely to be delayed at each immunization milestone, leading to fewer AI children to be UTD by 19 to 35 months of age.Conclusions This study shows that there is a racial disparity in immunization coverage rates between AI and White children in North Dakota. Public health and private healthcare providers should work to identify and address barriers to vaccination and should implement strategies to increase immunization rates for AI children.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.06.050

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Woinarowicz, M., & Howell, M.
Affiliations
North Dakota Department of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Woinarowicz, Mary
Venue
Public Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
186
Pages
78-82
ISSN
0033-3506 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3048699185
Cited by
6
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Health Resources and Services Administration
  • Honeywell Hometown Solutions
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (5H23IP000784)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Child and Adolescent Health
Keywords
childhood vaccination coverage, Native American children, racial disparities, vaccination timeliness, Vaccines for Children program, North Dakota
MeSH terms
Vaccination Coverage, Child, Preschool, Humans, Immunization, Indians, North American, Infant, North Dakota, Vaccination, Immunization Programs, White People, Healthcare Disparities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review