IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2013.301313_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An assessment of the performance of self-reported vaccination status for Hepatitis B, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2008

Author

Listed:
  • Denniston, M.M.
  • Byrd, K.K.
  • Klevens, R.M.
  • Drobeniuc, J.
  • Kamili, S.
  • Jiles, R.B.

Abstract

Objectives. We sought to assess the performance of self-reported vaccination with hepatitis B vaccine (HepB) compared with serological status for hepatitis B markers in the general US civilian population. Methods. Using 1999 through 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, we calculated 3 measures of agreement between self-reported HepB vaccination status and serological status: percent concordance, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) of self-report. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with agreement between self-report and serological status. Results. Overall agreement was 83% (95% CI = 82.3, 83.7), NPV of self-report was high (0.95; 95% CI = 0.93, 0.95) and PPV was low (0.53; 95% CI = 0.51, 0.54). Birth year relative to the 1991 recommendation for universal infant HepB vaccination had a strong association with agreement, however, the association was positive for those who reported receiving at least 3 doses and negative for those who reported receiving no doses. Conclusions. Although the low PPV in our study could be attributable in part to waning of vaccine-induced anti-HBs over time, national adult HepB vaccination coverage may be lower than previously estimated because national estimates usually depend on self-report of vaccine receipt.

Suggested Citation

  • Denniston, M.M. & Byrd, K.K. & Klevens, R.M. & Drobeniuc, J. & Kamili, S. & Jiles, R.B., 2013. "An assessment of the performance of self-reported vaccination status for Hepatitis B, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2008," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(10), pages 1865-1873.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2013.301313_6
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301313
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301313
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301313?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2013.301313_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.