How should immunization rates be measured in the office setting? A study from PROS and NMA PedsNet

Paul M. Darden, James A. Taylor, Dennis A. Brooks, J. W. Hendricks, Mehran Massoudi, John M. Stevenson, Alison B. Bocian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


The aim of the study was to compare the validity and reliability of 2 sampling methods for measuring immunization rates to a reference standard in a national sample of pediatric office practices. The consecutive method involved patients seen consecutively in the office for any reason; the random record was a random selection of medical records; and the reference standard active method, data of a randomly selected subgroup of children in the random record survey were supplemented with information from a telephone interview. The consecutive method of assessing immunization rates results in rates that are, on average, higher and closer to the reference standard, but also more variable. The random record method rates are lower and further from the study reference standard compared with the consecutive method, but more precise. The consecutive method for measuring practice immunization rates could be a useful quality improvement tool as practices seek to improve immunization delivery and quality of care. It is inexpensive, simple, and easy to implement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)252-260
Number of pages9
JournalClinical pediatrics
Issue number3
StatePublished - Apr 2008


  • Child
  • Health care quality improvement
  • Immunization
  • Infant
  • Measurement
  • Medical record
  • Office visit
  • Vaccination

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health


Dive into the research topics of 'How should immunization rates be measured in the office setting? A study from PROS and NMA PedsNet'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this