Increased measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine uptake in the context of a targeted immunisation campaign during a measles outbreak in a vaccine-reluctant community in England
Introduction
Measles is a highly infectious vaccine-preventable disease with life-threatening complications; death has been reported in 2 per 10,000 cases in the United Kingdom (UK) [1]. Its elimination is targeted by 2015 in the WHO European region [2]; nevertheless, in 2011, 36 of the 53 European member States reported outbreaks [3]. In England and Wales, the annual number of laboratory-confirmed measles cases ranged from 70 to 1370 between 2000 and 2011 [4]. Strategies for measles elimination require a schedule with two doses of measles-containing vaccine [5]. Childhood immunisation is free of charge in the UK and the first dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR1) is administered between 12 and 13 months old with a second (MMR2) between 40 months and 5 years old [6]. In 2010–2011 national vaccination coverage was estimated at 89% and 84% in two and five year olds, respectively, with high geographical variability; it had increased from a low 80% in two year olds in 2003–2004 [7]. Specific religious or cultural groups have very low uptakes of immunisation and measles outbreaks are regularly reported in such communities [8] including anthroposophic communities [9]. Anthroposophy is a spiritual movement based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher who suggested that febrile illnesses such as measles were related to a child's spiritual development, and the avoidance of immunisation in these communities is perceived as a positive opportunity [10].
In 2011, a measles outbreak was reported in a settlement in South-East England, home to several different communities associated with immunisation rejection and low immunisation uptake. The first reported measles case attended a Steiner-Waldorf school whose pedagogy follows the educational philosophy of Steiner, although the school does not explicitly discourage vaccination. Between April and August 101 clinical cases who attended the school, or lived in the village, or had an epidemiological link to a case were reported to the local Health Protection Unit (HPU). Of the 101 clinical cases, 42 (43%) were aged 5–9 years, and 36 (37%) 10–14 years; 51 (53%) were males; 2 cases (2%) were reported as being hospitalised. To prevent further spread and in addition to a set of standard control measures [11], the Outbreak Control Team (OCT) decided in July on a two-pronged immunisation campaign for the local community: an accelerated campaign offered to vaccinate children earlier than scheduled, and a catch-up campaign for those who had missed their MMR doses at the scheduled time. For pragmatic reasons, immunisation was only offered through one local health centre X where three-quarters of the cases were registered.
Many factors influence parental decision to vaccinate [12], [13], and parents who actively decline immunisation tend to believe that vaccines are unsafe and ineffective, that the diseases they are given to prevent are mild and uncommon, and may mistrust their health professional [14]. Nevertheless such attitudes could change in the context of an outbreak [15]. To our knowledge, no study has assessed the uptake of MMR vaccine following measles outbreaks in communities with longstanding poor uptake. Such information would help inform management of future outbreaks in similar settings. We therefore investigated the effects of the outbreak and of the two-pronged immunisation campaign on MMR uptake in the local health centre X. The objectives were to (a) describe and compare uptake of MMR in the local health centre to the Primary Care Trust (PCT), regional and national levels, (b) estimate trends in immunisation coverage and test any increase in relation to the timing of the outbreak and immunisation campaign, and (c) examine whether the age at vaccination changed over time.
Section snippets
Study population
The study population included all individuals registered with the local health centre X who were aged 6 months to 16 years on 1 August 2011. The two-pronged immunisation campaign was available from July to October at practice X but parents of eligible children were officially invited in early August in a letter specific for each category explaining the immunisation recommendation and reasons for it. There were four targeted categories:
Results
The study population consisted of 1538 children aged 6 months to 16 years-old registered with the local health centre as of 1 August 2011; 51% were male.
Statement of principal findings
MMR uptake per month at the local practice rose significantly at the beginning of the outbreak, even before the start of the immunisation campaign. It continued to rise following the targeted intervention until both the outbreak and campaign were declared over and the number of administered vaccines returned to pre-outbreak values. Past immunisation history of an individual is related to future uptake [17]. Uptake for the two-pronged campaign was modest for those completely unimmunised for MMR
Conclusions and direction for future research
In the face of an outbreak, those not implacably opposed to immunisation may respond favourably to immunisation-based interventions. Implementing accelerated and catch-up immunisation campaigns require significant public health efforts to identify the target groups, compose and distribute the letters, and deliver the immunisations; cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted to clarify the costs and benefits of such campaigns [29]. The impact of the campaign was modest underlining the need
Conflict of interest
There were no conflicts of interest for any of the authors.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the practice nurses Diane Curtis and Letitia Bason-Leone and Dr. Justin Baseley, who assisted with the study, to the staff from Child health Services and from the Primary Care Trust including Claire Turner, Dulcie McBride, and to Helen Maguire from the Health Protection Agency for their inputs on the manuscript.
References (29)
Measles: the green book
(2013)WHO/Europe launches plan for accelerated action to eliminate measles and rubella
(2013)Increased transmission and outbreaks of 317 measles—European Region, 2011
MMWR—Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
(2011)Epidemiological data (measles)
(2012)- et al.
Measles
Vaccination schedule
(2012)Vaccine coverage and COVER (cover of vaccination evaluated rapidly)
(2012)- et al.
Management of measles in a traveller community: public health issues of trust, choice and communication
Public Health
(2008) - et al.
UK measles outbreak in non-immune anthroposophic communities: the implications for the elimination of measles from Europe
Epidemiol Infect
(2000) - et al.
Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925)
Am J Psychiatry
(2006)
HPA national measles guidelines, local and regional services
Factors underlying suboptimal childhood immunisation
Vaccine
Characteristics of 5-year-olds who catch-up with MMR: findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study
BMJ Open
Factors underlying parental decisions about combination childhood vaccinations including MMR: a systematic review
Vaccine
Cited by (9)
Trends in the uptake of pediatric measles-containing vaccine in the United States: A Disneyland effect?
2021, VaccineCitation Excerpt :Indeed, national surveys of parents following the outbreak found that parents who were highly aware of the outbreak tended to be more educated [12], and that high awareness of the outbreak was associated with greater confidence in vaccination and support for required vaccination [8,12,13]. These findings also complement other studies that have found that media coverage of a local measles outbreak can increase the uptake of MCV in that jurisdiction [15,31]. Healthcare providers may have also played a role in encouraging MCV uptake among these patients.
Agent-based modelling of reactive vaccination of workplaces and schools against COVID-19
2022, Nature CommunicationsEvolving measles status and immunization policy development in six European countries
2022, Human Vaccines and ImmunotherapeuticsVaccination in England: A review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage
2018, BMC Public Health