How useful is a history of rubella vaccination for determination of disease susceptibility? A cross-sectional study at a public funded health clinic in Malaysia.

Ai Theng Cheong, Tong Seng Fah, Ee Ming Khoo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Identification of pregnant women susceptible to rubella is important as vaccination can be given postpartum to prevent future risks of congenital rubella syndrome. However, in Malaysia, rubella antibody screening is not offered routinely to pregnant women in public funded health clinics due to cost constraint. Instead, a history of rubella vaccination is asked to be provided to establish the women's risk for rubella infection. The usefulness of this history, however, is not established. Thus, this paper aimed to determine the usefulness of a history of rubella vaccination in determining rubella susceptibility in pregnant women. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 500 pregnant women attending a public funded health clinic. Face-to-face interviews were conducted, and demographic data and history of rubella vaccination were obtained. Anti-rubella IgG test was performed. A majority of the women (66.6%) had a positive vaccination history. Of these, 92.2% women were immune. A third (33.4%) of the women had a negative or unknown vaccination history, but 81.4% of them were immune to rubella. The sensitivity and specificity of a history of rubella vaccination in identifying disease susceptibility was 54.4% (95% CI: 40.7, 67.4%) and 69.3% (95% CI: 64.7, 73.5%) respectively; the positive predictive value was 18.6% (95% CI: 13.1, 25.5%) and the negative predictive value was 92.2% (95% CI: 88.6, 94.7%). A vaccination history of rubella had a poor diagnostic value in predicting rubella susceptibility. However, obtaining a vaccination history is inexpensive compared with performing a serological test. A cost-utility analysis would be useful in determining which test (history versus serological test) is more cost-effective in a country with resource constraint.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)19
Number of pages1
JournalBMC Family Practice
Volume14
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Rubella
Malaysia
Disease Susceptibility
Vaccination
Public Health
Cross-Sectional Studies
History
Pregnant Women
Serologic Tests
Congenital Rubella Syndrome
Costs and Cost Analysis
Postpartum Period
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Demography
Interviews
Sensitivity and Specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Family Practice

Cite this

@article{6f3fca685f7043f2b4511d0728e3af00,
title = "How useful is a history of rubella vaccination for determination of disease susceptibility? A cross-sectional study at a public funded health clinic in Malaysia.",
abstract = "Identification of pregnant women susceptible to rubella is important as vaccination can be given postpartum to prevent future risks of congenital rubella syndrome. However, in Malaysia, rubella antibody screening is not offered routinely to pregnant women in public funded health clinics due to cost constraint. Instead, a history of rubella vaccination is asked to be provided to establish the women's risk for rubella infection. The usefulness of this history, however, is not established. Thus, this paper aimed to determine the usefulness of a history of rubella vaccination in determining rubella susceptibility in pregnant women. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 500 pregnant women attending a public funded health clinic. Face-to-face interviews were conducted, and demographic data and history of rubella vaccination were obtained. Anti-rubella IgG test was performed. A majority of the women (66.6{\%}) had a positive vaccination history. Of these, 92.2{\%} women were immune. A third (33.4{\%}) of the women had a negative or unknown vaccination history, but 81.4{\%} of them were immune to rubella. The sensitivity and specificity of a history of rubella vaccination in identifying disease susceptibility was 54.4{\%} (95{\%} CI: 40.7, 67.4{\%}) and 69.3{\%} (95{\%} CI: 64.7, 73.5{\%}) respectively; the positive predictive value was 18.6{\%} (95{\%} CI: 13.1, 25.5{\%}) and the negative predictive value was 92.2{\%} (95{\%} CI: 88.6, 94.7{\%}). A vaccination history of rubella had a poor diagnostic value in predicting rubella susceptibility. However, obtaining a vaccination history is inexpensive compared with performing a serological test. A cost-utility analysis would be useful in determining which test (history versus serological test) is more cost-effective in a country with resource constraint.",
author = "Cheong, {Ai Theng} and {Seng Fah}, Tong and Khoo, {Ee Ming}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2296-14-19",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "19",
journal = "BMC Family Practice",
issn = "1471-2296",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How useful is a history of rubella vaccination for determination of disease susceptibility? A cross-sectional study at a public funded health clinic in Malaysia.

AU - Cheong, Ai Theng

AU - Seng Fah, Tong

AU - Khoo, Ee Ming

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Identification of pregnant women susceptible to rubella is important as vaccination can be given postpartum to prevent future risks of congenital rubella syndrome. However, in Malaysia, rubella antibody screening is not offered routinely to pregnant women in public funded health clinics due to cost constraint. Instead, a history of rubella vaccination is asked to be provided to establish the women's risk for rubella infection. The usefulness of this history, however, is not established. Thus, this paper aimed to determine the usefulness of a history of rubella vaccination in determining rubella susceptibility in pregnant women. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 500 pregnant women attending a public funded health clinic. Face-to-face interviews were conducted, and demographic data and history of rubella vaccination were obtained. Anti-rubella IgG test was performed. A majority of the women (66.6%) had a positive vaccination history. Of these, 92.2% women were immune. A third (33.4%) of the women had a negative or unknown vaccination history, but 81.4% of them were immune to rubella. The sensitivity and specificity of a history of rubella vaccination in identifying disease susceptibility was 54.4% (95% CI: 40.7, 67.4%) and 69.3% (95% CI: 64.7, 73.5%) respectively; the positive predictive value was 18.6% (95% CI: 13.1, 25.5%) and the negative predictive value was 92.2% (95% CI: 88.6, 94.7%). A vaccination history of rubella had a poor diagnostic value in predicting rubella susceptibility. However, obtaining a vaccination history is inexpensive compared with performing a serological test. A cost-utility analysis would be useful in determining which test (history versus serological test) is more cost-effective in a country with resource constraint.

AB - Identification of pregnant women susceptible to rubella is important as vaccination can be given postpartum to prevent future risks of congenital rubella syndrome. However, in Malaysia, rubella antibody screening is not offered routinely to pregnant women in public funded health clinics due to cost constraint. Instead, a history of rubella vaccination is asked to be provided to establish the women's risk for rubella infection. The usefulness of this history, however, is not established. Thus, this paper aimed to determine the usefulness of a history of rubella vaccination in determining rubella susceptibility in pregnant women. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 500 pregnant women attending a public funded health clinic. Face-to-face interviews were conducted, and demographic data and history of rubella vaccination were obtained. Anti-rubella IgG test was performed. A majority of the women (66.6%) had a positive vaccination history. Of these, 92.2% women were immune. A third (33.4%) of the women had a negative or unknown vaccination history, but 81.4% of them were immune to rubella. The sensitivity and specificity of a history of rubella vaccination in identifying disease susceptibility was 54.4% (95% CI: 40.7, 67.4%) and 69.3% (95% CI: 64.7, 73.5%) respectively; the positive predictive value was 18.6% (95% CI: 13.1, 25.5%) and the negative predictive value was 92.2% (95% CI: 88.6, 94.7%). A vaccination history of rubella had a poor diagnostic value in predicting rubella susceptibility. However, obtaining a vaccination history is inexpensive compared with performing a serological test. A cost-utility analysis would be useful in determining which test (history versus serological test) is more cost-effective in a country with resource constraint.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873026296&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84873026296&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2296-14-19

DO - 10.1186/1471-2296-14-19

M3 - Article

C2 - 23368977

AN - SCOPUS:84873026296

VL - 14

SP - 19

JO - BMC Family Practice

JF - BMC Family Practice

SN - 1471-2296

ER -