Since the late 1990s, the possible adverse effects of the combined measles,
mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine have caused intensepublic debate.
After the vaccine was introduced in 1988, coveragewas high,
increasing from 80% in 1989 to 92% in 1997. After 1997coverage began
to decline,1 and by 2001 had fallen by 4.1%,which gave some cause for concern.2 We
examined the extentto which these trends reflect different patterns
of uptake inaffluent and deprived areas and changes in the equitable
coverageof immunisation forMMR.
We selected 60 health authorities in England (defined by 1999 boundaries).
The boundaries of these authorities remained stableover a decade. We
calculated the Townsend material deprivationindex for each area and
used these scores to categorise authoritiesin to three groups of
20 authorities3: deprived (1.27 to 10.59),neither deprived nor affluent (2.41 to 1.13), or affluent (4.51to
2.79). For
each year from 1991 to 2001, we calculated coverageof MMR as the
percentage of children who had been immunised bytheir secondbirthday.
As explanatory variables we chose characteristics of general practitioners
and practices that are known to be associated withinequity in
coverage of preventive interventions. We calculatedmean coverage for
each group for each year and estimated inequalitybetween the three
groups of areas and change in inequality overtime using log
variances. Analysis of variance showed significant(P<0.05)
differences in mean coverage for affluent and deprivedareas from
1991 to 1996 but not from 1997 to 2001. We examinedchanges in
coverage over time separately for each group, usinga cross sectional
time series random effects regression modelwith general practitioner
and practice variables as explanatoryvariables.
Coverage was consistently higher in affluent authorities than in deprived
authorities. We saw two distinct trends in coverage(figure). Between
1991 and 1997, coverage of MMR immunisationimproved, increasing more
rapidly in deprived areas (by 3.5%)than in affluent areas (0.7%).
Inequality decreased over time,with log variance falling from
0.62 to 0.33 between 1991 and 1997.During this period, increases in
the coverage of MMR in deprivedareas were associated with a decrease
in general practitionersaged 65 and older and an increase in the
number of practice nursesper 10 000 population. We found no
significant (P>0.05) associationsbetween the characteristics of
practices and coverage in affluentareas.
Mean coverage of MMR
immunisation (percentage of children younger than
2 years immunised) in England from 1991 to 2001
From 1997 to 2001, coverage of MMR immunisation declined in all areas, but it
decreased by a slightly greater proportion inaffluent areas (by 5%)
than in deprived areas (4.2%); and inequalitydecreasedlog
variance fell from 0.33 to 0.19 between 1997 and2001. Over this
period there were no significant (P>0.05) associationsbetween
practice variables and changes in the coverage of MMRimmunisation
for either affluent or deprivedareas.
Coverage of MMR vaccination was, in the first half of the 1990s, moving
towards maximum levels and becoming more equitablydistributed
between affluent and deprived areas. This was associatedwith
improvements in the staffing of general practices in deprivedareas.
Changes in the perceptions of the MMR vaccine (from beingprotective
of child health to being of potential damage) havecounteracted thesetrends.
Affluent populations are, in general, the first to take up practices that are
perceived as protective of child health4;in the latter part of the decade, this meant declining immunisation.Inequality in the coverage of MMR immunisation continued to decrease,but this was not because of improvement in deprived areas. Ratherit reflected declines in coverage that were initially more pronouncedin affluent areas. Interpreting this trend as indicating an improvementin equity of distribution of MMR immunisation would, therefore,
be contentious.5
Acknowledgments
Contributors: EM reviewed the literature, assembled the time series of data,
and oversaw the data analysis. DB conceived the study and was responsible for
its design. Both authors contributed to the final manuscript. DB is guarantor.
Townsend P, Simpson D, Tibbs N. Inequalities in the
city of Bristol: a preliminary review of statistical evidence.
Int J Health Serv 1985; 15: 637-663[ISI][Medline].
Victora C, Vaughan J, Barros F, Silva A, Tomasi E.
Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child
health studies. Lancet 2000; 356: 1093-1098[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"