Evaluation of the new German measles protection act: An online survey
The current COVID-19 pandemic reveals the dangerousness of infectious diseases and the threats we face. Often however, effective vaccinations are carried out insufficiently. In March 2020, the German measles protection law was introduced to raise the level of population (herd) immunity to over 95 %....
Saved in:
Published in | Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen Vol. 158-159; pp. 74 - 80 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | German |
Published |
Netherlands
01.12.2020
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | The current COVID-19 pandemic reveals the dangerousness of infectious diseases and the threats we face. Often however, effective vaccinations are carried out insufficiently. In March 2020, the German measles protection law was introduced to raise the level of population (herd) immunity to over 95 %.
An anonymous online survey was conducted among the population on the Measles Protection Act with self-declarations on measles vaccination/illness of participants and their children and evaluation of various sanctions.
1,594 adults participated. 19.3 % were affected by the law. Of these, only 77.5 % were immune to measles, 14.0 % wanted to be fully vaccinated when the law came into force, which would lead to 91.5 % immunity. Assuming that participants with unclear vaccination status or measles disease are immune, an immunity of>95 % can be achieved. 86.4 % of the children (aged 2 to 17 years) had developed immunity. Parents' willingness to have their children vaccinated because of the sanctions provided for in the Measles Protection Act was only 0.8 %.
The level of immunity to measles in adults and children was under 95 % in our study. The sanctions of the Measles Protection Act are a greater incentive for adults to undergo measles vaccination than for parents. Strategies to increase immunity with the target group of parents should continue to be pursued. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 2212-0289 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.zefq.2020.10.009 |