Have you had a tetanus booster in the last 10 years? Sensitivity and specificity of the question

Abstract Objective To evaluate the accuracy of patients’ recall of their last Tetanus/Diphtheria (Td) booster in the setting of employee health clinics known for high immunization rates and good documentation of vaccine status. Methods Five hundred and seventy-two patients of an employee health clin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Patient education and counseling 2008-03, Vol.70 (3), p.403-406
Hauptverfasser: Hagen, Philip T, Bond, Allison R, Rehman, Hamid, Molella, Robin G, Murad, M. Hassan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Objective To evaluate the accuracy of patients’ recall of their last Tetanus/Diphtheria (Td) booster in the setting of employee health clinics known for high immunization rates and good documentation of vaccine status. Methods Five hundred and seventy-two patients of an employee health clinic answered a written questionnaire about whether they have had a Td booster in the last 10 years. Answers were compared with patients’ charts as the gold standard. Results The sensitivity of the question is 92.4% (95% CI 89.0–95.0) and specificity is 26.5% (95% CI 12.9–44.4). Positive predictive value is 92.6% (95% CI 89.3–95.2) and negative predictive value is 25.7% (95% CI 12.5–43.3). Age and gender do not affect the accuracy of recall. Conclusion A positive answer to this question is highly reliable whereas a negative answer is unreliable. Practice implications In the setting of employee health clinics, when patients affirm the receipt of a Td booster within the previous 10 years, it is quite likely that they are up to date and do not require re-administration of the vaccine. Any other answer to this question (No, I do not know) is unreliable and a booster should be recommended if not contraindicated.
ISSN:0738-3991
DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.006