Advertising Disclaimer
Published online August 1, 2008
PEDIATRICS Vol. 122 No. 2 August 2008, pp. e504-e510 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-3218)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Opel, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Marcuse, E. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Opel, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Marcuse, E. K.
Related Collections
Right arrow Infectious Disease & Immunity
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

SPECIAL ARTICLE

A Critique of Criteria for Evaluating Vaccines for Inclusion in Mandatory School Immunization Programs

Douglas J. Opel, MDa,b, Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPHa,b, Edgar K. Marcuse, MD, MPHb,c

a Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
b Department of Pediatrics
c School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Several new vaccines for children and young adults have been introduced recently and now appear on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommended childhood and adolescent immunization schedule (meningococcal, rotavirus, human papillomavirus). As new vaccines are introduced, states face complex decisions regarding which vaccines to fund and which vaccines to require for school or child care entry. This complexity is evidenced by the current debate surrounding the human papillomavirus vaccine. We present a critique to the approach and criteria for evaluating vaccines for inclusion in mandatory school immunization programs that have been adopted by the Washington State Board of Health by illustrating how these criteria might be applied to the human papillomavirus vaccine. We conclude that these 9 criteria can help ensure a deliberate and informed approach to important public policy decisions, but we argue that several clarifications of the review process are needed along with the addition of a 10th criterion that ensures that a new vaccine mandate relates in some manner to increasing safety in the school environment.

Key Words: ethics • health policy • human papillomavirus • immunizations

Abbreviations: HPV—human papillomavirus • ACIP—Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices • IAC—immunization advisory committee • TAG—technical advisory group

Accepted Apr 2, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 NEJMHome page
R. D. Silverman
Litigation, Regulation, and Education -- Protecting the Public's Health through Childhood Immunization
N. Engl. J. Med., June 11, 2009; 360(24): 2500 - 2501.
[Full Text] [PDF]