Does frequent residential mobility in early years affect the uptake and timeliness of routine immunisations? An anonymised cohort study

H. A. Hutchings, Annette Evans, P. Barnes, M. A. Healy, M. James-Ellison, R. A. Lyons, A. Maddocks, Shantini Paranjothy, S. E. Rodgers, Frank David John Dunstan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
2 Downloads (Pure)


Background: There are conflicting findings regarding the impact of residential mobility on immunisationstatus. Our aim was to determine whether there was any association between residential mobility andtake up of immunisations and whether they were delayed in administration. Methods: We carried out a cohort analysis of children born in Wales, UK. Uptake and time of immunisationwere collected electronically. We defined frequent movers as those who had moved: 2 or more times inthe period prior to the final scheduled on-time date (4 months) for 5 in 1 vaccinations; and 3 or moretimes in the period prior to the final scheduled on-time date (12 months) for MMR, pneumococcal andmeningitis C vaccinations. We defined immunisations due at 2?4 months delayed if they had not beengiven by age 1; and those due at 12?13 months as delayed if they had not been given by age 2. Results: Uptake rates of routine immunisations and whether they were given within the specified time-frame were high for both groups. There was no increased risk (odds ratios (95% confidence intervals)between frequent movers compared to non-movers for the uptake of: primary MMR 1.08 (0.88?1.32);booster Meningitis C 1.65 (0.93?2.92); booster pneumococcal 1.60 (0.59?4.31); primary 5 in 1 1.28(0.92?1.78); and timeliness: primary MMR 0.92 (0.79?1.07); booster Meningitis C 1.26 (0.77?2.07);booster pneumococcal 1.69 (0.23?12.14); and primary 5 in 1 1.04 (0.88?1.23). Discussion: Findings suggest that children who move home frequently are not adversely affected in termsof the uptake of immunisations and whether they were given within a specified timeframe. Both werehigh and may reflect proactive behaviour in the primary healthcare setting to meet Government coveragerates for immunisation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1773-1777
Number of pages5
Issue number15
Early online date27 Feb 2016
Publication statusPublished - 4 Apr 2016

Bibliographical note

This project was funded through a number of grants. The Welsh Government New Ideas Social Research Fund supported the initial research. The study was also supported by two UK research centres. The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer) is a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council (RES-590-28-0005), Medical Research Council, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Wellcome Trust (WT087640MA), under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

The Centre for the Improvement of Population Health through E-records Research (CIIPHER) is one of four UK e-health Informatics Research Centres within the Farr Institute funded by a joint investment from: Arthritis Research UK, the British Heart Foundation Cancer Research UK, the Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Government Health Directorates), the Economic and Social Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, the National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (Welsh Government) and the Wellcome Trust (grant reference: MR/K006525/1).

Conflict of interest sta


  • Residential mobility
  • Childern
  • Cohor
  • Immunisation status


Dive into the research topics of 'Does frequent residential mobility in early years affect the uptake and timeliness of routine immunisations? An anonymised cohort study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this