We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

Results: 5

1.
Figure 2

Figure 2. From: The potential for measles transmission in England.

Derived vaccination status by age, 2004/5: a) England, b) London.

Yoon Hong Choi, et al. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:338-338.
2.
Figure 4

Figure 4. From: The potential for measles transmission in England.

R values in 28 Strategic Health Authorities in England, 2004/05.

Yoon Hong Choi, et al. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:338-338.
3.
Figure 3

Figure 3. From: The potential for measles transmission in England.

Calculated proportion susceptible to measles, 2004/5 by age and vaccination status: a) England, b) London.

Yoon Hong Choi, et al. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:338-338.
4.
Figure 1

Figure 1. From: The potential for measles transmission in England.

Reported MMR vaccination coverage at five years of age in England and London, 1992–2004. (MMR1 for children who received at least 1 dose and MMR2 for children who received two doses).

Yoon Hong Choi, et al. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:338-338.
5.
Figure 5

Figure 5. From: The potential for measles transmission in England.

(a-f). Evolution of the effective reproduction number, R, from 2004–05 to 2008–09 in the 28 Strategic Health Authorities in England for six possible scenarios for the under-estimation of vaccination coverage (the five SHAs in London are shown in red); the proportion of children recorded as unvaccinated who had received one dose and the proportion of children recorded as having received a single dose who had received two doses was assumed to be : a) 0%, b) 10%, c) 20%, d) 30%, e) 40% and f) 50%.

Yoon Hong Choi, et al. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:338-338.

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
Write to the Help Desk