This paper presents a critical review of Findley et al.'s (2009) study on the effectiveness of a community coalition in improving child vaccination rates in New York City. The review evaluates the article's abstract, research question, sources, organizational structure, and study findings. The original study used a quasi-experimental design with a birth cohort of nearly 11,000 children, drawing on hospital and citywide immunization registry data. Key findings show that community-based promotion programs — rather than top-down public health mandates — drove meaningful increases in immunization coverage in a predominantly Latino neighborhood. The review also identifies the article's limitations, including its brevity, limited use of visual data, and a high proportion of dated references.
Findley, S., et al. (2009). Effectiveness of a Community Coalition for Improving Child Vaccination Rates in New York City. American Journal of Public Health, 98(11): 1959–62.
The title of this article is quite specific, indicating a narrow topic: how effective a community coalition would be at improving vaccination rates in a specific city — in this case, New York. The abstract is rather weak. While it does provide a broad overview, it is very succinct, covering only what was done, who the population was, and what the outcome was. One cannot infer more than cursory knowledge about the topic from the abstract alone.
The research question is primary within the document. Essentially, it asks: would a community coalition using reminders, tracking, and outreach improve the likelihood that children in New York City would receive appropriate and timely vaccinations? More specifically, what can be done within a community to help ensure that young children — in this case in New York City, where immunization rates stood at only 57% — will increase their rates of needed immunizations without the use of coercive measures?
This article is a primary source because it uses original research to address the hypothesis and research question. A number of secondary sources are also used to support the article's assertions. There are 29 references in total, all drawn from either peer-reviewed journals or state and federal statistical reports (primary government documents). However, approximately half of the references cited were published before 2000, making them more than eight years old at the time of publication. While the sources are reputable, it would have been preferable for more than half to be current.
The article is well written in a consistent professional and academic style, aimed primarily at researchers and public health professionals. Its central focus is on finding ways for the community to take ownership of the immunization program, rather than having it driven solely by social services and public health personnel. For an academic paper, it is notably short — just three pages. There are also few figures, which is a weakness, since much of the data is cohort-dependent and could have been clarified through the use of graphs or charts rather than verbal descriptions of statistical results.
"Quasi-experimental design and cohort details"
"Immunization rate increases and program impact"
"Community ownership and disease prevention value"
You’re 40% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.