{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,21]],"date-time":"2026-07-21T16:58:05Z","timestamp":1784653085462,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Cambridge University Press (CUP)","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[1998,12,1]],"date-time":"1998-12-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":912470400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/terms"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Epidemiol. Infect."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[1998,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>In order to improve the prevention of cases of congenital rubella\n syndrome in The \nNetherlands, in 1987 the selective vaccination strategy against rubella\n infection in girls was \nreplaced by mass vaccination. This decision was supported by mathematical\n model analyses \ncarried out by Van Druten and De Boo. In order to compare the predicted\n impact of the \nrubella vaccination programme with the current available data in more detail,\n a similar model \nwas built. Although the model predicts elimination of the rubella virus,\n data show that virus \ncirculation is still present at a higher level than expected by the model.\n Simulation studies \nindicate that import of infection and a lower vaccine effectiveness, related\n to possible \nasymptomatic reinfection of vaccinated people, could be sources contributing\n to the present \nvirus circulation. Even though the number of infections is much higher\n than the number of \nreported cases of disease, limited serosurveillance data and case notification\n data show that \nfemales of childbearing age are well protected by immunization.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1017\/s0950268898001472","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2002,7,27]],"date-time":"2002-07-27T13:23:42Z","timestamp":1027776222000},"page":"653-671","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":14,"title":["A model-based evaluation of the national immunization \nprogramme against rubella infection and congenital rubella \nsyndrome in The Netherlands"],"prefix":"10.1017","volume":"121","author":[{"given":"O. G.","family":"van der HEIJDEN","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"M. A. E.","family":"CONYN-van SPAENDONCK","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"A. D.","family":"PLANTINGA","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"M. E. E.","family":"KRETZSCHMAR","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"56","published-online":{"date-parts":[[1998,12,1]]},"container-title":["Epidemiology and Infection"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S0950268898001472","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2019,5,10]],"date-time":"2019-05-10T19:49:18Z","timestamp":1557517758000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S0950268898001472\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[1998,12]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[1998,12]]}},"alternative-id":["S0950268898001472"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s0950268898001472","relation":{},"ISSN":["0950-2688","1469-4409"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0950-2688","type":"print"},{"value":"1469-4409","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[1998,12]]}}}