{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,31]],"date-time":"2025-12-31T05:36:05Z","timestamp":1767159365684,"version":"build-2238731810"},"reference-count":17,"publisher":"Cambridge University Press (CUP)","issue":"9","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2015,1,2]],"date-time":"2015-01-02T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1420156800000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":6332,"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/terms"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[1997,9]]},"abstract":"Abstract<\/jats:title>\n \n Objective:<\/jats:title>\n To determine the knowledge of rubella immune status among practicing obstetrician-gynecologists in the United States and of rubella immunity policies covering healthcare workers in the obstetric-care office setting.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Design:<\/jats:title>\n Mailed survey questionnaire, August through December 1994.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Setting:<\/jats:title>\n Physicians from multiple-practice sites including private office, public institution, university or teaching hospital, and closed panel health maintenance organization settings.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Participants:<\/jats:title>\n 3,302 practicing obstetrician-gynecologists, chosen by a systematic random sample from the AMA national physician database.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Main Outcome Measures:<\/jats:title>\n Participants were defined as rubella immune if they reported knowledge of prior rubella vaccination or positive antibody titer. Knowledge of a policy for documenting rubella immunity among employees in the office-based practice setting also was assessed.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results:<\/jats:title>\n \n Questionnaires were returned from 50% (1,666) of the 3,302 surveyed, and 96% (1,599) were evaluable. Approximately 20% (304\/1,599) of the responding obstetrician-gynecologists did not have knowledge of documented rubella immunity, and the majority of office-based practices did not require documentation of rubella immunity in the following groups: physicians, 66% (723\/1,094); office nurses, 62% (666\/1,070); and other office staff, 69% (728\/1,063). Sixty-two percent (993\/1,599) of responding physicians had individual rubella serologies performed, with 916 known to be positive, 53 reported negative, and 24 reported unknown. Fifty-seven percent (918\/1,599) reported receiving monovalent rubella vaccine or trivalent measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed the following to be independent predictors of positive immune status among respondents: female gender (odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI\n 95<\/jats:sub>\n ], 1.8-3.1), medical school graduation since 1980 (OR, 2.6; CI\n 95<\/jats:sub>\n , 2.0-3.3), providing obstetric or fertility services (OR, 1.5; CI\n 95<\/jats:sub>\n , 1.2-1.9), and group practice setting \u22655 physicians; OR, 1.2; CI\n 95<\/jats:sub>\n , 1.1-14).\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusions:<\/jats:title>\n Nationally, nearly one of every five practicing obstetricians may not have documented rubella immunity, and the majority of office-based practices have no system for assuring such immunity. Rubella immunity should extend beyond the hospital setting, with consideration for requiring rubella immunity as a condition for employment. Methods for effective implementation and documentation of current guidelines need to be addressed, particularly in the office setting.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1086\/647688","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2009,9,16]],"date-time":"2009-09-16T14:12:15Z","timestamp":1253110335000},"page":"633-636","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Primary Prevention and Rubella Immunity: Overlooked Issues in the Outpatient Obstetric Setting"],"prefix":"10.1017","volume":"18","author":[{"given":"Deborah D.","family":"Schoenhoff","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Medicine"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Timothy W.","family":"Lane","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Medicine"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Charles J.","family":"Hansen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Medicine"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"56","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2015,1,2]]},"reference":[{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib014","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0196-6553(83)80007-8"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib016","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJM199311253292207"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib003","first-page":"27","article-title":"Rubella outbreak in a prenatal clinic","volume":"93","author":"Weinstein","year":"1981","journal-title":"Am J Infect Control"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib013","first-page":"37","article-title":"Rubella in hospitals\u2014California","volume":"32","year":"1983","journal-title":"MMWR"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib017","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/BF02599955"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib006","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00006454-199507000-00004"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib007","volume-title":"State Immunization Requirements, 1993-1994"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib008","volume-title":"Program and Abstracts of the 26th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy","author":"Lane","year":"1986"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"822","DOI":"10.1097\/00043764-198810000-00015","article-title":"Immunization status of entering housestaff physicians","volume":"30","author":"Lewy","year":"1988","journal-title":"J Occup Med"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib010","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.7326\/0003-4819-113-8-628"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib009","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/oxfordjournals.aje.a116913"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib005","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJM198009043031001"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib002","first-page":"331","article-title":"standards for adult immunization practice","volume":"21","year":"1993","journal-title":"Am J Infect Control"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib015","first-page":"7","article-title":"Recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP): update on adult immunization","volume":"40","year":"1991","journal-title":"MMWR"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib012","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.1982.03330070049029"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib004","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1017\/S019594170005997X"},{"key":"S0195941700092377_bib001","first-page":"391","article-title":"Rubella and congenital rubella syndrome\u2014United States, January 1, 1991-May 7, 1994","volume":"43","year":"1994","journal-title":"MMWR"}],"container-title":["Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S0195941700092377","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,11]],"date-time":"2025-11-11T03:33:20Z","timestamp":1762832000000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S0195941700092377\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[1997,9]]},"references-count":17,"aliases":["10.2307\/30141490"],"journal-issue":{"issue":"9","published-print":{"date-parts":[[1997,9]]}},"alternative-id":["S0195941700092377"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/647688","relation":{},"ISSN":["0899-823X","1559-6834"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0899-823X","type":"print"},{"value":"1559-6834","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[1997,9]]}}}