Pienter project: description of the serum bank, with information on participants gleaned from questionnaires
Pienter-project: beschrijving van serumbank en informatie over deelnemers uit de vragenlijsten
13 April 2013, PDF |
162 pages |
van den Hof S, de Melker HE, Suijkerbuijk AWM, Conyn-van Spaendonck MAE
RIVM Report 213675005
The RIVM's so-called Pienter project, carried out from October 1995 to December 1996, was aimed at establishing a serum bank of a representative sample of the Dutch population to facilitate sero-epidemiological studies , including the evaluation of the National Immunisation Programme (NIP). In combination with serum collection, questionnaires from participants in the serum bank between 0 and 79 were gathered through a cross-sectional study , including a non-response survey. An additional sample of eight municipalities with a low immunisation coverage was chosen so as to have access to more non-vaccinated individuals. A serum bank of 9973 samples has been established to facilitate a great number of sero-epidemiological studies. Participants of the female sex with a low SES and participants having the Dutch nationality and born in the Netherlands were somewhat overrepresented in the Pienter project compared with those used for the CBS figures. Participants were as representative of the general Dutch population regarding marital status, religion and health, as compared with those used for figures by the CBS. Participants thought immunisation against poliomyelitis was the most important, followed by diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and Hib; immunisation against rubella, mumps and measles was considered least important. Participants belonging to the orthodox reformed churches thought the different immunisations from the National Immunisation Programme (NIP) were less important in comparison with participants of the strict branch of the Dutch Reformed Church and participants with no religious affiliation or having a religion non-opposed to vaccination; they also participated less in the NIP. It would be interesting to see whether the differences in (the opinions on) immunisation are also reflected in the seroprevalences.