Back

Rising rate of non-receipt of vitamin K prophylaxis for newborns, January 2019 - June 2026

Masters, N. B.; Farrar, K. G.; Holler, E.; Lancaster, J. M.

2026-09-02 pediatrics
10.64898/2026.08.31.26361837 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Vitamin K prophylaxis is universally recommended for newborns to prevent life threatening vitamin K deficiency bleeding. Although not on the immunization schedule, vitamin K prophylaxis is often coadministered with hepatitis B birth dose and erythromycin ophthalmic ointment, and rising hesitancy around vaccines/preventive care may spill over into vitamin K administration. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Truveta electronic health record data with linked mother-child dyads. Live births to mothers aged 15-49 from January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2026 were included. Vitamin K administration was defined as documentation on the birth date or following day. Logistic regression assessed sociodemographic predictors of non-receipt, and interrupted time series analysis evaluated changes after January 2026. Results: Among 1,026,375 infants, 995,628 (96.97%) had documented vitamin K administration. Non-receipt increased from an average of 2.1% during 2019-2022 to 4.3% in 2025 and 6.1% in 2026, reaching 8.10% in June 2026. Older maternal age, non-Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, Medicaid or unknown insurance, and year of delivery were associated with greater odds of non-receipt. After January 2026, there was no immediate step change, but the odds of vitamin K receipt declined an additional 10% per month (OR: 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.91). Conclusions: Vitamin K non-receipt increased over the study period and accelerated after January 2026. Because vitamin K recommendations were not changed by the January vaccine schedule, this association may reflect broader impacts to confidence in newborn preventive care. Future studies should examine causal mechanisms, parental decision-making, and associated clinical outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.