School-located influenza vaccination with third-party billing: what do parents think?

A systematic review of studies that measure parental vaccine attitudes and beliefs in childhood vaccination

Background

Acceptance of vaccines is an important predictor of vaccine uptake. This has public health implications as those who are not vaccinated are at a higher risk of infection from vaccine preventable diseases. We aimed to examine how parental attitudes and beliefs towards childhood vaccination were measured in questionnaires through a systematic review of the literature.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the literature to identify primary research studies using tools to measure vaccine attitudes and beliefs, published between January 2012 and May 2018. Studies were included if they involved a quantitative survey of the attitudes and beliefs of parents about vaccinations recommended for children. We undertook a synthesis of the results with a focus on evaluating the tools used to measure hesitancy.

Results

A total of 116 studies met the inclusion criteria, 99 used a cross sectional study design, 5 used a case control study design, 4 used a pre-post study design and 8 used mixed methods study designs. Sample sizes of included studies ranged from 49 to 12,259. The most commonly used tool was the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) Survey (n = 7). The most common theoretical framework used was the Health Belief Model (n = 25). Questions eliciting vaccination attitudes and beliefs varied widely.

Conclusions

There was heterogeneity in the types of questionnaires used in studies investigating attitudes and beliefs about vaccination in parents. Methods to measure parental attitudes and beliefs about vaccination could be improved with validated and standardised yet flexible instruments. The use of a standard set of questions should be encouraged in this area of study.

Nontraditional Uses of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine: School-Located Influenza Vaccination

Immunization against influenza continues to be the best method of preventing influenza infection in children, and additionally, indirectly helping to lower disease in adults, given the role of children as "spreaders" of influenza to the community at large. An increasing evidence base exists for the use of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs to increase the influenza vaccination rates among children. Live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has unique characteristics that make it useful for SLIV programs, including ease of immunization without needles, faster delivery, and in many (but not all) years, good vaccine effectiveness. Reviewed herein are results of selected published trials as well as guidance on planning a successful SLIV program.

School-Located Influenza Vaccination: Do Vaccine Clinics at School Raise Vaccination Rates?

BACKGROUND

Only half of US schoolchildren receive influenza vaccine. School-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) might raise vaccination rates but conducting flu vaccine clinics at schools is challenging to implement. We compared 2 school-based programs designed to raise influenza vaccination rates: parent reminder/educational messages sent to parents from schools which is a low-intensity intervention vs the combination of reminder/educational messages plus SLIV clinics which is a high-intensity intervention.

METHODS

We assigned 36 schools (6 school districts, 2 per group) to 3 groups: (1) control, ie, no SLIV and no parent reminder/education, (2) parent reminder/education emailed by schools, and (3) parent reminder/education plus SLIV clinics. Some schools had SLIV clinics in prior years. Health department nurses conducted SLIV clinics.

RESULTS

Among 24,832 children at 36 schools, vaccination rates were control (51.3%), parent reminder/education-only (41.2%), and reminder/education + SLIV (58.7%). On multivariate analyses which controlled for vaccination in prior seasons, children in reminder/education + SLIV schools had higher vaccination rates (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10-1.47), but children in reminder/education-only schools had lower rates (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.00) than children in control schools.

CONCLUSIONS

Parent reminder/education combined with SLIV clinics raise vaccination rates, but parent reminder/education alone does not.

School-located Influenza Vaccinations for Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the effect of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) on adolescents' influenza vaccination rates.

METHODS

In 2015-2016, we performed a cluster-randomized trial of adolescent SLIV in middle/high schools. We selected 10 pairs of schools (identical grades within pairs) and randomly allocated schools within pairs to SLIV or usual care control. At eight suburban SLIV schools, we sent parents e-mail notifications about upcoming SLIV clinics and promoted online immunization consent. At two urban SLIV schools, we sent parents (via student backpack fliers) paper immunization consent forms and information about SLIV. E-mails were unavailable at these schools. Local health department nurses administered nasal or injectable influenza vaccine at dedicated SLIV clinics and billed insurers. We compared influenza vaccination rates at SLIV versus control schools using school directories to identify the student sample in each school. We used the state immunization registry to determine receipt of influenza vaccination.

RESULTS

The final sample comprised 17,650 students enrolled in the 20 schools. Adolescents at suburban SLIV schools had higher overall influenza vaccination rates than did adolescents at control schools (51% vs. 46%, p < .001; adjusted odds ratio = 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.38, controlling for vaccination during the prior two seasons). No effect of SLIV was noted among urbanschools on multivariate analysis. SLIV did not substitute for vaccinations in primary care or other settings; in suburban settings, SLIV was associated with increased vaccinations in primary care or other settings (adjusted odds ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.19).

CONCLUSIONS

SLIV in this community increased influenza vaccination rates among adolescents attending suburban schools.

Facilitators and barriers of parental attitudes and beliefs toward school-located influenza vaccination in the United States: Systematic review

The study objective was to identify facilitators and barriers of parental attitudes and beliefs toward school-located influenza vaccination in the United States. In 2009, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expanded their recommendations for influenza vaccination to include school-aged children. We conducted a systematic review of studies focused on facilitators and barriers of parental attitudes toward school-located influenza vaccination in the United States from 1990 to 2016. We reviewed 11 articles by use of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework. Facilitators were free/low cost vaccination; having belief in vaccine efficacy, influenza severity, and susceptibility; belief that vaccination is beneficial, important, and a social norm; perception of school setting advantages; trust; and parental presence. Barriers were cost; concerns regarding vaccine safety, efficacy, equipment sterility, and adverse effects; perception of school setting barriers; negative physician advice of contraindications; distrust in vaccines and school-located vaccination programs; and health information privacy concerns. We identified the facilitators and barriers of parental attitudes and beliefs toward school-located influenza vaccination to assist in the evidence-based design and implementation of influenza vaccination programs targeted for children in the United States and to improve influenza vaccination coverage for population-wide health benefits.

School-Located Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Assess impact of offering school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) clinics using both Web-based and paper consent upon overall influenza vaccination rates among elementary school children.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial (stratified by suburban/urban districts) in upstate New York in 2014-2015. We randomized 44 elementary schools, selected similar pairs of schools within districts, and allocated schools to SLIV versus usual care (control). Parents of children at SLIV schools were sent information and vaccination consent forms via e-mail, backpack fliers, or both (depending on school preferences) regarding school vaccine clinics. Health department nurses conducted vaccine clinics and billed insurers. For all children registered at SLIV/control schools, we compared receipt of influenza vaccination anywhere (primary outcome).

RESULTS

The 44 schools served 19 776 eligible children in 2014-2015. Children in SLIV schools had higher influenza vaccination rates than children in control schools county-wide (54.1% vs 47.4%, P < .001) and in suburban (61.9% vs 53.6%, P < .001) and urban schools (43.9% vs 39.2%; P < .001). Multivariate analyses (controlling for age, grade, vaccination in previous season) confirmed bivariate findings. Among parents who consented for SLIV, nearly half of those notified by backpack fliers and four-fifths of those notified by e-mail consented online. In suburban districts, SLIV did not substitute for primary care influenza vaccination. In urban schools, some substitution occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

SLIV raised seasonal influenza vaccination rates county-wide and in both suburban and urban settings. SLIV did not substitute for primary care vaccinations in suburban settings where pediatricians often preorder influenza vaccine but did substitute somewhat in urban settings.

School-Based Health Centers as Medical Homes: Parents' and Adolescents' Perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Preventive health services are underutilized by US adolescents, especially those from low-income populations. School-based health centers (SBHCs) have been endorsed as primary medical homes for adolescents. This study was undertaken to determine how adolescent SBHC users and their parents perceive SBHCs, particularly whether SBHCs fulfill each of the elements of a medical home as defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

METHODS

Middle and high school adolescents who had been enrolled in a SBHC in a major metropolitan school district for a minimum of 1 year were interviewed about their perceptions of and experiences with SBHCs. English- and Spanish-speaking parents of SBHC-enrolled adolescents also participated in focus groups on this topic.

RESULTS

Four focus groups with parents (n = 30) and 62 interviews with adolescents were completed. Both adolescents and parents indicated satisfaction with the quality and utilization of SBHC services, reporting that SBHCs were highly accessible and family centered. Many students preferred to access care at their SBHC instead of their primary care practice because of the convenience, perceived trustworthiness, compassion, and high quality of care at the SBHC. A few parents reported unmet medical needs from their adolescent's SBHC, and some differences emerged between English- and Spanish-speaking parents.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents' and parents' perceptions of care received at these SBHCs are consistent with features of the medical home model. These findings suggest that SBHCs can provide coordinated, compassionate care to students in a large, urban school system and may be perceived as more accessible than traditional primary care settings.

Sustainability of school-located influenza vaccination programs in Florida

BACKGROUND

School-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs are a promising strategy for increasing vaccination coverage among schoolchildren. However, questions of economic sustainability have dampened enthusiasm for this approach in the United States. We evaluated SLIV sustainability of a health department led, county-wide SLIV program in Alachua County, Florida. Based on Alachua's outcome data, we modeled the sustainability of SLIV programs statewide using two different implementation costs and at different vaccination rates, reimbursement amount, and Vaccines for Children (VFC) coverage.

METHODS

Mass vaccination clinics were conducted at 69 Alachua County schools in 2013 using VFC (for Medicaid and uninsured children) and non-VFC vaccines. Claims were processed after each clinic and submitted to insurance providers for reimbursement ($5 Medicaid and $47.04 from private insurers). We collected programmatic expenditures and volunteer hours to calculate fixed and variable costs for two different implementation costs (with or without in-kind costs included). We project program sustainability for Florida using publicly available county-specific student populations and health insurance enrollment data.

RESULTS

Approximately 42% (n=12,853) of pre-kindergarten - 12th grade students participated in the SLIV program in Alachua. Of the 13,815 doses provided, 58% (8042) were non-VFC vaccine. Total implementation cost was $14.95/dose or $7.93/dose if "in-kind" costs were not included. The program generated a net surplus of $24,221, despite losing $4.68 on every VFC dose provided to Medicaid and uninsured children. With volunteers, 99% of Florida counties would be sustainable at a 50% vaccination rate and average reimbursement amount of $3.25 VFC and $37 non-VFC. Without volunteers, 69% of counties would be sustainable at 50% vaccination rate if all VFC recipients were on Medicaid and its reimbursement increased from $5 to $10 (amount private practices receive).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Key factors that contributed to the sustainability and success of an SLIV program are: targeting privately insured children and reducing administration cost through volunteers. Counties with a high proportion of VFC eligible children may not be sustainable without subsidies at $5 Medicaid reimbursement.

The most effective and promising population health strategies to advance human papillomavirus vaccination

The US is failing to make substantive progress toward improving rates of human papillomavirus vaccine uptake. While the Healthy People 2020 goal for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is 80%, the three-dose completion rate in the US in 2014 for 13- to 17-year-old females is less than 40%, and the rate for males is just above 20%. Experts point to a number of reasons for the poor HPV vaccination rates including parental concerns about safety, necessity, and timing. However, the evidence refuting these concerns is substantial. Efforts focusing on education and communication have not shown promise, but several population health strategies have reminder/recall systems; practice-focused strategies targeting staff, clinicians, and parents; assessment and feedback activities; and school-based HPV vaccination programs.

Trust and a school-located immunization program

PURPOSE

To determine variables associated with parental trust in a school-located immunization program (SLIP) and the effect of trust-building interventions on trust and participation in SLIPs.

METHODS

Parents among eight schools randomized to a trust-building intervention or a control condition (four schools each) completed a five-item trust survey before SLIP implementation both in year 1 (fall 2012) and in year 2 (fall 2013). Mean trust scores were calculated. Associations between baseline demographic and experiential variables and mean trust scores were analyzed. Mean trust scores in intervention and control schools were compared before SLIP in years 1 and 2, and SLIP participation rates were noted.

RESULTS

From year 1, 1,608 parent surveys were analyzed. Baseline mean trust score across schools was 3.59 of 5 (5 = highest trust). In a multiple linear regression model, annual household income, survey language version, participation in a previous SLIP, child's health insurance status, and perceived vaccine importance were significantly associated with parental trust in SLIPs (R(2)= .06, p < .001). There was no difference in mean trust scores between intervention and control schools (p = .8). In year 2, 844 surveys were analyzed, and a modest difference was observed between intervention and control schools (mean trust score = 3.66 and 3.57, respectively, p = .07). SLIP participation rates appeared higher in intervention (7.7%) versus control schools (4.3%) in year 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline trust in SLIPs among a low-income, largely Hispanic group of parents in Texas was moderately high. Factors associated with trust included demographic and experiential variables, and interventions aimed at increasing parents' perception of vaccine importance and participation in SLIPs may be effective in increasing parental trust in SLIPs.