Programmatic and research priorities for improving influenza immunization of pregnant women

Research prioritisation in preparedness for and response to outbreaks of high-consequence pathogens: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Priority setting for research on epidemic/pandemic-prone pathogens is essential for the allocation of limited resources to optimise impact. It involves the identification of gaps in knowledge crucial to effective preparedness and response to outbreaks. This review maps priority-setting exercises, reviews their approaches to research prioritisation and describes associated monitoring and evaluation processes for research priorities on high-consequence pathogens.

METHODS

Using search terms associated with high-consequence pathogens, as defined by the WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), European CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021), and research prioritisation, we searched WHO Global Index Medicus; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus. Grey literature sources were Google Scholar and the WHO websites, complemented by recommendations from stakeholder consultation. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full-texts including documents describing research prioritisation activities. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

We identified 125 publications presenting priority setting activities on 17 high-consequence pathogens published between 1975 and 2022. Most (62%) were related to SARS-CoV-2, 5.6% to Ebola virus and 5% to Zika virus. Three different broad approaches to setting priorities were identified, most (53%) involved external consultations with experts. Few (6%) indicated plans to monitor progress against set priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the diversity in research prioritisation practice in the context of high-consequence pathogens and a limited application of the existing standards in health research prioritisation. An increased uptake of these standards and harmonisation of practice may improve quality and confidence and ultimately improve alignment of funded research with the resulting priorities.

Barriers and facilitators of vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19, influenza, and pertussis during pregnancy and in mothers of infants under two years: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Vaccination during pregnancy has been repeatedly demonstrated to be safe and effective in protecting against infection and associated harms for the mother, developing baby, and subsequent infant. However, maternal vaccination uptake remains low compared to the general population.

OBJECTIVES

An umbrella review to explore the barriers and facilitators to Influenza, Pertussis and COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and within 2 years after childbirth, and to inform interventions to encourage uptake (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022327624).

METHODS

Ten databases were searched for systematic reviews published between 2009 and April 2022 exploring the predictors of vaccination or effectiveness of interventions to improve vaccination for Pertussis, Influenza, or COVD-19. Both pregnant women and mothers of infants under two years were included. Barriers and facilitators were organised using the WHO model of determinants of vaccine hesitancy through narrative synthesis, the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist assessed review quality, and the degree of overlap of primary studies was calculated.

RESULTS

19 reviews were included. Considerable overlap was found especially for intervention reviews, and the quality of the included reviews and their primary studies varied. Sociodemographic factors were specifically researched in the context of COVID-19, exerting a small but consistent effect on vaccination. Concerns around the safety of vaccination particularly for the developing baby were a main barrier. While key facilitators included recommendation from a healthcare professional, previous vaccination, knowledge around vaccination, and communication with and support from social groups. Intervention reviews indicated multi-component interventions involving human interaction to be most effective.

CONCLUSION

The main barriers and facilitators for Influenza, Pertussis and COVID-19 vaccination have been identified and constitute the foundation for policy development at the international level. Ethnicity, socioeconomic status, concerns about vaccine safety and side effects, and lack of healthcare professionals' recommendations, are the most relevant factors of vaccine hesitancy. Adapting educational interventions to specific populations, person-to-person interaction, healthcare professionals' involvement, and interpersonal support are important strategies to improve uptake.

Perspectives on Maternal Vaccination from Obstetrical Clinicians: A Qualitative Multi-site Study

OBJECTIVES

Despite the seriousness of influenza and pertussis, availability of safe and effective vaccines against them, and long-standing maternal vaccination recommendations, US maternal influenza and Tdap vaccination rates have been low. To increase vaccination rates in obstetric offices, it is important to understand clinician perspectives and office processes. We conducted in-depth interviews with nurses and providers on these topics.

METHODS

Interviewees worked in obstetric offices in one-of-four participating health systems in NY and CA. We audio-recorded and transcribed 20-30-min interviews. We used predetermined categories to code interviews with Dedoose, then iteratively refined codes and identified themes.

RESULTS

We conducted 20 interviews between 4/2020 and 9/2020: 13 providers (physician or nurse midwife) (5 NY, 8 CA); 7 office nurses (6 NY, 1 CA). In almost all offices, patient refusal of influenza vaccine was considered the major vaccination barrier; Tdap was often deferred by patients until post-delivery. Nurse-only visits for either vaccine were rare. Vaccination outside the office was uncommon; few offices systematically documented vaccines given elsewhere in a retrievable manner. Participants emphasized patient education as key to prenatal care, but the number of topics left little time for immunizations. Few interviewees could identify an office "immunization champion," knew their office vaccination rates, or had participated in vaccination quality improvement. Several interviewees indicated that they or another provider were good at persuading hesitant patients, but their method had not been shared with other clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE

Multiple practical barriers and maternal vaccine hesitancy limit maternal vaccination. Quality improvement strategies are needed.

Enhancing uptake of influenza maternal vaccine

INTRODUCTION

Influenza vaccination during pregnancy can offer many benefits to both mother and infant. Despite recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, vaccine coverage rates among pregnant women during pregnancy are below 40% in the United States. There is a need for a greater understanding of what interventions can improve vaccine uptake among pregnant women.

AREAS COVERED

This review synthesizes the existing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve maternal influenza vaccine uptake. These interventions are examined within the framework of the three psychological propositions: thoughts and feelings, social processes and changing behavior directly.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

A number of promising and effective interventions were identified in this review. Nudge-based interventions that build on favorable intentions to vaccinate such as provider prompts and standing orders have demonstrated significant success in improving influenza vaccine uptake. However, substantial gaps in the literature still exist. Provider recommendations are the most important predictor of vaccine receipt among pregnant women, yet few studies evaluated intervening to improve the dialogue between patient and provider. With the potential for even more vaccines to be added to the maternal immunization schedule, it is vitally important to understand how to improve uptake.

Randomized Quality Improvement Trial of Opting-In Versus Opting-Out to Increase Influenza Vaccination Rates during Pregnancy

Introduction  Despite strong recommendations, only 40.6% of pregnant women attending two prenatal clinics were vaccinated against influenza during the 2009 pandemic. We tested whether an opting-out approach would improve vaccine uptake. Methods  We conducted a randomized quality improvement (QI) trial to compare opting-out with conventional opting-in consent for influenza immunization. Women age ≥ 18 years attending the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) or UT-Medical Branch (UTMB) prenatal clinics during the 2010-2011 influenza season, were eligible. Results  We enrolled 280 women (140 UTHealth, 140 UTMB). Both groups had similar mean age (26.0 ± 5.5 years), mean gestational age (19.4 ± 9.5 weeks), and percent with underlying health conditions (20.7%). Vaccination rates with opting-in and opting-out were similar among all (83 vs. 84%), UTHealth (87 vs. 93%), and UTMB patients (79 vs.76%) ( p  > 0.05). In subsamples of patients assessed, consent strategy did not significantly affect maternal recall of information provided. Conclusion  While prenatal influenza vaccination uptake doubled from the 2009-2010 influenza season, opting-out did not perform better than opting-in, a conclusion opposite that we would have reached had this been a nonconcurrent trial. Vaccination rates dropped posttrial; hence, continued research is needed to increase the prenatal influenza immunizations.

Using SMS to monitor adverse events following trivalent influenza vaccination in pregnant women

BACKGROUND

Trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) has been recommended for pregnant women in Australia for more than a decade and funded since 2009, yet vaccination coverage remains low. Misperceptions of the safety of TIV in pregnancy have been identified as a major contributor to low vaccination rates. Ongoing safety monitoring with dissemination of results could help improve antenatal influenza vaccine uptake.

AIM

To implement a real-time safety monitoring program for TIV administered to pregnant women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March and July 2013, a cohort of 3,173 pregnant women who received the 2013 TIV agreed to follow-up regarding possible adverse events following immunisation (AEFI); 3,047 (96%) provided a mobile telephone number and were sent a short message service (SMS) inquiring whether they had experienced an AEFI; attempts were made to contact the remaining 126 (4%) women by voice telephone call.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 2,885 (90.9%) women, 413 (14.3%) of whom reported a suspected AEFI. Local reactions were the most frequently reported AEFI (4.9%), followed by headache (3.3%), fever (2.7%), fatigue (2.5%), diarrhoea (2.5%) and malaise (1.2%); 39 women (1.4%) sought medical advice and no serious vaccine-related AEFIs were identified. Response rates were higher for SMS compared to telephone (84% vs 63%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the safety of TIV in pregnant women. Mobile phone technology proved an efficient method for timely surveillance of adverse events following vaccination. The low level of AEFI observed should be reassuring to antenatal patients and their providers and help promote TIV uptake.

Influenza vaccination in pregnant women: a systematic review

Objective. To assess the effects of the inactivated influenza virus vaccine on influenza outcomes in pregnant women and their infants. Methods. We performed a systematic review of the literature. We searched for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in the MEDLINE, Embase, and other relevant databases (inception to September 2013). Two researchers selected studies and extracted the data independently. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of the evidence. Results. We included eight studies out of 1,967 retrieved records. Influenza vaccination in pregnant women significantly reduced the incidence of influenza-like illness in mothers and their infants when compared with control groups (high-quality evidence) and reduced the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza in infants (moderate-quality evidence). No difference was found with regard to influenza-like illness with fever higher than 38°C (moderate-quality evidence) or upper respiratory infection (very-low-quality evidence) in mothers and infants. Conclusions. Maternal vaccination against influenza was shown to prevent influenza-like illness in women and infants; no differences were found for other outcomes. As the quality of evidence was not high overall, further research is needed to increase confidence and could possibly change these estimates.

Approaches to the vaccination of pregnant women: experience from Stockport, UK, with prenatal influenza

For the 2010/11 influenza season the prenatal vaccination program was extended to all women in England and Wales irrespective of gestational age—this was a considerable shift in practice for both pregnant women and healthcare providers where the emphasis previously had been only on targeted vaccination for pregnant women with adverse risk factors for influenza infection. This paper will describe the program’s operation in Stockport, UK during this season when uptake was among the highest in the England and Wales.

Stockport is situated in the south east of Greater Manchester. It is a generally affluent area with a population of 295,000. Health indicators are generally higher than the regional average. The target population for influenza is just under 50,000 residents (excluding pregnant women).