Seasonal influenza vaccination reminders for children with high-risk conditions: a registry-based randomized trial

Registry-based randomised controlled trials: conduct, advantages and challenges-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Registry-based randomised controlled trials (rRCTs) have been described as pragmatic studies utilising patient data embedded in large-scale registries to facilitate key clinical trial procedures including recruitment, randomisation and the collection of outcome data. Whilst the practice of utilising registries to support the conduct of randomised trials is increasing, the use of the registries within rRCTs is inconsistent. The purpose of this systematic review is to explore the conduct of rRCTs using a patient registry to facilitate trial recruitment and the collection of outcome data, and to discuss the advantages and challenges of rRCTs.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted using five databases from inception to June 2020: PubMed, Embase (through Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL). The search strategy comprised of MESH terms and key words related to rRCTs. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers. A risk of bias for each study was completed. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

A total 47,862 titles were screened and 24 rRCTs were included. Eleven rRCTs (45.8%) used more than one registry to facilitate trial conduct. Six rRCTs (25%) randomised participants via a specific randomisation module embedded within a registry. Recruitment ranged between 209 to 106,000 participants. Advantages of rRCTs are recruitment efficiency, shorter trial times, cost effectiveness, outcome data completeness, smaller carbon footprint, lower participant burden and the ability to conduct multiple trials from the same registry. Challenges are data collection/management, quality assurance issues and the timing of informed consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimising the design of rRCTs is dependent on the capabilities of the registry. New registries should be designed and existing registries reviewed to enable the conduct of rRCTs. At all times, data management and quality assurance of all registry data should be given key consideration. We suggest the inclusion of the term 'registry-based' in the title of all rRCT manuscripts and a clear simple breakdown of the registry-based conduct of the trial in the abstract to facilitate indexing in the major databases.

Paper II: thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries

OBJECTIVES

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional randomized controlled trials. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n = 12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n = 13) and reports (n = 77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned.

RESULTS

Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs.

CONCLUSION

Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.

Implementation of a provider-focused intervention for maximizing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake in young cancer survivors receiving follow-up care in pediatric oncology practices: protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of the HPV PROTECT intervention

BACKGROUND

Childhood cancer survivors are at high risk for developing new cancers (such as cervical and anal cancer) caused by persistent infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV vaccination is effective in preventing the infections that lead to these cancers, but HPV vaccine uptake is low among young cancer survivors. Lack of a healthcare provider recommendation is the most common reason that cancer survivors fail to initiate the HPV vaccine. Strategies that are most successful in increasing HPV vaccine uptake in the general population focus on enhancing healthcare provider skills to effectively recommend the vaccine, and reducing barriers faced by the young people and their parents in receiving the vaccine. This study will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an evidence-based healthcare provider-focused intervention (HPV PROTECT) adapted for use in pediatric oncology clinics, to increase HPV vaccine uptake among cancer survivors 9 to 17 years of age.

METHODS

This study uses a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation approach. We will test the effectiveness of the HPV PROTECT intervention using a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial across a multi-state sample of pediatric oncology clinics. We will evaluate implementation (provider perspectives regarding intervention feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness in the pediatric oncology setting, provider fidelity to intervention components and change in provider HPV vaccine-related knowledge and practices [e.g., providing vaccine recommendations, identifying and reducing barriers to vaccination]) using a mixed methods approach.

DISCUSSION

This multisite trial will address important gaps in knowledge relevant to the prevention of HPV-related malignancies in young cancer survivors by testing the effectiveness of an evidence-based provider-directed intervention, adapted for the pediatric oncology setting, to increase HPV vaccine initiation in young cancer survivors receiving care in pediatric oncology clinics, and by procuring information regarding intervention delivery to inform future implementation efforts. If proven effective, HPV PROTECT will be readily disseminable for testing in the larger pediatric oncology community to increase HPV vaccine uptake in cancer survivors, facilitating protection against HPV-related morbidities for this vulnerable population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04469569, prospectively registered on July 14, 2020.

Effect of Personalized Messages Sent by a Health System's Patient Portal on Influenza Vaccination Rates: a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Adult influenza vaccination rates are low. Tailored patient reminders might raise rates.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate impact of a health system's patient portal reminders: (1) tailored to patient characteristics and (2) incorporating behavioral science strategies, on influenza vaccination rates among adults.

DESIGN

Pragmatic 6-arm randomized trial across a health system during the 2019-2020 influenza vaccination season. The setting was one large health system-53 adult primary care practices.

PARTICIPANTS

All adult patients who used the patient portal within 12 months, stratified by the following: young adults (18-64 years, without diabetes), older adults (≥65 years, without diabetes), and those with diabetes (≥18 years).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized within strata to either (1) pre-commitment reminder alone (1 message, mid-October), (2) pre-commitment + loss frame messages, (3) pre-commitment + gain frame messages, (4) loss frame messages alone, (5) gain frame messages alone, or (6) standard of care control. Patients in the pre-commitment group were sent a message in mid-October, asking if they planned on getting an influenza vaccination. Patients in loss or gain frame groups were sent up to 3 portal reminders (late October, November, and December, if no documented influenza vaccination in the EHR) about importance and safety of influenza vaccine.

MAIN MEASURES

Receipt of 1 influenza vaccine from 10/01/2019 to 03/31/2020.

KEY RESULTS

196,486 patients (145,166 young adults, 29,795 older adults, 21,525 adults with diabetes) were randomized. Influenza vaccination rates were as follows: for young adults 36.8%, for older adults 55.6%, and for diabetics 60.6%. On unadjusted and adjusted (for age, gender, insurance, race, ethnicity, and prior influenza vaccine history) analyses, influenza vaccination rates were not statistically different for any study group versus control.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient reminders sent by a health system's patient portal that were tailored to patient demographics (young adults, older adults, diabetes) and that incorporated two behavioral economic messaging strategies (pre-commitment and loss/gain framing) were not effective in raising influenza vaccination rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04110314).

Effect of Electronic Health Record Reminders for Routine Immunizations and Immunizations Needed for Chronic Medical Conditions

BACKGROUND

 Immunization reminders in electronic health records (EHR) provide clinical decision support (CDS) that can reduce missed immunization opportunities. Little is known about using CDS rules from a regional immunization information system (IIS) to power local EHR immunization reminders.

OBJECTIVE

 This study aimed to assess the impact of EHR reminders using regional IIS CDS-provided rules on receipt of immunizations in a low-income, urban population for both routine immunizations and those recommended for patients with chronic medical conditions (CMCs).

METHODS

 We built an EHR-based immunization reminder using the open-source resource used by the New York City IIS in which we overlaid logic regarding immunizations needed for CMCs. Using a randomized cluster-cross-over pragmatic clinical trial in four academic-affiliated clinics, we compared captured immunization opportunities during patient visits when the reminder was "on" versus "off" for the primary immunization series, school-age boosters, and adolescents. We also assessed coverage of CMC-specific immunizations. Up-to-date immunization was measured by end of quarter. Rates were compared using chi square tests.

RESULTS

 Overall, 15,343 unique patients were seen for 26,647 visits. The alert significantly impacted captured opportunities to complete the primary series in both well-child and acute care visits (57.6% on vs. 54.3% off, p = 0.001, and 15.3% on vs. 10.1% off, p = 0.02, respectively), among most age groups, and several immunization types. Captured opportunities for CMC-specific immunizations remained low regardless of alert status. The alert did not have an effect on up-to-date immunization overall (89.1 vs. 88.3%).

CONCLUSION

 CDS in this population improved captured immunization opportunities. Baseline high rates may have blunted an up-to-date population effect. Converting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rules to generate sufficiently sensitive and specific alerts for CMC-specific immunizations proved challenging, and the alert did not have an impact on CMC-specific immunizations, potentially highlighting need for more work in this area.

Factors that influence parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent serious illnesses and deaths in children. However, worldwide, many children do not receive all recommended vaccinations, for several potential reasons. Vaccines might be unavailable, or parents may experience difficulties in accessing vaccination services; for instance, because of poor quality health services, distance from a health facility, or lack of money. Some parents may not accept available vaccines and vaccination services. Our understanding of what influences parents' views and practices around childhood vaccination, and why some parents may not accept vaccines for their children, is still limited. This synthesis links to Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to improve coverage or uptake of childhood vaccination.

OBJECTIVES

- Explore parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination, and the factors influencing acceptance, hesitancy, or nonacceptance of routine childhood vaccination. - Develop a conceptual understanding of what and how different factors reduce parental acceptance of routine childhood vaccination. - Explore how the findings of this review can enhance our understanding of the related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three other databases for eligible studies from 1974 to June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that: utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on parents' or caregivers' views, practices, acceptance, hesitancy, or refusal of routine vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where childhood vaccination is provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a pre-specified sampling frame to sample from eligible studies, aiming to capture studies that were conceptually rich, relevant to the review's phenomenon of interest, from diverse geographical settings, and from a range of income-level settings. We extracted contextual and methodological data from each sampled study. We used a meta-ethnographic approach to analyse and synthesise the evidence. We assessed methodological limitations using a list of criteria used in previous Cochrane Reviews and originally based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We integrated the findings of this review with those from relevant Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness. We did this by mapping whether the underlying theories or components of trial interventions included in those reviews related to or targeted the overarching factors influencing parental views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination identified by this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 145 studies in the review and sampled 27 of these for our analysis. Six studies were conducted in Africa, seven in the Americas, four in South-East Asia, nine in Europe, and one in the Western Pacific. Studies included urban and rural settings, and high-, middle-, and low-income settings. Many complex factors were found to influence parents' vaccination views and practices, which we divided into four themes. Firstly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their broader ideas and practices surrounding health and illness generally, and specifically with regards to their children, and their perceptions of the role of vaccination within this context. Secondly, many parents' vaccination ideas and practices were influenced by the vaccination ideas and practices of the people they mix with socially. At the same time, shared vaccination ideas and practices helped some parents establish social relationships, which in turn strengthened their views and practices around vaccination. Thirdly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by wider political issues and concerns, and particularly their trust (or distrust) in those associated with vaccination programmes. Finally, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their access to and experiences of vaccination services and their frontline healthcare workers. We developed two concepts for understanding possible pathways to reduced acceptance of childhood vaccination. The first concept, 'neoliberal logic', suggests that many parents, particularly from high-income countries, understood health and healthcare decisions as matters of individual risk, choice, and responsibility. Some parents experienced this understanding as in conflict with vaccination programmes, which emphasise generalised risk and population health. This perceived conflict led some parents to be less accepting of vaccination for their children. The second concept, 'social exclusion', suggests that some parents, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, were less accepting of childhood vaccination due to their experiences of social exclusion. Social exclusion may damage trustful relationships between government and the public, generate feelings of isolation and resentment, and give rise to demotivation in the face of public services that are poor quality and difficult to access. These factors in turn led some parents who were socially excluded to distrust vaccination, to refuse vaccination as a form of resistance or a way to bring about change, or to avoid vaccination due to the time, costs, and distress it creates. Many of the overarching factors our review identified as influencing parents' vaccination views and practices were underrepresented in the interventions tested in the four related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review has revealed that parents' views and practices regarding childhood vaccination are complex and dynamic social processes that reflect multiple webs of influence, meaning, and logic. We have provided a theorised understanding of the social processes contributing to vaccination acceptance (or not), thereby complementing but also extending more individualistic models of vaccination acceptance. Successful development of interventions to promote acceptance and uptake of childhood vaccination will require an understanding of, and then tailoring to, the specific factors influencing vaccination views and practices of the group(s) in the target setting. The themes and concepts developed through our review could serve as a basis for gaining this understanding, and subsequent development of interventions that are potentially more aligned with the norms, expectations, and concerns of target users.

A rapid global review of strategies to improve influenza vaccination uptake in Australia

This study aimed to identify effective strategies for improving the uptake of influenza vaccination and to inform recommendations for influenza vaccination programs in Australia. A rapid systematic review was conducted to assimilate and synthesize peer-reviewed articles identified in PubMed. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Hierarchy of Evidence was used to appraise the quality of evidence. A systematic search identified 4373 articles and 52 that met the inclusion criteria were included. The evidence suggests influenza vaccination uptake may be improved by interventions that (1) increase community/patient demand and access to influenza vaccine and overcome practice-related barriers; (2) reinforce the critical role healthcare providers play in driving influenza vaccination uptake. Strategies such as standing orders, reminder and recall efforts were successful in improving influenza vaccination rates. Community pharmacies, particularly in regional/remote areas, are well positioned to improve influenza vaccine coverage. The findings of this rapid review can be utilized to improve the performance of influenza immunization programs in Australia and other countries with comparable programs; and recommend priorities for future evaluation of interventions to improve influenza vaccination uptake.

The Contribution of Reminder-Recall to Vaccine Delivery Efforts: A Narrative Review

Reminders, alerting patients to the need for vaccines that will be due in the future, and recall messages, informing patients about vaccines that are overdue, have been shown to improve immunization rates for children and adolescents in numerous systematic reviews. Therefore, reminder and recall interventions (R/R) are recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services for increasing immunization rates on the basis of strong evidence. R/R messages can be delivered by mail (letter or postcard), via personal or auto-dialer phone calls, by text or e-mail or via patient-portals and can simply be alerts to action or can include educational material with the aim of motivating patients to seek vaccination. R/R has also been shown to be a relatively low-cost intervention with high cost-effectiveness compared with other recommended strategies. However, although R/R as a strategy is consistently effective and cost-effective overall, there is wide variation in the impact of R/R by 1) modality of how it is delivered, 2) the targeted vaccine, 3) the age group, and 4) whether the R/R is conducted centrally by a health system or Immunization Information System or by individual practices. This narrative review summarizes the literature about effectiveness of R/R within each of these categories. We also discuss limitations of R/R, with a focus on the potential impact of parental vaccine hesitancy in blunting its effectiveness and problems with data integrity, on which R/R relies. We also discuss challenges to sustaining R/R efforts, including potential methods of funding for R/R efforts.

Improving Influenza Vaccination in Children With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Children with medical comorbidities are at greater risk for severe influenza and poorer clinical outcomes. Despite recommendations and funding, influenza vaccine coverage remains inadequate in these children.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review literature assessing interventions targeting influenza vaccine coverage in children with comorbidities and assess the impact on influenza vaccine coverage.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and Web of Science databases were searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Interventions targeting influenza vaccine coverage in children with medical comorbidities.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracting studies' methods, interventions, settings, populations, and results. Four reviewers independently assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

From 961 screened articles, 35 met inclusion criteria. Published studies revealed that influenza vaccine coverage was significantly improved through vaccination reminders and education directed at either patients' parents or providers, as well as by vaccination-related clinic process changes. Interventions improved influenza vaccine coverage by an average 60%, but no significant differences between intervention types were detected. Significant bias and study heterogeneity were also identified, limiting confidence in this effect estimate.

LIMITATIONS

A high risk of bias and overall low quality of evidence limited our capacity to assess intervention types and methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions were shown to consistently improve influenza vaccine coverage; however, no significant differences in coverage between different intervention types were observed. Future well-designed studies evaluating the effectiveness of different intervention are required to inform future optimal interventions.

The potential for centralized reminder/recall to increase immunization rates: A national survey of immunization information systems (IIS) managers

Little is known about Immunization Information System (IIS) attitudes and experiences using Centralized IIS-based Reminder/Recall (CI-R/R), an effective approach to increasing immunization rates. To describe among IIS managers as it relates to CI-R/R: 1) past experiences and future plans conducting it; 2) attitudes and barriers, 3) IIS capabilities and polices that influence, and 4) factors that differentiate IIS who have and have not conducted CI-R/R. Electronic Surveys were sent to all IIS managers in July 2018 using a member listserve. Fifty-seven of 62 IIS programs contacted (92%) responded. The majority (61%) had ever conducted CI-R/R; 34% reported they were "very likely" to conduct CI-R/R within 6 months. The majority (64%) were in favor of CI-R/R. Barriers included lack of staff (78%), competing demands (76%), and cost (63%). Thirty percent reported receiving a ≥75% of immunization data via real-time electronic interfaces (HL7). Overall, 49% and 24% of jurisdictions had mandatory immunization reporting from private and public health entities for childhood and adult immunizations, respectively. Differences between IIS that ever and never performed CI-R/R, respectively, included: mandatory reporting from private and public entities for children (65% v 27%, p = 0.006), having a legal mandate for CI-R/R (50% v 19%, p = 0.02), less likely to prefer practice-based R/R to CI-R/R (68% v. 91%, p = 0.04), and not reporting having too many competing demands (29% v 67%, p = 0.007). Most IIS have conducted CI-R/R and have positive attitudes towards it. Given it effectiveness and low cost, efforts to sustain it should be considered.

Multiple mail reminders to increase adherence to influenza vaccination

INTRODUCTION

Different interventions have been proposed to reinforce the use of the influenza vaccine. The use of reminders, whether through letters, phone calls, pamphlets or technological applications, among others, has stood out among those aimed at increasing ad-herence to treatment. However, its effectiveness is not clear. In this summary, which is part of a series of reminder evaluations, we assess the use of multiple mail reminders.

METHODS

We conducted a search in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic health reviews, which is maintained by screening multiple sources of information, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted the data from the identified reviews, analyzed the data from the primary studies, performed a meta-analysis and prepared a summary table of the results using the GRADE method.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We identified eight systematic reviews including 35 primary studies, of which four analyze the use of more than one letter as a reminder. We conclude that the use of multiple mail reminders probably increase adherence to influenza vaccination in patients over 60; while it may make little or no difference in children under 6 years, but the certainty of the evidence is low.

Effect of Patient Portal Reminders Sent by a Health Care System on Influenza Vaccination Rates: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Influenza vaccination rates across the US are low. Because few practices send patient reminders for influenza vaccination, a scalable patient reminder system is needed.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of patient reminders sent via a health care system's electronic health record patient portal on influenza vaccination rates.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic, 4-arm randomized clinical trial was performed from October 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, across the UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) health care system. A total of 164 205 patients in 52 primary care practices who had used the patient portal within 12 months were included.

Interventions

Patients due for an influenza vaccine were sent a letter via the patient portal of the health care system reminding them about the importance of influenza vaccination, safety of the vaccine, and morbidity associated with influenza. Patients were randomized within primary care practices to 1 of 4 study groups (no reminder [n = 41 070] vs 1 reminder [n = 41 055], 2 reminders [n = 41 046], or 3 reminders [n = 41 034]).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was receipt of 1 or more influenza vaccines as documented in the electronic health record, which was supplemented with influenza vaccination data from external sources (eg, pharmacies). Secondary outcomes were influenza vaccination rates among subgroups and influenza vaccinations self-reported by patients in reply to the portal-based query as having been received elsewhere.

Results

A total of 164 205 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.2 [19.6] years; 95 779 [58.3%] female) were randomly allocated to 1 of the 4 study arms. In the primary analysis across all ages and not including patient self-reported vaccinations in reply to portal reminders, influenza vaccination rates were 37.5% for those receiving no reminders, 38.0% for those receiving 1 reminder (P = .008 vs no reminder), 38.2% for those receiving 2 reminders (P = .03 vs no reminder), and 38.2% for those receiving 3 reminders (P = .02 vs no reminder). In the secondary analysis not including patient self-reported vaccinations, among adults aged 18 to 64 years (vaccination rates: 32.0% in the control group, 32.8% in the 1-reminder group, 32.8% in the 2-reminder group, and 32.8% in the 3-reminder group; P = .001), male patients (vaccination rates: 37.3% vs 38.3%, 38.6%, and 38.8%; P = .001), non-Hispanic patients (vaccination rates: 37.6% vs 38.2%, 38.3%, and 38.2%; P = .004), and those who were not vaccinated in the prior 2 years (vaccination rates: 15.3% vs 15.9%, 16.3%, and 16.1%; P < .001), vaccination rates were higher in the portal reminder groups than in the control group; the findings in these 3 subgroups mirrored the findings in the entire population. When self-reported vaccinations received elsewhere were included, influenza vaccination rates were 1.4 to 2.9 percentage points higher in the portal reminder groups, with a dose-response effect (0 reminders: 15 537 [37.8%]; 1 reminder: 16 097 [39.2%]; 2 reminders: 16 426 [40.0%]; and 3 reminders: 16 714 [40.7%]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Generic patient portal reminders were effective in minimally increasing influenza vaccination rates, but more intensive or more targeted patient motivational strategies appear to be needed.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03666026.

Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review

Background

Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on.

Methods

A scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT.

Results

We identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed.

Conclusion

RRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT.

Effect of State Immunization Information System Based Reminder/Recall for Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial of Autodialer, Text, and Mailed Messages

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination.

STUDY DESIGN

Two simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities-4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine.

RESULTS

In New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and $16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages.

CONCLUSIONS

Centralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03294473 and NCT03246100.

Centralized Reminder/Recall to Increase Influenza Vaccination Rates: A Two-State Pragmatic Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) by health departments using immunization information systems is more effective and cost effective than practice-based approaches for increasing childhood vaccines but has not been studied for influenza vaccination. We assessed effectiveness and cost of C-R/R for increasing childhood influenza vaccination compared with usual care.

METHODS

Within Colorado (CO) and New York (NY), random samples of primary care practices (pediatric, family medicine, and health center) were selected proportionate to where children are served-65 practices (N = 54,353 children) in CO; 101 practices (N = 65,777) in NY. We conducted 4-arm RCTs per state (1, 2, or 3 autodial reminders vs usual care), with randomization at the patient level within practices from 10/2016 to 1/2017.

RESULTS

In CO, the maximum absolute difference in receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine was 1.7% between the 2 R/R group and control (adjusted risk ratio [ARR] of 1.06 [1.01, 1.10]); other R/R arms did not differ significantly. In NY, ARRs for the study arms versus control varied from 1.05 (1.01, 1.10) for 3 R/R to 1.06 (1.01, 1.11) for 1-2 R/R groups and maximum absolute increase in vaccination was 0.6%. In time-to-event analyses, study arm was a significant predictor of vaccination in CO (P = .001) but not in NY. Costs/child randomized to one message were $.17 in CO and $.23 in NY.

CONCLUSIONS

C-R/R for influenza vaccine using autodial had low-level effects on increasing influenza rates in 2 states. Given the feasibility and low cost of C-R/R in previous trials, its utility for influenza should be re-examined using different modalities.

Effectiveness and Parental Acceptability of Social Networking Interventions for Promoting Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Among Young Children: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) coverage among young children remains low worldwide. Mobile social networking apps such as WhatsApp Messenger are promising tools for health interventions.

OBJECTIVE

This was a preliminary study to test the effectiveness and parental acceptability of a social networking intervention that sends weekly vaccination reminders and encourages exchange of SIV-related views and experiences among mothers via WhatsApp discussion groups for promoting childhood SIV. The second objective was to examine the effect of introducing time pressure on mothers' decision making for childhood SIV for vaccination decision making. This was done using countdowns of the recommended vaccination timing.

METHODS

Mothers of child(ren) aged 6 to 72 months were randomly allocated to control or to one of two social networking intervention groups receiving vaccination reminders with (SNI+TP) or without (SNI-TP) a time pressure component via WhatsApp discussion groups at a ratio of 5:2:2. All participants first completed a baseline assessment. Both the SNI-TP and SNI+TP groups subsequently received weekly vaccination reminders from October to December 2017 and participated in WhatsApp discussions about SIV moderated by a health professional. All participants completed a follow-up assessment from April to May 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 84.9% (174/205), 71% (57/80), and 75% (60/80) who were allocated to the control, SNI-TP, and SNI+TP groups, respectively, completed the outcome assessment. The social networking intervention significantly promoted mothers' self-efficacy for taking children for SIV (SNI-TP: odds ratio [OR] 2.69 [1.07-6.79]; SNI+TP: OR 2.50 [1.13-5.55]), but did not result in significantly improved children's SIV uptake. Moreover, after adjusting for mothers' working status, introducing additional time pressure reduced the overall SIV uptake in children of working mothers (OR 0.27 [0.10-0.77]) but significantly increased the SIV uptake among children of mothers without a full-time job (OR 6.53 [1.87-22.82]). Most participants' WhatsApp posts were about sharing experience or views (226/434, 52.1%) of which 44.7% (101/226) were categorized as negative, such as their concerns over vaccine safety, side effects and effectiveness. Although participants shared predominantly negative experience or views about SIV at the beginning of the discussion, the moderator was able to encourage the discussion of more positive experience or views and more knowledge and information. Most intervention group participants indicated willingness to receive the same interventions (110/117, 94.0%) and recommend the interventions to other mothers (102/117, 87.2%) in future.

CONCLUSIONS

Online information support can effectively promote mothers' self-efficacy for taking children for SIV but alone it may not sufficient to address maternal concerns over SIV to achieve a positive vaccination decision. However, the active involvement of health professionals in online discussions can shape positive discussions about vaccination. Time pressure on decision making interacts with maternal work status, facilitating vaccination uptake among mothers who may have more free time, but having the opposite effect among busier working mothers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Hong Kong University Clinical Trials Registry HKUCTR-2250; https://tinyurl.com/vejv276.

Supporting and sustaining centralized reminder/recall for immunizations: Qualitative insights from stakeholders

Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) is an evidence-based strategy for increasing vaccination rates that uses a population-level database such as a state immunization information system (IIS) to send notifications across large geographic areas. IISs are usually based in state public health departments, which could initiate C-R/R. While C-R/R is a promising strategy, the factors influencing its initiation and sustainment are not clear. Utilizing qualitative content analysis methodology and interviews with key stakeholders involved in or knowledgeable about C-R/R, we examined the characteristics of these initiatives and factors influencing their success. We identified and spoke with managers and senior leaders across IISs, health plans, health systems, pharmaceutical companies, and advocacy organizations and focused especially on C-R/R activities within IISs. Several considerations were determined important to C-R/R success: decision-making, stakeholder buy-in, partnerships, funding, data and technology, evaluation, and message content. Salient barriers were costs and lack of funding, poor contact data quality (i.e. telephone number, home address), and messaging that is either overly broad or too specific. Pertinent facilitators of C-R/R included notifying health providers in advance of an initiative, conducting a rigorous post-reminder/recall evaluation, and engaging a range of partners. Partnerships were important to stakeholders for multiple reasons including technical assistance, resource sharing, and sharing of best practices. Overall, our results illustrate the many opportunities to advance C-R/R through further collaboration within and across public health departments and potentially via public-private partnerships.

Countering vaccine hesitancy through immunization information systems, a narrative review

Immunization is one of the most important public health interventions to contrast infectious disease; however, many people nowadays refuse vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is due to several factors that influence the complex decision-making process. Information technology tools might play an important role in vaccination programs. In particular, immunization information systems (IISs) have the potential to improve performance of vaccination programs and to increase vaccine uptake. This review aimed to present IIS functionalities in order to counter VH. In detail, we analyzed the automatic reminder/recall system, the interoperability of the system, the decision support system, the web page interface and the possibility to record adverse events following immunization. IIS could concretely represent a valid instrument to increase vaccine confidence, especially trust in both health-care workers and decision makers. There are not enough trials aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IIS to counter VH. Further researches might focalize on this aspect.

Text Message Reminders for Child Influenza Vaccination in the Setting of School-Located Influenza Vaccination: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Half of US school children receive influenza vaccine. In our previous trials, school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) raised vaccination rates by 5 to 8 percentage points. We assessed whether text message reminders to parents could raise vaccination rates above those observed with SLIV. Within urban elementary schools we randomized families into text message + SLIV (intervention) versus SLIV alone (comparison). All parents were sent 2 backpack notifications plus 2 autodialer phone reminders about SLIV at a single SLIV clinic. Intervention group parents also were sent 3 text messages from the school nurse encouraging flu vaccination via either primary care or SLIV. Among 15 768 children at 32 schools, vaccination rates were text + SLIV (40%) and SLIV control (40%); 4% of students per group received influenza vaccination at SLIV. Text message reminders did not raise influenza vaccination rates above those observed with SLIV alone. More intensive interventions are needed to raise influenza vaccination rates.

Association between patient reminders and influenza vaccination status among children

BACKGROUND

Patient reminders are recommended to increase vaccination rates. The objectives of this study were to estimate the percentage of children 6 months-17 years for whom a patient reminder for influenza vaccination was received by a child's parent or guardian, estimate influenza vaccination coverage by receipt of a patient reminder, and identify factors associated with receipt of a patient reminder.

METHODS

National Immunization Survey-Flu (NIS-Flu) data for the 2013-14 influenza season were analyzed. Tests of association between patient reminders and demographic characteristics were conducted using Wald chi-square tests and pairwise comparison t-tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine variables independently associated with receiving a patient reminder.

RESULTS

Approximately 22% of children had a parent or guardian report receiving a patient reminder for influenza vaccination for their child, ranging from 12.9% in Idaho to 41.2% in Mississippi. Children with a patient reminder were more likely to be vaccinated compared with children without a patient reminder (73.7% versus 55.5%). In the multivariable model, reminder receipt was higher for children 6-23 months compared with children 13-17 years, black children compared with white children, and children whose parent completed the survey in English compared with children whose parent completed the survey in a language other than English or Spanish.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patient reminders are associated with a higher likelihood of influenza vaccination, nationally, less than one-fourth of children had a parent report receiving one. Despite being based on parental report, with its limitations, this study suggests that increasing the number of parents who receive patient reminders for their children may improve vaccination coverage among children.

Increasing influenza vaccine uptake in children: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccine is not included in the Hong Kong Government's universal Childhood Immunisation Programme but eligible children can receive subsidised vaccine through the private sector using the Vaccination Subsidy Scheme (VSS). This study examined whether a simple intervention package can increase influenza vaccine uptake in Hong Kong children.

METHODS

Two study samples were enrolled: families of children who had participated in a previous knowledge, attitudes and practices study; and mother-infant pairs recruited from postnatal wards. Control groups received publicly available leaflets about VSS. Intervention groups additionally received: (1) a concise information sheet about influenza and its vaccine; (2) semi-completed forms to utilise the subsidy; (3) contacts of VSS clinics that did not charge above the subsidy; and (4) text message reminders for vaccination. Enrolled mothers were contacted when children were approximately 1 and 2 years old to determine influenza vaccination status of the families and their plan to vaccinate their children. Mothers' attitudes towards influenza vaccine were assessed at enrolment and at the end of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 833 eligible mother-infant pairs were enrolled from the two samples. The intervention package improved influenza vaccine uptake by 22% at one year and 25% at two years of age. Maternal influenza vaccine uptake in intervention group was higher during this two-year period in those who had never been previously vaccinated. Mothers' self-efficacy regarding the use of influenza vaccine in her child i.e. belief and confidence in her own ability to make a good decision, was also improved with the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A four-component intervention package could improve influenza vaccine uptake in Hong Kong children and their mothers during the first two years of life and depending on vaccine effectiveness could potentially reduce influenza-associated hospital admissions in children below 2 years old by 13-24%.

Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates

BACKGROUND

Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population-based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient-oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various types of patient reminder and recall interventions to improve receipt of immunizations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2017. We also searched grey literature and trial registers to January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating immunization-focused patient reminder or recall interventions in children, adolescents, and adults who receive immunizations in any setting. We included no-intervention control groups, standard practice activities that did not include immunization patient reminder or recall, media-based activities aimed at promoting immunizations, or simple practice-based awareness campaigns. We included receipt of any immunizations as eligible outcome measures, excluding special travel immunizations. We excluded patients who were hospitalized for the duration of the study period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We present results for individual studies as relative rates using risk ratios, and risk differences for randomized trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before-after studies. We present pooled results for randomized trials using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The 75 included studies involved child, adolescent, and adult participants in outpatient, community-based, primary care, and other settings in 10 countries.Patient reminder or recall interventions, including telephone and autodialer calls, letters, postcards, text messages, combination of mail or telephone, or a combination of patient reminder or recall with outreach, probably improve the proportion of participants who receive immunization (risk ratio (RR) of 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.35; risk difference of 8%) based on moderate certainty evidence from 55 studies with 138,625 participants.Three types of single-method reminders improve receipt of immunizations based on high certainty evidence: the use of postcards (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30; eight studies; 27,734 participants), text messages (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; six studies; 7772 participants), and autodialer (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; five studies; 11,947 participants). Two types of single-method reminders probably improve receipt of immunizations based on moderate certainty evidence: the use of telephone calls (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.54; seven studies; 9120 participants) and letters to patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; 27 studies; 81,100 participants).Based on high certainty evidence, reminders improve receipt of immunizations for childhood (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.29; risk difference of 8%; 23 studies; 31,099 participants) and adolescent vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42; risk difference of 7%; 10 studies; 30,868 participants). Reminders probably improve receipt of vaccinations for childhood influenza (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.99; risk difference of 22%; five studies; 9265 participants) and adult influenza (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.43; risk difference of 9%; 15 studies; 59,328 participants) based on moderate certainty evidence. They may improve receipt of vaccinations for adult pneumococcus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other non-influenza vaccinations based on low certainty evidence although the confidence interval includes no effect of these interventions (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.78; four studies; 8065 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient reminder and recall systems, in primary care settings, are likely to be effective at improving the proportion of the target population who receive immunizations.

Potential Strategies to Achieve Universal Influenza Vaccination for Children: Provider Attitudes in Two States

OBJECTIVE

Childhood influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal. Provider perceptions on strategies to achieve universal vaccination are needed. We assessed the perceptions and attitudes of primary care providers across 2 states regarding 2 strategies to potentially bolster rates: centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R), such as reminder/recall (R/R) notices from state immunization registries, and influenza vaccination by complementary community vaccinators (CCVs), such as retail pharmacies, schools, and health departments.

METHODS

We sent a mailed survey to a representative sample of providers across Colorado and New York. Questions addressed R/R activities for influenza vaccine, preferences and attitudes about the health department sending C-R/R notices for influenza vaccine, and attitudes about CCVs. Bivariate analyses assessed provider perceptions and compared perceptions by state.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 56% (n = 590/1052). Twenty-two percent of providers in Colorado and 33% in New York performed practice-based R/R for all patients during the 2015-16 influenza season. Eighty-one percent of providers in both states preferred the health department or had no preference for who sent C-R/R notices for influenza vaccine to their patients; most preferred to include their practice names on C-R/R messages. Many providers in both Colorado (75%) and New York (46%, P < .001) agreed that their patients like the option of having CCVs where children can receive influenza vaccine. Some providers expressed concerns regarding potential loss of income and/or difficulty documenting receipt of influenza vaccine at CCVs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most providers support C-R/R, and many support CCVs to increase influenza vaccination rates. Collaborations between traditional primary care providers and CCVs might boost coverage.

Low-Cost Intervention to Increase Influenza Vaccination Rate at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Influenza morbidity and mortality can be severe and costly. Vaccination rates remain suboptimal in cancer patients due to provider- and patient-related factors. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether low-cost provider- and patient-focused interventions would increase influenza vaccination rates at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center (UMCCC). This quality improvement project included all patients without documentation of influenza vaccination prior to their first outpatient appointment during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 influenza seasons. The multi-stepped intervention included provider and patient reminders. Influenza vaccination rates were compiled using CPT-4 codes. Same-day (with appointment) vaccination rates during the intervention seasons were compared to historical (2005-2011 seasons) controls; vaccination rates were also compared to contemporary control population at the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS). Reasons for non-adherence with vaccination were explored. The cumulative same-day vaccination rate in eligible adults was 10.1 % (2011-2012) and 9.4 % (2012-2013) compared to an average 6.9 % during influenza seasons 2005-2011. Based on logistic regression analysis, there was a 37.6 % (95 % CI 35-40.3 %) and 56.1 % (95 % CI 40.9-73 %) relative increase in the adult vaccination rate associated with the intervention, with 399 and 697 additional vaccinations, respectively, for each season. During the 2012-2013 season, the UMCCC adult vaccination rate was higher compared to the remainder of that of the UMHS. The intervention was well accepted by providers. Reasons for no vaccination were provider- and patient-related. Increasing provider and patient awareness with a simple, inexpensive intervention was associated with higher influenza vaccination rates at a large academic cancer center. The intervention is permanently implemented during influenza seasons.

Understanding the Financial Implications of Immunization Reminder/Recall in a Multipractice Pediatric Group

OBJECTIVE

Immunization reminder/recall is widely recommended as an effective strategy for increasing vaccination rates. We examined the revenue generated from well-child visits scheduled as a result of reminder/recall activities implemented in a multipractice pediatric organization.

METHODS

Patients aged 19 to 35 months who were due or overdue for vaccines were identified from participating practices and assigned to either standard or enhanced reminder/recall activities. Participants who received standard reminder/recall were observed for the 6-week study period, and the number of appointments in which vaccines were administered was tracked. Participants who received enhanced reminder/recall were contacted up to 3 times and received a letter followed by up to 2 phone calls. Financial information associated with appointments scheduled during the study period was obtained, and revenue was calculated for each dose of vaccine administered. Reminder/recall costs were calculated and overall revenue generated was calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 3916 children who were potentially due or overdue for immunizations. After review and manual uploading of missing historical vaccines, a total of 1892 participants received the reminder/recall initiative; 942 received standard reminder/recall, and 950 received enhanced reminder/recall. One hundred eighty-two (19%) standard and 277 (29%) enhanced reminder/recall participants scheduled an appointment by the end of the study period (P < .001). After subtracting the cost of reminder/recall activities, an additional $20,066 and $20,235 were generated by standard and enhanced reminder/recall, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that conducting reminder/recall is at a minimum financially neutral, and might increase revenue generated by vaccine administration.

Immunization information systems to increase vaccination rates: a community guide systematic review

CONTEXT

Immunizations are the most effective way to reduce incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases. Immunization information systems (IISs) are confidential, population-based, computerized databases that record all vaccination doses administered by participating providers to people residing within a given geopolitical area. They facilitate consolidation of vaccination histories for use by health care providers in determining appropriate client vaccinations. Immunization information systems also provide aggregate data on immunizations for use in monitoring coverage and program operations and to guide public health action.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Methods for conducting systematic reviews for the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used to assess the effectiveness of IISs. Reviewed evidence examined changes in vaccination rates in client populations or described expanded IIS capabilities related to improving vaccinations. The literature search identified 108 published articles and 132 conference abstracts describing or evaluating the use of IISs in different assessment categories.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Studies described or evaluated IIS capabilities to (1) create or support effective interventions to increase vaccination rates, such as client reminder and recall, provider assessment and feedback, and provider reminders; (2) determine client vaccination status to inform decisions by clinicians, health care systems, and schools; (3) guide public health responses to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease; (4) inform assessments of vaccination coverage, missed vaccination opportunities, invalid dose administration, and disparities; and (5) facilitate vaccine management and accountability.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from 240 articles and abstracts demonstrate IIS capabilities and actions in increasing vaccination rates with the goal of reducing vaccine-preventable disease.

Two-dose seasonal influenza vaccine coverage and timeliness among children aged 6 months through 3 years: An evidence from the 2010-11 to the 2014-15 seasons in Zhejiang province, east China

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the coverage and timeliness of seasonal influenza vaccine vaccination (SIV) among children aged 6 months to 3 years from the 2010-11 through the 2014-15 seasons.

METHODS

Children registered in Zhejiang Provincial Immunization Information System (ZJIIS) and needed 2 seasonal influenza vaccine doses in a given season from 2010-11 to 2014-15 were enrolled. Socio-economic information and SIV records of target children were extracted from ZJIIS on 1 January 2016. Any (≥1 dose) and full (2 doses) vaccination coverage by December 1 and March 31 as well as interval between 2 doses were calculated. Trends of coverage over time and determinants on fully vaccination coverage and interval between 2 doses were assessed.

RESULTS

Full SIV overage by Mar 31 increased from the 2010-11 to the 2014-15 seasons (2.60% vs 2.92%). Less than 1% of children received 2 doses by December 1. The interval between 2 doses among fully vaccinated children decreased over time (2010-11: 68.32 days; 2014-15: 49.51 days; p < 0.05). Age, socio-economic development level of resident areas were inversely associated with full vaccination coverage and resident children had a significantly higher full vaccination coverage. Younger age, resident children, receiving vaccination from higher service frequency clinics and clinics with morning and afternoon sessions were positive determinants of a shorter interval between 2 doses.

CONCLUSION

Majority of children aged 6 months to 3 years remained at risk of incomplete and delayed SIV. The importance of the 2-dose SIV recommendation needs to be emphasized and effective interventions needs to be implemented to improve the completeness and the timeliness of SIV.

Maintenance of Increased Childhood Influenza Vaccination Rates 1 Year After an Intervention in Primary Care Practices

OBJECTIVE

Influenza vaccination rates among some groups of children remain below the Healthy People 2020 goal of 70%. Multistrategy interventions to increase childhood influenza vaccination have not been evaluated recently.

METHODS

Twenty pediatric and family medicine practices were randomly assigned to receive the intervention in either year 1 or year 2. This study focuses on influenza vaccine uptake in the 10 year 1 intervention sites during intervention and the following maintenance year. The intervention included the 4 Pillars Immunization Toolkit-a practice improvement toolkit, early delivery of donated vaccine for disadvantaged children, staff education, and feedback on progress. During the maintenance year, practices were not assisted or contacted, except to complete follow-up surveys. Student's t tests assessed vaccine uptake of children aged 6 months to 18 years, and multilevel regression modeling in repeated measures determined variables related to the likelihood of vaccination.

RESULTS

Influenza vaccine uptake increased 12.4 percentage points (PP; P < .01) during active intervention and uptake was sustained (+0.4 PP; P > .05) during maintenance, for an average change of 12.7 PP over all sites, increasing from 42.2% at baseline to 54.9% (P < .001) during maintenance. In regression modeling that controlled for age, race, and insurance, likelihood of vaccination was greater during intervention than baseline (odds ratio 1.47; 95% confidence interval 1.44-1.50; P < .001) and greater during maintenance than baseline (odds ratio 1.50; 95% confidence interval 1.47-1.54; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In primary care practices, a multistrategy intervention that included the 4 Pillars Immunization Toolkit, early delivery of vaccine, and feedback was associated with significant improvements in childhood influenza vaccination rates that were maintained 1 year after active intervention.

Cost effectiveness analysis of Year 2 of an elementary school-located influenza vaccination program-Results from a randomized controlled trial

Background

School-located vaccination against influenza (SLV-I) has the potential to improve current suboptimal influenza immunization coverage for U.S. school-aged children. However, little is known about SLV-I’s cost-effectiveness. The objective of this study is to establish the cost-effectiveness of SLV-I based on a two-year community-based randomized controlled trial (Year 1: 2009–2010 vaccination season, an unusual H1N1 pandemic influenza season, and Year 2: 2010–2011, a more typical influenza season).

Methods

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on a two-year randomized controlled trial of a Western New York SLV-I program. SLV-I clinics were offered in 21 intervention elementary schools (Year 1 n = 9,027; Year 2 n = 9,145 children) with standard-of-care (no SLV-I) in control schools (Year 1 n = 4,534 (10 schools); Year 2 n = 4,796 children (11 schools)). We estimated the cost-per-vaccinated child, by dividing the incremental cost of the intervention by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the number of additionally vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools).

Results

In Years 1 and 2, respectively, the effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 11.2 and 12.0 percentage points higher in intervention (40.7 % and 40.4 %) than control schools. In year 2, the cost-per-vaccinated child excluding vaccine purchase ($59.88 in 2010 US $) consisted of three component costs: (A) the school costs ($8.25); (B) the project coordination costs ($32.33); and (C) the vendor costs excluding vaccine purchase ($16.68), summed through Monte Carlo simulation. Compared to Year 1, the two component costs (A) and (C) decreased, while the component cost (B) increased in Year 2. The cost-per-vaccinated child, excluding vaccine purchase, was $59.73 (Year 1) and $59.88 (Year 2, statistically indistinguishable from Year 1), higher than the published cost of providing influenza vaccination in medical practices ($39.54). However, taking indirect costs (e.g., averted parental costs to visit medical practices) into account, vaccination was less costly in SLV-I ($23.96 in Year 1, $24.07 in Year 2) than in medical practices.

Conclusions

Our two-year trial’s findings reinforced the evidence to support SLV-I as a potentially favorable system to increase childhood influenza vaccination rates in a cost-efficient way. Increased efficiencies in SLV-I are needed for a sustainable and scalable SLV-I program.

Vaccination of adolescents with chronic medical conditions: Special considerations and strategies for enhancing uptake

Adolescents with chronic medical conditions (CMCs), a growing population worldwide, possess a wide array of preventive health care needs. Vaccination is strongly recommended for the vast majority of these adolescents given their increased risk of vaccine preventable infection and associated complications. Not only should they receive routine vaccines, but some also require additional vaccines. Despite these guidelines, evidence suggests that adolescents with CMCs often fail to receive needed vaccines. Many factors contribute to this under-immunization, including lack of knowledge among parents and providers and suboptimal coordination of primary and subspecialty care. This review describes current vaccination recommendations for these adolescents as well as recent data related to infection risk, vaccine efficacy and safety, vaccination coverage, and the unique multilevel factors impacting uptake in this population. It also discusses strategies for improving coverage levels and reducing missed vaccination opportunities, with a particular focus on technology-based interventions.

Text message reminders for second dose of influenza vaccine: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether provision of vaccine-health-literacy-promoting information in text message vaccine reminders improves receipt and timeliness of the second dose of influenza vaccine within a season for children in need of 2 doses.

METHODS

During the 2012-2013 season, families of eligible 6-month through 8-year-old children were recruited at the time of their first influenza vaccination from 3 community clinics in New York City. Children (n = 660) were randomly assigned to "educational" text message, "conventional" text message, and "written reminder-only" arms. At enrollment, all arms received a written reminder with next dose due date. Conventional messages included second dose due date and clinic walk-in hours. Educational messages added information regarding the need for a timely second dose. Receipt of second dose by April 30 was assessed by using χ(2) tests. Timeliness was assessed by receipt of second dose by 2 weeks after due date (day 42) using χ(2) and over time using a Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Most families were Latino and publicly insured with no significant between-arm differences between groups. Children in the educational arm were more likely to receive a second dose by April 30 (72.7%) versus conventional (66.7%) versus written reminder-only arm (57.1%; P = .003). They also had more timely receipt by day 42 (P < .001) and over time (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this low-income, urban, minority population, embedding health literacy information improved the effectiveness of text message reminders in promoting timely delivery of a second dose of influenza vaccine, compared with conventional text messages and written reminder only.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in children with high-risk conditions--a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Influenza is a common cause of morbidity and mortality, especially among the elderly and those with certain chronic diseases. Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for individuals in at-risk groups, but rates of vaccination are particularly low in children with high-risk conditions (HRCs).

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of studies that have examined interventions aimed at improving influenza vaccination in children with HRCs.

METHODS

Two databases - PubMed and SCOPUS - were searched (with no time or language restrictions) using a combination of keywords - Influenza AND vaccination OR immunization OR children AND asthma OR malignancy OR high-risk AND reminder. Duplicates were removed, and abstracts of relevant articles were screened using specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. Thirteen articles were selected, and five additional studies were identified following a review of the reference lists of the initial thirteen articles, bringing the total number to eighteen.

RESULTS

Most studies were conducted in the United States. Among the 18 studies, there was one systematic review of a specific intervention in asthmatic children, seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), six before-and-after studies, one non-randomized controlled trial, one retrospective cohort study, one quasi-experimental post-test study, and one letter to editors. Interventions reported include multi-component strategies, letter reminders, telephone recall, letters plus telephone calls, an asthma education tool and year-round scheduling for influenza vaccination, amongst others.

CONCLUSION

There is good evidence that reminder letters will improve influenza vaccination uptake in children with HRCs, but the evidence that telephone recall or a combination of letter reminder and telephone recall will improve uptake is weak. It is not known if multiple reminder letters are more effective than single letters or if multi-component strategies are more effective than single or dual component strategies. There is a need for further research of these interventions, possibly outside the United States.

Seasonal influenza vaccination rates and reasons for non-vaccination in children with gastrointestinal disorders

OBJECTIVES

Despite advances in the treatment and prevention of influenza, it is still considered an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Annual vaccination is the safest and most effective mean of prevention. Our study aims were to explore the uptake of influenza vaccination among children with gastrointestinal disorders, and to characterize non-adherent patients.

METHODS

The present cross-sectional study included parents of pediatric patients attending the Gastroenterology Institute at Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel between September and October 2011. Parents were asked to complete a questionnaire concerning demographic and clinical parameters, influenza vaccination of the child, and reasons for not vaccinating the child, when appropriate.

RESULTS

The study population included 273 patients (50% female), with a median age of 10 years (range, 2-18 years). Overall, the rate of seasonal influenza vaccination was 30.8%. Higher rates were found among immunosuppressed patients (46.1%), and in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (50%). There was no significant effect of patient age, gender, ethnic origin or parental level of education on the vaccination rate. Vaccination rates were significantly associated with parents' information and knowledge of, as well as their personal beliefs regarding the vaccine (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccination rates are relatively low in the pediatric population attending gastroenterology clinics, in both high- and low-risk groups. The importance of parental knowledge in compliance with influenza vaccination of children should prompt general pediatricians and gastroenterologists to discuss and address the common misconceptions regarding the vaccine.

Assessing the ability of an immunization information system to prevent overimmunization of pediatric influenza vaccines

CONTEXT

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) publishes annual recommendations for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza. Between 2011 and 2013, the ACIP recommended 2 approaches that providers could use to determine how many influenza vaccine doses children aged 6 months through 8 years should receive. One did not consider doses received prior to the 2010-2011 season; the other considered complete influenza immunization history, such as that available in immunization information system (IIS).

OBJECTIVES

To use Michigan's IIS, the Michigan Care Improvement Registry (MCIR), to compare the number of children recommended to receive 2 doses of influenza vaccine under each ACIP approach, and to determine the potential for overimmunization of Michigan children with influenza vaccine if providers do not use the data in MCIR.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis in the 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 influenza seasons.

SETTING

We used the seasonal influenza and 2009 H1N1 monovalent vaccine doses in MCIR to determine the number of influenza vaccine doses children should receive using both ACIP approaches each season.

PARTICIPANTS

We analyzed data for more than 900 000 children aged 6 months through 8 years in each influenza season.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Number of children recommended 2 doses of influenza vaccine using each ACIP approach in each influenza season.

RESULTS

Our evaluation showed that using MCIR could prevent the overimmunization with a second influenza vaccine dose for 70 323 children during the 2011-2012 influenza season, 126 076 children during the 2012-2013 season, and 81 635 children during the 2013-2014 season.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to use an IIS to quantify the difference between ACIP's approaches for 2-dose influenza vaccine recommendations. The immunization history and 2-dose forecasting algorithm available through MCIR minimizes overimmunization and has potential cost-saving implications. Our study illustrates the value of a centralized repository provided by IISs to immunization providers, public health, and caregivers.

Cluster randomized trial of a toolkit and early vaccine delivery to improve childhood influenza vaccination rates in primary care

PURPOSE

To increase childhood influenza vaccination rates using a toolkit and early vaccine delivery in a randomized cluster trial.

METHODS

Twenty primary care practices treating children (range for n=536-8183) were randomly assigned to Intervention and Control arms to test the effectiveness of an evidence-based practice improvement toolkit (4 Pillars Toolkit) and early vaccine supplies for use among disadvantaged children on influenza vaccination rates among children 6 months-18 years. Follow-up staff meetings and surveys were used to assess use and acceptability of the intervention strategies in the Intervention arm. Rates for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 influenza seasons were compared. Two-level generalized linear mixed modeling was used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall increases in influenza vaccination rates were significantly greater in the Intervention arm (7.9 percentage points) compared with the Control arm (4.4 percentage points; P<0.034). These rate changes represent 4522 additional doses in the Intervention arm vs. 1390 additional doses in the Control arm. This effect of the intervention was observed despite the fact that rates increased significantly in both arms - 8/10 Intervention (all P<0.001) and 7/10 Control sites (P-values=0.04 to <0.001). Rates in two Intervention sites with pre-intervention vaccination rates >58% did not significantly increase. In regression analyses, a child's likelihood of being vaccinated was significantly higher with: younger age, white race (Odds ratio [OR]=1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.23-1.34), having commercial insurance (OR=1.30; 95%CI=1.25-1.35), higher pre-intervention practice vaccination rate (OR=1.25; 95%CI=1.16-1.34), and being in the Intervention arm (OR=1.23; 95%CI=1.01-1.50). Early delivery of influenza vaccine was rated by Intervention practices as an effective strategy for raising rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a multi-strategy toolkit and early vaccine supplies can significantly improve influenza vaccination rates among children in primary care practices but the effect may be less pronounced in practices with moderate to high existing vaccination rates. Clinical trial registry name/number: From Innovation to Solutions: Childhood Influenza/NCT01664793.

Smartphone preventive health care: parental use of an immunization reminder system

INTRODUCTION

This study examined the feasibility of using a smartphone application recall/reminder system for immunizations given in pediatric primary care.

METHOD

The study used a typical descriptive study design. A convenience sample of parents and caregivers was recruited from a primary care pediatric office in a middle-class suburban area. Participants used an Android smartphone application ("Call the Shots") that served as a reminder/recall system for vaccinations and offered an embedded tool kit to obtain reliable information about vaccines.

RESULTS

A total of 262 persons accessed the application's Web site. The application was downloaded and used by 45 of those persons during the study; six persons completed the survey.

DISCUSSION

Data are insufficient to fully evaluate the usefulness of the "Call the Shots" smartphone application. However, initial results and feedback have been positive, and the application should be launched in Apple's platform to reach a wider test audience.

Provider attitudes toward public-private collaboration to improve immunization reminder/recall: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

To assess primary care providers' current reminder/recall practices, preferences for collaboration with health departments in reminder/recall efforts, attitudes toward practice-based and population-based reminder/recall, and experiences with a population-based reminder/recall intervention.

METHODS

Providers responsible for making decisions about immunization delivery at all primary care practices that participate in the Colorado Immunization Information System were surveyed. Data collection was preceded by an intervention in which half of 14 counties received a population-based reminder/recall intervention conducted by the health department. Practice staff involved in immunization activities were then selected for semistructured telephone interviews that were based on the location of their practice within specified strata, including whether they were in the intervention counties, urban/rural location, and practice type.

RESULTS

A total of 282 (73.6%) of 383 of providers responded to the survey, and 253 who administered vaccines to children 19 to 35 months were retained; 82 staff members at 36 practices were interviewed. Providers' preferences for who should conduct reminder/recall were almost evenly split, with slightly more indicating that it should be conducted by the health department. Cost and feasibility issues were perceived barriers to conducting practice-based recall, particularly among urban practices. Support for population-based reminder/recall was highest among rural practices. Concern about perceived inaccuracies in immunization registry data was the major barrier to conducting population-based reminder/recall. The population-based intervention did not create an undue burden on practices.

CONCLUSIONS

A collaborative approach to reminder/recall involving both providers and health departments is preferable for many providers and may be a viable solution to the barriers of practice-based reminder/recall.

Notes from the field: planting, nurturing, and watching things grow

Editors' Note: We invited a sample of AJPM's Editorial Board, supplement guest editors, and longtime colleagues and contributors to share their experiences and impressions of the impact of AJPM on their respective domains. We were particularly fond of Ken Powell's analogy to being "tenders of the planted seed"--as planters, weeders, and harvesters--watching and nurturing the growth of AJPM, and have elected to lead with his commentary.

Statewide pandemic influenza vaccination reminders for children with chronic conditions

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the use of a statewide immunization information system (IIS) to target influenza vaccine reminders to high-risk children during a pandemic.

METHODS

We used Michigan's IIS to identify high-risk children (i.e., those with ≥ 1 chronic condition) aged 6 months to 18 years with no record of pH1N1 vaccination among children currently or previously enrolled in Medicaid (n = 202,133). Reminders were mailed on December 7, 2009. We retrospectively assessed children's eligibility for evaluation and compared influenza vaccination rates across 3 groups on the basis of their high-risk and reminder status.

RESULTS

Of the children sent reminders, 53,516 were ineligible. Of the remaining 148,617 children, vaccination rates were higher among the 142,383 high-risk children receiving reminders than among the 6234 high-risk children with undeliverable reminders and the 142,383 control group children without chronic conditions who were not sent reminders.

CONCLUSIONS

Midseason reminders to parents of unvaccinated high-risk children with current or past Medicaid enrollment were associated with increased pH1N1 and seasonal influenza vaccination rates. Future initiatives should consider strategies to expand targeting of high-risk groups and improve IIS reporting during pandemic events.

Factors associated with in-office influenza vaccination by U.S. pediatric providers

BACKGROUND

In the United States, influenza vaccination is recommended for all children 6 months and older; however, vaccination rates are below target levels. A broad sample of U.S. pediatric offices was assessed to determine factors that influence in-office influenza vaccination rates.

METHODS

Offices (N = 174) were recruited to participate in an observational study over three influenza seasons (2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011). Only data from the first year of an office's participation in the study were used. Associations of coverage and 2-dose compliance rates with office characteristics and selected vaccination activities were examined using univariate regression analyses and linear regression analyses using office characteristics identified a priori and vaccination activities with P values ≤ 0.10 in univariate analyses.

RESULTS

Influenza vaccination coverage for children 6 months to 18 years of age averaged 25.2% (range: 2.0%-69.1%) and 2-dose compliance for children < 9 years of age averaged 53.4% (range: 5.4%-96.2%). Factors associated with increased coverage were non-rural site (P = 0.025), smaller office size (fewer than 5000 patients; P < 0.001), use of evening and weekend hours to offer influenza vaccine (P = 0.004), a longer vaccination period (P = 0.014), and a greater influenza vaccine coverage rate among office staff (P = 0.012). Increased 2-dose compliance was associated with smaller office size (P = 0.001) and using patient reminders (P = 0.012) and negatively related to use of electronic provider reminders to vaccinate (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

To maximize influenza vaccine coverage and compliance, offices could offer the vaccine during evening and weekend hours, extend the duration of vaccine availability, encourage staff vaccination, and remind patients that influenza vaccination is due. Additional efforts may be required in large offices and those in rural locations.

Increasing adolescent immunization rates in primary care: strategies physicians use and would consider implementing

Strategies to increase adolescent immunization rates have been suggested, but little is documented about which strategies clinicians actually use or would consider. In spring 2010, we surveyed primary care physicians from 2 practice-based research networks (PBRNs): Greater Rochester PBRN (GR-PBRN) and national pediatric COntinuity Research NETwork (CORNET). Network clinicians received mailed or online surveys (response rate 76%, n=148). The GR-PBRN patient population (51% suburban, 33% rural, and 16% urban) differed from that served by CORNET (85% urban). For nonseasonal vaccines recommended for adolescents, many GR-PBRN and CORNET practices reported using nurse prompts to providers at preventive visits (61% and 52%, respectively), physician education (53% and 53%), and scheduled vaccine-only visits (91% and 82%). Strategies not used that clinicians frequently indicated they would consider included patient reminder/recall and prompts to providers via nurses or electronic health records. As preventive visits and immunization recommendations grow more complex, using technology to support immunization delivery to adolescents might be effective.

Evaluation of the frequency of immunization information system use for public health research

Immunization information systems (IIS) have been useful for consolidating immunization data and increasing coverage, and have the potential to be a valuable resource for immunization research, but the extent which IIS data are used for research purposes has not been evaluated. We reviewed studies conducted using data from federally supported state and city immunization program IIS, and categorized research type based on study objectives to evaluate patterns in the types of research conducted. Research papers using IIS data published between 1999 and July 3, 2012 were identified by searching the CDC IIS publication database and PubMed. These searches produced 304 and 884 papers, respectively, 44 of which were eligible to be included in this evaluation. The most common research category was evaluation of factors associated with vaccine coverage and vaccine coverage estimates (n = 20). This study shows that IIS may not be used to their full potential with regards to research. Further research is needed to determine barriers to using IIS data for research purposes.

Influenza vaccination coverage and timeliness among children requiring two doses, 2004-2009

OBJECTIVE

To assess influenza vaccination coverage and timeliness among children requiring two doses in a season.

METHODS

This study examined seasonal influenza vaccination of 17,800 children from five academically-affiliated clinics in New York City using hospital and city immunization registries. Eligible children were 6 months-8 years and needed two influenza vaccine doses in a given season between 2004-05 and 2009-10. Any (≥ 1 dose) and full (2 doses) vaccination coverage by December 15 and March 31 as well as interval between doses were calculated. Vaccination trends over time, determinants, and missed opportunities were assessed.

RESULTS

Children were primarily Latino and publicly insured. Full coverage by March 31 increased between the 2004-05 and 2009-10 seasons (9% vs. 29%, p<0.001). Few children received both doses by December 15 (2-13%). The interval between doses was almost twice as long as recommended and increased over time (2004-05: 52 days; 2009-10: 64 days; p<0.001). Older age and Latino ethnicity were negative predictors of full vaccination by March 31. Missed opportunities for the second dose were common.

CONCLUSION

Despite improvements, low-income, minority children requiring two influenza vaccine doses remain at risk of incomplete and delayed vaccination. Barriers to and strategies for timely full vaccination should be explored.

Update on child and adolescent immunizations: selected review of US recommendations and literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a clinically relevant synopsis of recent research findings as well as updated guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices regarding child and adolescent immunizations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Childhood vaccinations have served to dramatically reduce pediatric morbidity and mortality in the USA. Much of the recent research has focused on the improvement of current vaccines as well as on the development of new vaccines. By improving the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of vaccinations, children can be more fully protected. Additionally, recommendations have broadened as vaccinations have been proven well tolerated and effective for a growing number of subpopulations. Although more groups of children are now included in vaccination recommendations, efforts must continue to ensure that all eligible children receive their vaccinations. This article reviews selected recent publications on influenza, human papillomavirus, the childhood and adolescent/adult formulations of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis, meningococcal conjugate and pneumococcal vaccines. The relationship between febrile seizures and childhood immunizations is explored.

SUMMARY

The research on childhood and adolescent vaccinations is continuously growing and will serve to shape future recommendations. Through their findings, we can learn how to optimize the protection of all children and adolescents against these very serious diseases.