Impact of a decision-aid tool on influenza vaccine coverage among HCW in two French hospitals: A cluster-randomized trial

Effectiveness of interventions to increase healthcare workers' adherence to vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 1993 to 2022

BackgroundVaccination adherence among healthcare workers (HCWs) is fundamental for the prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) in healthcare. This safeguards HCWs' well-being, prevents transmission of infections to vulnerable patients and contributes to public health.AimThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to describe interventions meant to increase HCWs' adherence to vaccination and estimate the effectiveness of these interventions.MethodsWe searched literature in eight databases and performed manual searches in relevant journals and the reference lists of retrieved articles. The study population included any HCW with potential occupational exposure to VPDs. We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies presenting interventions aimed at increasing HCWs' adherence to vaccination against VPDs. The post-intervention vaccination adherence rate was set as the main outcome. We included the effect of interventions in the random-effects and subgroup meta-analyses.ResultsThe systematic review considered 48 studies on influenza and Tdap vaccination from database and manual searches, and 43 were meta-analysed. A statistically significant, positive effect was seen in multi-component interventions in randomised controlled trials (relative risk (RR) = 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13-1.66) and in observational studies (RR = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.29-1.58). Vaccination adherence rate was higher in community care facilities (RR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.49-1.68) than in hospitals (RR = 1.24; 95% CI: 0.76-2.05).ConclusionInterventions aimed at increasing HCWs' adherence to vaccination against VPDs are effective, especially multi-component ones. Future research should determine the most effective framework of interventions for each setting, using appropriate study design for their evaluation, and should compare intervention components to understand their contribution to the effectiveness.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Influenza immunization of healthcare personnel in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era: Still a lot to do!

Healthcare-associated influenza is frequently encountered in healthcare settings with significant morbidity and mortality among vulnerable patients, absenteeism among healthcare personnel (HCP), and interruption of healthcare services. Numerous investigations indicate that nosocomial outbreaks are often traced to HCP. Despite the international and national endorsements, seasonal influenza vaccine acceptance among HCP continues suboptimal worldwide. Infection control is the major objective for healthcare risk management in order to guarantee patient safety, limit the cost of hospitalization and assurance health management in controlling influenza seasons. Vigilance and anticipation are required as globally we are moving from a reactive COVID-19 pandemic response phase to one of planning for the co-circulation of viral respiratory infections. Declining to understand HCP perception of influenza risk and acceptance of vaccination might have impact patient safety as well as healthcare services.

Reducing COVID-19 Vaccine Decisional Conflict in Parents of 5-11-Year-Old Children in Australia: A Single Arm Pre-Post Study

COVID-19 vaccine uptake among 5-11-year-olds is significantly lower than that of the 12+ age group. Some parents may have decided against vaccinating their children for COVID-19; others may be undecided and may be seeking more information to support their decision. We aimed to assess the effect of a decision support tool on parents' level of decisional conflict, vaccine hesitancy, and intention to vaccinate. We conducted a single-arm, cross-sectional online pre-post intervention survey of parents from Victoria, Australia, who had not yet vaccinated their 5-11-year-old child for COVID-19. We measured change in decisional conflict, intention, and hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines for children before and after viewing a decision support tool. We used logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with reduced decisional conflict. Between May and September 2022, 108 parents took part in the study. The tool reduced decision conflict in 25% (27/107) of parents, with reduced decisional conflict more likely among parents initially undecided about vaccinating, compared to parents who did not intend to vaccinate their child (OR, 12.58 95% CI 3.21 to 9.30). For most parents, hesitancy (83%, 90/108) and intention (89%, 96/108) remained the same. The decision support tool was modestly effective at reducing decisional conflict, particularly among undecided parents.

Vaccine hesitancy and health care providers: Using the preferred cognitive styles and decision- making model and empathy tool to make progress

Low vaccination rates among health care providers (HCPs) pose a risk to themselves, their colleagues, their patients, and the general public. This paper seeks to frame the issues surrounding health care provider vaccine hesitancy and vaccination rates, as well as explore factors influencing respective decision-making, including health care occupation and demographic characteristics. This paper will then propose the use of the Preferred Cognitive Style and Decision-Making (PCSDM) Model and the Empathy Tool to increase health care provider vaccination rates, and will end by discussing several recommendations. It is important while discussing HCP vaccination rates to not view them as a monolithic group or apply “one-size-fits-all” approaches, and thus it is essential to present information and engage in conversations in ways that align with how the HCP takes in and processes information and decisions. Furthermore, it is vital to increase health literacy across the spectrum of HCP programs and professions. To this end, it is important to teach and incorporate the PCSDM Model and Empathy Tool, along with information about how individuals think and make decisions, into vaccine education programs and training sessions.

Development of a patient decision aid for COVID-19 vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 has been responsible for a pandemic since the beginning of 2020. Vaccine arrival brings a concrete solution to fight the virus. However, vaccine hesitancy is high. In France, the first available vaccine was Comirnaty from Pfizer-BioNTech. Shared decision-making, based on tools such as patient decision aids (PtDAs), can help patients make an informed choice about vaccination with Comirnaty.

OBJECTIVE

The French College of Teachers in General Practice (CNGE) aimed to create a PtDA for people who have to decide whether they will receive the Comirnaty vaccine.

METHODS

Development of the PtDA was performed according to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). The initial design was based on a literature review and semistructured interviews with 17 patients to explore and clarify patients' expectations. A first draft of the PtDA was then alpha tested by a patient expert group and a physician expert group. The PtDA was finally beta tested in 14 prevaccine consultations. A steering group was consulted throughout the work. Patient support, community groups and the French National Authority for Health (HAS) were involved in the development process.

RESULTS

A literature review identified one randomized trial on Comirnaty efficacy and safety. The first part of the PtDA allows patients to identify their own risk factors. The second part of the PtDA provides information on vaccination: benefits and risks, unknown data, and technical explanations about the mRNA vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a PtDA to be used in primary care settings for shared decision-making regarding vaccination with Comirnaty.

Shared decision-making interventions: An overview and a meta-analysis of their impact on vaccine uptake

BACKGROUND

The interest in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of patient decision aids have increased significantly. Research indicates that this approach has benefits, and yet, implementation remains a challenge. To illustrate this development, we focus on vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious public health challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various strategies have been used in healthcare, with limited success, to help patients overcome vaccine hesitancy. It is unclear whether SDM interventions can increase vaccination rates.

AIMS

Our aim was two-fold: to provide an overview of SDM and the use of patient decision aids and to determine the effect of SDM interventions on vaccine uptake.

METHODS

To provide an overview, we drew on our knowledge of the field and summarized the most recent systematic reviews. We examined the impact on vaccine hesitancy by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions, conducted a meta-analysis and calculated a pooled odds ratio. Additional outcomes were reported in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

SDM is viewed as the pinnacle of patient-centred care, supported by an ethical imperative and by empirical evidence of benefits. We found 10 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. SDM interventions significantly increased vaccine uptake compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [1.17-1.80]; p < 0.01). Some RCTs also reported significantly decreased decisional conflict and increased decision confidence.

CONCLUSION

Future healthcare delivery systems will need to consider how to support the implementation of SDM. Interventions designed to facilitate this approach can represent a helpful, ethically defensible, strategy to increase vaccination rates.

Influenza Vaccination Programs for Healthcare Personnel: Organizational Issues and Beyond

Healthcare personnel (HCP) are a high priority group for influenza vaccination aiming to protect them but also to protect vulnerable patients and healthcare services from healthcare-associated influenza and HCP absenteeism. Multi-component influenza vaccination programs targeting behavioral, organizational, and administrative barriers are critical, if influenza vaccination rates among HCP are to be raised on a sustained basis. Mandatory influenza vaccination policy is the only single intervention that can achieve high and sustainable vaccination rates in HCP in short term. In this article, we provide an overview of issues pertaining to influenza vaccination of HCP, with an emphasis on organizational issues of influenza vaccination programs.

Quantifying healthcare and welfare sector workers' preferences around COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional, single-profile discrete-choice experiment in France

OBJECTIVES

To analyse preferences around promotion of COVID-19 vaccination among workers in the healthcare and welfare sector in Fance at the start of the vaccination campaign.

DESIGN

Single-profile discrete-choice experiment. Respondents in three random blocks chose between accepting or rejecting eight hypothetical COVID-19 vaccination scenarios.

SETTING

4346 healthcare and welfare sector workers in France, recruited through nation-wide snowball sampling, December 2020 to January 2021.

OUTCOME

The primary outcomes were the effects of attributes' levels on hypothetical acceptance, expressed as ORs relative to the reference level. The secondary outcome was vaccine eagerness as certainty of decision, ranging from -10 to +10.

RESULTS

Among all participants, 61.1% made uniform decisions, including 17.2% always refusing vaccination across all scenarios (serial non-demanders). Among 1691 respondents making variable decisions, a strong negative impact on acceptance was observed with 50% vaccine efficacy (compared with 90% efficacy: OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.06) and the mention of a positive benefit-risk balance (compared with absence of severe and frequent side effects: OR 0.40, 0.34 to 0.46). The highest positive impact was the prospect of safely meeting older people and contributing to epidemic control (compared with no indirect protection: OR 4.10, 3.49 to 4.82 and 2.87, 2.34 to 3.50, respectively). Predicted acceptance was 93.8% for optimised communication on messenger RNA vaccines and 16.0% for vector-based vaccines recommended to ≥55-year-old persons. Vaccine eagerness among serial non-demanders slightly but significantly increased with the prospect of safely meeting older people and epidemic control and reduced with lower vaccine efficacy.

DISCUSSION

Vaccine promotion towards healthcare and welfare sector workers who hesitate or refuse vaccination should avoid the notion of benefit-risk balance, while collective benefit communication with personal utility can lever acceptance. Vaccines with limited efficacy will unlikely achieve high uptake.