Educational content and the effectiveness of influenza vaccination reminders

A Systematic Review of Behaviour Change Techniques within Interventions to Increase Vaccine Uptake among Ethnic Minority Populations

COVID-19 caused significant morbidity and mortality amongst ethnic minority groups, but vaccine uptake remained lower than non-minoritised groups. Interventions to increase vaccine uptake among ethnic minority communities are crucial. This systematic review synthesises and evaluates behaviour change techniques (BCTs) in interventions to increase vaccination uptake in ethnic minority populations. We searched five databases and grey literature sources. From 7637 records identified, 23 studies were included in the review. Interventions were categorised using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) and Behaviour Change Taxonomy v1. Vaccines included influenza, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, meningitis and hepatitis. Interventions were primarily delivered in health centres/clinics and community settings. Six BCW intervention functions and policy categories and 26 BCTs were identified. The main intervention functions used were education, persuasion and enablement. Overall, effective interventions had multi-components and were tailored to specific populations. No strong evidence was observed to recommend specific interventions, but raising awareness and involvement of community organisations was associated with positive effects. Several strategies are used to increase vaccine uptake among ethnic minority communities; however, these do not address all issues related to low vaccine acceptance. There is a strong need for an increased understanding of addressing vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minority groups.

Trends and Disparities in the Utilization of Influenza Vaccines Among Commercially Insured US Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objectives

Little is known about how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected influenza vaccine utilization and disparities. We sought to estimate changes in the likelihood of receiving an influenza vaccine across different demographic subgroups during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

In this cohort study, we analyzed influenza vaccine uptake from 2019 to 2020 using Optum commercial insurance claims data. Eligible individuals were aged 18 or above in 2018 and continuously enrolled from 08/01/2018 through 12/31/2020. Multivariable logistic regressions were fitted for the individual-level influenza vaccine uptake. Adjusting for demographic factors and medical histories, we estimated probabilities of receiving influenza vaccines before and after the COVID-19 pandemic across demographic subgroups.

Results

From August to December 2019, unadjusted influenza vaccination rate was 42.3%, while in the same period of 2020, the vaccination rate increased to 45.9%. Females had a higher vaccination rate in 2019 (OR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.15–1.16), but the increase was larger for males. Blacks and Hispanics had lower vaccination rates relative to whites in both flu seasons. Hispanics showed a greater increase in vaccination rate, increasing by 7.8 percentage points (p < .001) compared to 4.4 (p < .001) for whites. The vaccination rate for Blacks increased by 5.2 percentage points (p < .001). All income groups experienced vaccination improvements, but poorer individuals had lower vaccination rates in both seasons. The most profound disparities occurred when educational cohort were considered. The vaccination rate increased among college-educated enrollees by 8.8 percentage points (p < .001) during the pandemic compared to an increase of 2.8 percentage points (p < .001) for enrollees with less than a 12th grade education. Past influenza infections or vaccination increased the likelihood of vaccination (p < .001).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased influenza vaccine utilization. Disparities persisted but narrowed with respect to gender and race but worsened with respect to income and educational attainment.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of seasonal influenza vaccination among older adults in nursing homes and daycare centers, Honduras

Background

Older adults represent 70–90% of seasonal influenza-related deaths and 50–70% of influenza-related hospitalizations. Vaccination is the most efficient means of preventing influenza and reducing influenza-related illnesses. We aimed to describe knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of seasonal influenza vaccination among older adults in Honduras.

Methods

From August 29–October 26, 2018, we conducted a cross-sectional KAP survey regarding seasonal influenza vaccinations to samples of older adults 1) admitted to nursing homes and 2) attending daycare centers. We used the Minimental State Examination (MMSE) psychometric tool to assess the cognitive status of older adults and included participants with scores of ≥23 points in the survey. We reported frequency distributions for demographics, KAP of influenza virus and vaccination, and vaccination coverage. We used logistic regression to analyze associations between demographics and verified influenza vaccination.

Results

Of 511 MMSE participants, 341 completed the survey (95 adults in 12 nursing homes and 246 older adults in ten daycare centers). Almost all participants knew that influenza causes severe illness and may be transmitted from person to person, vaccination is safe and protects against disease, and older adults have greater risk of complications. Of 284 participants with verified vaccinations, 81.3% were vaccinated for influenza: 87.9% attending daycare centers and 61.4% in nursing homes. Among all participants, verified current influenza vaccination was associated with self-reported influenza vaccination in previous year (aOR: 14.05; 95% CI: 5.36–36.81); no formal education (aOR: 4.83; 95% CI: 1.63–14.37) or primary school education (aOR: 4.51; 95% CI: 1.79–11.37) having ≥secondary as reference; and indigenous (aOR: 4.55; 95% CI: 1.18–17.49) having Mestizo as reference. Reasons for vaccination were perceived self-benefits, protection against influenza complications, favorable vaccination hours, and healthcare provider recommendations.

Conclusion

Four-fifths of older adults were vaccinated for seasonal influenza. Educational efforts provided in conjunction with vaccination campaigns resulted in high knowledge of influenza virus, transmission, and vaccination. Further outreach regarding disease risks and vaccine safety needs to be directed towards older adults in nursing homes who had lower knowledge and coverage than older adults in daycare centers.

Patient attitudes toward influenza and tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis vaccination in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Routine influenza and tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination of pregnant women to prevent poor maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes is recommended practice; however, actual rates of influenza vaccine acceptance are typically well below the (Healthy People 2020, 2015) goal of 80%.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify barriers to accepting either vaccination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From December 2014 to April 2015 women were given a questionnaire eliciting their experiences, attitudes and history of influenza and Tdap vaccination in pregnancy during their routine prenatal care appointments at a tertiary care center. Patient demographics were included in the questionnaire. A similar questionnaire was administered to prenatal care providers. Patient influenza and Tdap vaccination acceptance rates were compared and predictors of vaccine acceptance were analyzed with bivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Out of the 400 patient questionnaires distributed, 338 (84.5%) were completed and returned; 24 of 45 (53.3%) provider questionnaires were returned. Vaccination acceptance rates were 70.7% for the influenza vaccine and 76.3% for the Tdap vaccine. The logistic regression model indicated that predictors of acceptance for either vaccine in pregnancy are patient attitude and previous vaccination history. Patient attitudes were more favorable towards Tdap than influenza vaccination. The combination of healthcare provider recommendation and educational materials was significantly predictive of both Tdap and influenza vaccine acceptance. The most common reasons given for declining the influenza vaccine were safety concerns; the most common reasons given for declining the Tdap vaccine were that patients did not think it was required again when they received the vaccine before pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that providers can improve Tdap and influenza vaccination acceptance in pregnancy by recommending the vaccination in combination with provision of educational materials on the vaccines.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of interventions to increase influenza vaccination uptake in people aged 60 years and older varies by country and participant characteristics. This review updates versions published in 2010 and 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess access, provider, system, and societal interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years and older in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ERIC for this update, as well as WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies to 7 December 2017. We also searched the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials of interventions to increase influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years or older in the community.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new RCTs for this update (total 61 RCTs; 1,055,337 participants). Trials involved people aged 60 years and older living in the community in high-income countries. Heterogeneity limited some meta-analyses. We assessed studies as at low risk of bias for randomisation (38%), allocation concealment (11%), blinding (44%), and selective reporting (100%). Half (51%) had missing data. We assessed the evidence as low-quality. We identified three levels of intervention intensity: low (e.g. postcards), medium (e.g. personalised phone calls), and high (e.g. home visits, facilitators).Increasing community demand (12 strategies, 41 trials, 53 study arms, 767,460 participants)One successful intervention that could be meta-analysed was client reminders or recalls by letter plus leaflet or postcard compared to reminder (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.15; 3 studies; 64,200 participants). Successful interventions tested by single studies were patient outreach by retired teachers (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.79 to 6.22); invitations by clinic receptionists (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76); nurses or pharmacists educating and nurses vaccinating patients (OR 152.95, 95% CI 9.39 to 2490.67); medical students counselling patients (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.35); and multiple recall questionnaires (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24).Some interventions could not be meta-analysed due to significant heterogeneity: 17 studies tested simple reminders (11 with 95% CI entirely above unity); 16 tested personalised reminders (12 with 95% CI entirely above unity); two investigated customised compared to form letters (both 95% CI above unity); and four studies examined the impact of health risk appraisals (all had 95% CI above unity). One study of a lottery for free groceries was not effective.Enhancing vaccination access (6 strategies, 8 trials, 10 arms, 9353 participants)We meta-analysed results from two studies of home visits (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61) and two studies that tested free vaccine compared to patient payment for vaccine (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82). We were unable to conduct meta-analyses of two studies of home visits by nurses plus a physician care plan (both with 95% CI above unity) and two studies of free vaccine compared to no intervention (both with 95% CI above unity). One study of group visits (OR 27.2, 95% CI 1.60 to 463.3) was effective, and one study of home visits compared to safety interventions was not.Provider- or system-based interventions (11 strategies, 15 trials, 17 arms, 278,524 participants)One successful intervention that could be meta-analysed focused on payments to physicians (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.77). Successful interventions tested by individual studies were: reminding physicians to vaccinate all patients (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.99); posters in clinics presenting vaccination rates and encouraging competition between doctors (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.22); and chart reviews and benchmarking to the rates achieved by the top 10% of physicians (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.37 to 4.97).We were unable to meta-analyse four studies that looked at physician reminders (three studies with 95% CI above unity) and three studies of facilitator encouragement of vaccination (two studies with 95% CI above unity). Interventions that were not effective were: comparing letters on discharge from hospital to letters to general practitioners; posters plus postcards versus posters alone; educational reminders, academic detailing, and peer comparisons compared to mailed educational materials; educational outreach plus feedback to teams versus written feedback; and an intervention to increase staff vaccination rates.Interventions at the societal levelNo studies reported on societal-level interventions.Study funding sourcesStudies were funded by government health organisations (n = 33), foundations (n = 9), organisations that provided healthcare services in the studies (n = 3), and a pharmaceutical company offering free vaccines (n = 1). Fifteen studies did not report study funding sources.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified interventions that demonstrated significant positive effects of low (postcards), medium (personalised phone calls), and high (home visits, facilitators) intensity that increase community demand for vaccination, enhance access, and improve provider/system response. The overall GRADE assessment of the evidence was moderate quality. Conclusions are unchanged from the 2014 review.

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.

Persistent racial and ethnic disparities in flu vaccination coverage: Results from a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends annual flu vaccination for all adults. We aimed to identify predictors of receiving a flu vaccination, with an emphasis on the impact of race and ethnicity.

METHODS

We used data from the 2011-2012 California Health Interview Survey and included all individuals aged ≥18 years. We performed a survey-weighted logistic regression on receipt of flu vaccination within the last year, adjusted by demographic and socioeconomic variables, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Our study included a population-weighted sample of 27,796,484 individuals. Overall, 35.8% received a flu vaccination within the last year. Blacks were 33% less likely (95% CI, 21%-43%) to have been vaccinated than whites. Conversely, Koreans (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.35-2.33) and Vietnamese (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.19-2.07) were more likely than whites to have been vaccinated. No differences were seen between whites and the remaining racial and ethnic groups (Latino, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, South Asian, Asian other, and other).

CONCLUSIONS

Racial and ethnic disparities in flu vaccination uptake exist in California. Namely, blacks have lower vaccination rates than whites, and there are disparate vaccination rates among the Asian-American subgroups. Efforts to increase vaccination rates among these groups are needed.

Influenza Immunization in Nursing Homes: Who Does Not Get Immunized and Whose Status Is Unknown?

Objective.

To identify nursing home resident and facility characteristics associated with patients not receiving influenza immunization and having unknown immunization status.

Design.

Secondary data analysis using multinomial logistic regression of data from the National Nursing Home Survey, a nationally representative establishment-based survey.

Setting.

A total of 1,423 nursing facilities of all ownerships and certifications systematically sampled with probability proportional to number of beds.

Patients.

A total of 7,350 randomly sampled people aged 65 years or older residing in nursing homes between July and December 1999 (approximately 6 per facility).

Main Outcome Measure.

Immunization status of residents.

Results.

Fifteen percent of residents were not immunized and 19% had unknown immunization status. In multivariate analysis, lack of immunization and unknown immunization status were each separately associated with being newly admitted, with no or unknown pneumococcal immunization, and with facility failures to screen for immunization and to record inoculation in the medical record. High-risk status and staff immunization requirements had no effect. Separate analyses showed that residents with unknown immunization status are statistically significantly different from both those vaccinated and those not vaccinated.

Conclusion.

This study indicates that both resident and facility characteristics are associated with failure to be immunized for influenza. Facilities should consider targeting younger, newly admitted, and residential care residents for influenza immunization, since they are more likely to be missed. Further research into the barriers to immunization specific to nursing home resident choice or opportunity may be warranted.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 and older is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess access, provider, system and societal interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years and older in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1950 to May week 3 2014), EMBASE (1980 to June 2014), AgeLine (1978 to 4 June 2014), ERIC (1965 to June 2014) and CINAHL (1982 to June 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase influenza vaccination uptake in people aged 60 and older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted influenza vaccine uptake data.

MAIN RESULTS

This update identified 13 new RCTs; the review now includes a total of 57 RCTs with 896,531 participants. The trials included community-dwelling seniors in high-income countries. Heterogeneity limited meta-analysis. The percentage of trials with low risk of bias for each domain was as follows: randomisation (33%); allocation concealment (11%); blinding (44%); missing data (49%) and selective reporting (100%). Increasing community demand (32 trials, 10 strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: three trials (n = 64,200) of letter plus leaflet/postcard compared to letter (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.15); two trials (n = 614) of nurses/pharmacists educating plus vaccinating patients (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.91 to 5.66); single trials of a phone call from a senior (n = 193) (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.79 to 6.22), a telephone invitation versus clinic drop-in (n = 243) (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76), a free groceries lottery (n = 291) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.76) and nurses educating and vaccinating patients (n = 485) (OR 152.95, 95% CI 9.39 to 2490.67).We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: postcard/letter/pamphlets (16 trials, n = 592,165); tailored communications (16 trials, n = 388,164); customised letter/phone-call (four trials, n = 82,465) and client-based appraisals (three trials, n = 4016), although several trials showed the interventions were effective. Enhancing vaccination access (10 trials, six strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: two trials (n = 2112) of home visits compared to clinic invitation (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61); two trials (n = 2251) of free vaccine (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82) and one trial (n = 321) of patient group visits (OR 24.85, 95% CI 1.45 to 425.32). One trial (n = 350) of a home visit plus vaccine encouragement compared to a home visit plus safety advice was non-significant.We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: nurse home visits (two trials, n = 2069) and free vaccine compared to no intervention (two trials, n = 2250). Provider- or system-based interventions (17 trials, 11 strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: two trials (n = 2815) of paying physicians (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.77); one trial (n = 316) of reminding physicians about all their patients (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.99); one trial (n = 8376) of posters plus postcards (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.22); one trial (n = 1360) of chart review/feedback (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.37 to 4.97) and one trial (n = 27,580) of educational outreach/feedback (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.81).Trials of posters plus postcards versus posters (n = 5753), academic detailing (n = 1400) and increasing staff vaccination rates (n = 26,432) were non-significant.We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: reminding physicians (four trials, n = 202,264) and practice facilitators (three trials, n = 2183), although several trials showed the interventions were effective. Interventions at the societal level We identified no RCTs of interventions at the societal level.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are interventions that are effective for increasing community demand for vaccination, enhancing access and improving provider/system response. Heterogeneity limited pooling of trials.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community

BACKGROUND

Although the evidence to support influenza vaccination is poor, it is promoted by many health authorities. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in those 60 years or older.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in those 60 or older.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 3), containing the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (January 1950 to July 2010), PubMed (January 1950 to July 2010), EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 28), AgeLine (1978 to July 2010), ERIC (1965 to July 2010) and CINAHL (1982 to July 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to increase influenza vaccination rates in those aged 60 years and older, recording influenza vaccination status either through clinic records, billing data or local/national vaccination registers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four RCTs were included. All included RCTs studied seniors in the community and in high-income countries. No RCTs of society-level interventions were included. Heterogeneity was marked and meta-analysis was limited. Only five RCTs were graded at low and six at moderate risk of bias. They included three of 13 personalized postcard interventions (all three with the 95% confidence interval (CI) above unity), two of the four home visit interventions (both with 95% CI above unity, but one a small study), three of the four reminder to physicians interventions (none with 95% CI above unity) and three of the four facilitator interventions (one with 95% CI above unity, and one P < 0.01). The other 33 RCTs were at high risk of bias and no recommendations for practice can be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Personalized postcards or phone calls are effective, and home visits, and facilitators, may be effective. Reminders to physicians are not. There is insufficient good evidence for other interventions.

Patient views on reminder letters for influenza vaccinations in an older primary care patient population: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the perspectives of older adults on the acceptability of reminder letters for influenza vaccinations.

METHODS

We randomly selected 23 family physicians from each Family Health and Primary Care network participating in a demonstration project designed to increase the delivery of preventive services in Ontario. From the roster of each physician, we surveyed 35 randomly selected patients over 65 years of age who recently received a reminder letter regarding influenza vaccinations from their physician. The questionnaires sought patient perspectives on the acceptability and usefulness of the letter. We also conducted follow-up telephone interviews with a subgroup of respondents to explore some of the survey findings in greater depth.

RESULTS

85.3% (663/767) of patients completed the questionnaire. Sixty-five percent of respondents recalled receiving the reminder (n=431), and of those, 77.3% found it helpful. Of the respondents who recalled the letter and received a flu shot (n=348), 11.2% indicated they might not have done so without the letter. The majority of respondents reported that they would like to continue receiving reminder letters for influenza vaccinations (63.0%) and other preventive services (77.1%) from their family physician. The interview participants endorsed the use of reminder letters for improving vaccination coverage in older adults, but did not feel that the strategy was required for them personally.

CONCLUSIONS

The general attitude of older adults towards reminder letters was favourable, and the reminders appear to have contributed to a modest increase in influenza vaccination rates.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders

OBJECTIVE

To increase the percentage of veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders (SCI&D) who receive annual influenza vaccinations.

DESIGN

A repeated measures quality improvement project using several integrated evidence-based interventions.

SETTING

23 Veterans Affairs (VA) SCI Centers.

PATIENTS

Veterans with SCI&D average age = 57.3 years (range 21-102 y).

INTERVENTIONS

Patient reminder letters and education; provider reminders and posters; computerized clinical reminders for vaccination targeted to SCI & D; standing orders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient self-reported vaccination status.

RESULTS

Baseline vaccination rate was 33% in fiscal year (FY) 2001. The percentage of veterans with SCI&D who reported receiving vaccinations increased from 62.5% in year 1 (FY2002) to 67.4% in FY2003 (P = 0.004); for individuals younger than 50 years of age, rates increased from 50% to 54%. Predictors of vaccination were age 65 years of age or older, VA health care visit in past year, nonsmoker, believing vaccination is important, having a health condition that may contribute to respiratory complications, and self-reported influenza in prior year.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination rates were higher than baseline and higher than reported for other high-risk groups. Interventions that incorporate system-wide approaches plus patient and provider education and reminders were moderately effective in increasing vaccination rates. Targeting younger persons, smokers, and those who do not use VA care may further improve rates.

[Factors determining flu vaccination in the over-65s]

OBJECTIVE

To find the prevalence of flu vaccination and factors affecting the likelihood of being vaccinated.

DESIGN

Observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A district in Health Area III, Asturias, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

People of 65 and over selected by simple random sampling from the health card data base. The size of the sample was 386 users, of whom 326 agreed to take part.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

By means of a survey of our own design, conducted by phone interview, the variables gathered were social and personal details, accessibility, personal view of vaccination and attitude to it. A descriptive analysis and population estimates were made, with logistic regression used to identify associated variables.

RESULTS

A 70.6% (95% CI, 65.9-75.2) of the population under study had been vaccinated. The main arguments for non-vaccination were: "don't want to" (35.5%; 95% CI, 25.8-45.2) and enjoyment of good health (34.4%; 95% CI, 24.8-44); 25% (95% CI, 19-30) of the elderly with some chronic pathology were not vaccinated; 92.3% (95% CI, 89.6-95) of those surveyed said they had not been contacted by their Health Centre; 35.7% (95% CI, 30.7-40.7) thought they would catch the flu the same if they were vaccinated; 41.6% (95% CI, 36.6-46.6) did not think so. Logistic regression showed positive association of vaccination and belief in its use (OR=338; 95% CI, 4.48-25084).

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination coverage in our health district was higher than that found by other studies and matched the figures stated in the programme record system. Raising awareness of the usefulness of vaccination is a strategy to be assessed in relation to increased coverage. We could not show that active phone recruitment affects vaccination at all.

Improving uptake of influenza vaccination among older people: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The uptake of influenza vaccination among older people is suboptimal. Contact with a doctor or nurse is associated with older people deciding to accept influenza vaccination.

AIM

To compare different forms of approach in improving uptake of influenza vaccination among patients aged 75 years and over in primary care.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

One large rural general practice serving the town and surrounding area of Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire.

METHOD

All 2,052 patients aged 75 years and over, registered with the practice and not living in nursing/residential homes or sheltered accommodation, were included in the study. One-third of patients were randomised to receive an offer of influenza vaccination as part of an over-75 health check administered by a practice nurse in the patient's home, and two-thirds of patients were randomised to receive a personal letter of invitation to attend an influenza vaccination clinic held at the surgery. The main outcome measure was uptake of influenza vaccination.

RESULTS

Six hundred and eighty patients were randomised to the health check arm of the trial and 1,372 were randomised to receive a personal letter. Of those randomised to the health check arm, 468 received the health check from the nurse. Overall, the difference in influenza vaccination uptake was 6.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.2% to 10.4%) with 67.9% (n = 932) of those who were sent a personal letter actually receiving the vaccine, compared with 74.3% (n = 505) of those offered a combined health check and influenza vaccination (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Combining home-based over- 75 health checks with influenza vaccination can improve uptake among older patients. However this intervention is likely to be costly and its effect on influenza vaccination rates is modest. The difference in uptake is greater among those who do not routinely comeforwardfor vaccination and a more viable option may be to target these patients.

The use of computerized birthday greeting reminders in the management of diabetes

BACKGROUND

Although mailed reminders have been used for prevention among general populations, few studies have evaluated their effectiveness among chronically ill populations.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effectiveness of mailed reminders for improving diabetes management. The reminder included a letter from the individual's primary care physician (PCP), a self-care handbook, a preventive care checklist, and specific recommendations regarding receipt of routine monitoring and screening.

METHODS

Of 195 PCPs practicing with a large group practice, 111 agreed to have their adult patients with diabetes randomized to receive the reminder (n = 1,641) or usual care (n = 1,668). Using data from automated databases, we fit generalized estimating equations to evaluate the effect of reminder receipt on fasting lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin testing, dilated retinal exam receipt, and visit frequency during the 6 and 12 months following randomization, and glycated hemoglobin and cholesterol levels in the year following randomization.

RESULTS

Reminder and usual care recipients did not differ in sociodemographic, clinical, or prior testing characteristics. In the 6 months following randomization, reminder recipients were more likely to receive a retinal exam (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.12 to 1.49) and diabetes visit (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.47). In the 12 months following randomization, reminder recipients were more likely to receive a glycated hemoglobin test (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.43), retinal exam (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.41), and diabetes visit (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.29). In the follow-up year, reminder recipients also tended to have a glycated hemoglobin test that did not reflect poor control (<9.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found small but significant improvements in the management of patients with diabetes receiving a computerized mailed reminder.