School-located influenza vaccination: can collaborative efforts go the distance?

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination programs for elementary and secondary school children

Background

Studies have noted variations in the cost-effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV), but little is known about how SLIV’s cost-effectiveness may vary by targeted age group (e.g., elementary or secondary school students), or vaccine consent process (paper-based or web-based). Further, SLIV’s cost-effectiveness may be impacted by its spillover effect on practice-based vaccination; prior studies have not addressed this issue.

Methods

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on two SLIV programs in upstate New York in 2015–2016: (a) elementary school SLIV using a stepped wedge design with schools as clusters (24 suburban and 18 urban schools) and (b) secondary school SLIV using a cluster randomized trial (16 suburban and 4 urban schools). The cost-per-additionally-vaccinated child (i.e., incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)) was estimated by dividing the incremental SLIV intervention cost by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the additional number of vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). We performed deterministic analyses, one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic analyses.

Results

The overall effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 5.7 and 5.5 percentage points higher, respectively, in intervention elementary (52.8%) and secondary schools (48.2%) than grade-matched control schools. SLIV programs vaccinated a small proportion of children in intervention elementary (5.2%) and secondary schools (2.5%). In elementary and secondary schools, the ICER excluding vaccine purchase was $85.71 and $86.51 per-additionally-vaccinated-child, respectively. When additionally accounting for observed spillover impact on practice-based vaccination, the ICER decreased to $80.53 in elementary schools -- decreasing substantially in secondary schools. (to $53.40). These estimates were higher than the published practice-based vaccination cost (median = $25.50, mean = $45.48). Also, these estimates were higher than our 2009–2011 urban SLIV program mean costs ($65) due to additional costs for use of a new web-based consent system ($12.97 per-additionally-vaccinated-child) and higher project coordination costs in 2015–2016. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that ICER estimates were most sensitive to the SLIV effectiveness.

Conclusions

SLIV raises vaccination rates and may increase practice-based vaccination in primary care practices. While these SLIV programs are effective, to be as cost-effective as practice-based vaccination our SLIV programs would need to vaccinate more students and/or lower the costs for consent systems and project coordination.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT02227186 (August 25, 2014), updated NCT03137667 (May 2, 2017).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4228-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

School-Located Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Sauver JL, Finney Rutten LJ. The most effective and promising population health strategies to advance human papillomavirus vaccination

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

Implementing a School-Located Vaccination Program in Denver Public Schools

BACKGROUND

School-located vaccination (SLV) offers an opportunity to deliver vaccines to students, particularly those without a primary care provider.

METHODS

This SLV program offered 2 clinics at each of 20 elementary schools (influenza vaccine) and 3 clinics at each of 7 middle/preschool-eighth-grade schools (adolescent platform plus catch-up vaccines) during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Established programmatic processes for immunization delivery in an outreach setting were used. Billing and vaccine inventory management processes were developed. Vaccines from the federal Vaccines for Children program were used for eligible students. Third-party payers were billed for insured students; parents were not billed for services.

RESULTS

The proportion of enrolled students who received at least 1 dose of vaccine increased from year 1 to year 2 (elementary: 28% to 31%; middle: 12% to 19%). Issues identified and addressed included program planning with partners, development and implementation of billing processes, development of a solution to adhere to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act requirements, development and utilization of an easy-to-comprehend consent form, and implementation of standard work procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLV program offered an alternative approach for providing vaccinations to students outside of the primary care setting. To be successful, ongoing partnerships are needed.