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

Factors Associated with the Implementation of Pediatric Immunization Services: A Survey of Community Pharmacies

Pharmacists are well-positioned to help increase pediatric immunization rates. This study assessed the types of pediatric vaccines offered in community pharmacies, compared participant/pharmacy characteristics and participants' perceptions of barriers and pharmacists' role in providing pediatric immunizations between pharmacy-based providers and non-providers, and assessed factors associated with pharmacy-based pediatric immunization provision. A cross-sectional survey was sent to Alabama community pharmacies from February to April 2023, of which 240 responded (20.5% response rate). Measures included whether they offered childhood vaccines in 2022 and the types of vaccines administered, participants' perceptions of pharmacists' role in pediatric immunization, and perceived barriers to providing pharmacy-based pediatric immunizations. Roughly half of pharmacies (50.8%) provided pediatric immunization services with influenza vaccines (91.0%) the most commonly provided vaccines and poliovirus-inactivated vaccines (4.9%) the least. Pharmacies providing pediatric immunization services significantly differed from non-providers. That is, the majority of providers practiced within a grocery or retail store; they were younger and practiced in a pharmacy with higher average daily prescription volume and a higher average pharmacy practice full-time equivalent; and they perceived lower implementation logistics barriers and a lower role of pharmacists regarding pediatric immunization. Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that implementation logistics is significantly associated with pharmacies offering pediatric immunization services after controlling for pharmacy/participant characteristics (p = 0.01). Therefore, ameliorating implementation logistics barriers should be considered when devising strategies to promote pediatric immunization services in community pharmacies.

Centralized Reminder/Recall for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Findings From Two States-A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) using Immunization Information Systems has been effective in increasing childhood immunization rates. Previously, C-R/R using autodialer for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine did not raise rates. We assessed C-R/R for HPV vaccine using other modalities and focused on younger adolescents.

METHODS

We conducted a three-arm pragmatic RCT in randomly sampled primary care practices in Colorado (n = 88) and New York (n = 136), proportionate to where adolescents received care. We randomized, within practices, adolescents aged 11-14 years who had not completed the HPV vaccination series to receive C-R/R using different modalities (Colorado: autodialer, mail, or control; New York: autodialer, text, or control). Up to two reminders were sent in intervention arms for each dose needed between 2/2017 and 12/2018.

RESULTS

In Colorado, no significant differences were found for series initiation (31.3% control, 31.1% autodial, 31.8% mail), with slight improvement for series completion in the autodialer arm (29.7% control, 31.1% autodialer, p = .04) but not the mail arm (30.9%, p = .06). No significant differences were found in New York for series initiation (24.1% for all arms) or completion (17.1% control, 16.9% autodial, 17.9% text). Adjusted analyses showed higher completion rates for the autodialer arm in Colorado but not for other arms. In Colorado, C-R/R reduced time to series completion by around 2 months. Cost per adolescent was $1.81 for mail; under $.40 for all other modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

C-R/R has less benefit for raising HPV vaccination rates than other studies have noted for childhood immunizations, although it may quicken series completion at little cost.

Parental Vaccine Hesitancy and Risk of Pediatric Influenza Under-Vaccination in a Safety-Net Health Care System

OBJECTIVE

To measure the risk of influenza under-vaccination in children of vaccine-hesitant parents, referent to children of nonhesitant parents, in a sample of disadvantaged families in one influenza season.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective observational cohort study of English- and Spanish-speaking parents of 2-year-olds presenting at random for well, sick, or specialty visit care from August 1, 2019 to February 28, 2020. Parents answered demographic questions and the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines survey. We followed children until season's end, extracting vaccination data on April 30, 2020. We dichotomized vaccination status as unvaccinated or partially/fully vaccinated, analyzing data with multivariable Poisson regression; in secondary analyses, we conducted adjusted time-to-event analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, 263 parents consented (response rate: 90%); our final sample included 255 dyads. Thirty-three (13%) parents were vaccine hesitant. In adjusted analyses, children of hesitant parents (n = 33) had a 195% increased risk (adjusted Risk Ratio 2.95; 95% confidence interval 1.91, 4.56) of being unvaccinated at season's end, referent to children of nonhesitant parents (n = 222). In time-to-event analyses, children of vaccine-hesitant parents were also more likely to be unvaccinated before influenza activity peaked (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Parental vaccine hesitancy tripled the risk of pediatric influenza nonvaccination in a sample of poor and minority families during the 2019 to 2020 influenza season. As parental vaccine hesitancy appears to exacerbate pediatric influenza vaccination disparities, future work should explore parental hesitancy with poor and minority stakeholders and tailor evidence-based interventions to benefit children from these communities who receive care at all practice sites.

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.

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.

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.

Effect of State Immunization Information System Centralized Reminder and Recall on HPV Vaccination Rates

BACKGROUND

Although autodialer centralized reminder and recall (C-R/R) from state immunization information systems (IISs) has been shown to raise childhood vaccination rates, its impact on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates is unclear.

METHODS

In a 4-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial across 2 states, we randomly selected practices representative of the specialty (pediatrics, family medicine, and health center) where children received care. Within each practice, patients 11 to 17.9 years old who had not completed their HPV vaccine series (NY: N = 30 616 in 123 practices; CO: N = 31 502 in 80 practices) were randomly assigned to receive 0, 1, 2, or 3 IIS C-R/R autodialer messages per vaccine dose. We assessed HPV vaccine receipt via the IIS, calculated intervention costs, and compared HPV vaccine series initiation and completion rates across study arms.

RESULTS

In New York, HPV vaccine initiation rates ranged from 37.0% to 37.4%, and completion rates were between 29.1% and 30.1%, with no significant differences across study arms. In Colorado, HPV vaccine initiation rates ranged from 31.2% to 33.5% and were slightly higher for 1 reminder compared with none, but vaccine completion rates, ranging from 27.0% to 27.8%, were similar. On adjusted analyses in Colorado, vaccine initiation rates were slightly higher for 1 and 3 C-R/R messages (adjusted risk ratios 1.07 and 1.04, respectively); completion rates were slightly higher for 1 and 3 C-R/R messages (adjusted risk ratios 1.02 and 1.03, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

IIS-based C-R/R for HPV vaccination did not improve HPV vaccination rates in New York and increased vaccination rates slightly in Colorado.

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.

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.

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.

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.