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

Using Technology to Overcome Vaccine Hesitancy

Technology holds great potential to address many vaccine hesitancy determinants and support vaccine uptake given its ability to amplify positive messages, support knowledge, and enhance providers' recommendations. Modalities previously implemented with variable success have included automated reminder systems, decision support for clinicians, online education programs, social media campaigns, and virtual reality curricula. Further research is needed to identify the optimal uses of technology at the patient/parent and provider levels to overcome vaccine hesitancy. The most effective interventions will likely be multipronged providing patients, parents, and providers with information related to vaccine status.

Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy: Scope, Influencing Factors, and Strategic Interventions

Influenza vaccination rates in children are suboptimal. One underlying reason is influenza vaccine hesitancy. Tools such as the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines survey and the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale can be used to measure influenza vaccine hesitancy. The adapted Increasing Vaccination Model from Brewer and colleagues can help identify factors that influence influenza vaccine hesitancy, motivation, and uptake. Several strategies can be used to address influenza vaccine hesitancy, which we discuss further in this review.

Impact of educational interventions on the prevention of influenza: A systematic review

Introduction

Seasonal influenza, a contagious viral disease affecting the upper respiratory tract, circulates annually, causing considerable morbidity and mortality. The present study investigates the effectiveness of educational interventions to prevent influenza.

Methods

We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) for relevant clinical studies up to March 1 2022. The following terms were used: "influenza," "flu," "respiratory infection," "prevent," "intervention," and "education."

Results

Out of 255 studies, 21 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in our study: 13 parallel randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies, two cross-over RCT studies, two cohort studies, and four quasi-experimental studies. A total of approximately 12,500 adults (18 years old or above) and 11,000 children were evaluated. Educational sessions and reminders were the most common interventions. The measured outcomes were vaccination rates, the incidence of respiratory tract infection (RTI), and preventive behaviors among participants. Eighteen out of 21 articles showed a significant association between educational interventions and the outcomes.

Conclusions

The included studies in the current systematic review reported the efficacy of health promotion educational interventions in improving knowledge about influenza, influenza prevention behaviors, vaccination rates, and decreased RTI incidence regardless of the type of intervention and the age of cases.

Interventions to Improve Immunization Coverage Among Children and Adolescents: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Vaccinations are recognized as a feasible, cost-effective public health intervention for reducing the burden and associated mortality of many infectious diseases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of potential interventions to improve the uptake of vaccines among children and adolescents.

METHODS

We performed a literature search until December 2020. Eligible studies were identified using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, and other sources. We included studies conducted on children and adolescents aged 5 to 19 years. Studies comprised of hospitalized children and those with comorbid conditions were excluded. Two authors independently performed the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Findings from 120 studies (123 articles), of which 95 were meta-analyzed, reveal that vaccination education may increase overall vaccination coverage by 19% (risk ratio [RR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.26), reminders by 15% (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.18), interventions for providers by 13% (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19), financial incentives by 67% (RR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.40-1.99), and multilevel interventions by 25% (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.41). The impact of school-based clinics and policy and legislation on overall vaccination coverage is still uncertain, and no impact of a multicomponent intervention on overall vaccination coverage was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational interventions, reminders, provider-directed interventions, financial incentives, and multilevel interventions may improve vaccination coverage among school-aged children and adolescents.

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

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

Who receives influenza vaccinations at the Pharmacy? An analysis of the Texas Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

INTRODUCTION

Vaccination helps to prevent influenza infection and reduce associated costs but the influenza vaccination rate in Texas for adults between the ages of 18 to 64 years old is the lowest in the US. Pharmacies and alternative locations have been shown to help increase vaccination rates but many adults still go unvaccinated.

OBJECTIVE

This research aims to determine the factors associated with obtaining influenza vaccination at the pharmacy compared to non-pharmacy locations in Texas.

METHOD

This study used pooled Texas Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System datasets (2014 to 2018) for this assessment. The main outcome variable was categorized into pharmacy and non-pharmacy vaccination locations and analyzed using a logistic regression analysis. Further statistical analysis was done using a multinomial logistic regression after re-categorizing the outcome variable into pharmacy, doctor office, and other locations.

RESULT

Blacks were 63% (AOR 0.37, C.I. 0.26, 0.50) and Hispanics were 38% (AOR 0.62, C.I. 0.48, 0.80) less likely to receive influenza vaccinations at the pharmacy respectively when compared to Whites. Furthermore, those who did not live in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) were 33% (AOR 0.67, C.I 0.53, 0.84) less likely to receive influenza vaccinations at the pharmacy compared to those who lived in an MSA. While there was no observed difference in the likelihood of receiving influenza vaccination, the unemployed population were 40% (AOR 1.40, C.I 1.15, 1.71) more likely to be vaccinated in the pharmacy compared to the employed population.

CONCLUSION

There is potential for increased utilization of pharmacies as a source of influenza vaccination in Texas. Racial differences exist both for receiving influenza vaccinations and being vaccinated in the pharmacy. Influenza vaccination advocacy and education efforts may be necessary to improve pharmacy-based vaccination in Texas, especially for minorities and rural-dwelling Texans.

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.