Pediatric influenza immunization in an integrated safety net health care system

Use of Standing Orders for Vaccination Among Pediatricians

OBJECTIVES

Standing orders are an effective way to increase vaccination rates, yet little is known about how pediatricians use this strategy for childhood immunizations. We assessed current use of, barriers to using, and factors associated with use of standing orders for vaccination among pediatricians.

METHODS

Internet and mail survey from June 2017 to September 2017 among a nationally representative sample of pediatricians. In the principal component analysis of barrier items, we identified 2 factors: physician responsibility and concerns about office processes. A multivariable analysis that included barrier scales and physician and/or practice characteristics was used to identify factors associated with use of standing orders.

RESULTS

The response rate was 79% (372 of 471); 59% of respondents reported using standing orders. The most commonly identified barriers among nonusers were concern that patients may mistakenly receive the wrong vaccine (68%), concern that patients prefer to speak with the physician about a vaccine before receiving it (62%), and belief that it is important for the physician to be the person who recommends a vaccine to patients (57%). These 3 items also made up the physician responsibility barrier factor. Respondents with higher physician responsibility scores were less likely to use standing orders (risk ratio: 0.59 [95% confidence interval: 0.53-0.66] per point increase). System-level decision-making about vaccines, suburban or rural location, and lower concerns about office processes scores were each associated with use of standing orders in the bivariate, but not the multivariable, analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Among pediatricians, use of standing orders for vaccination is far from universal. Interventions to increase use of standing orders should address physicians' attitudinal barriers as well as organizational factors.

Evidence-based strategies to increase vaccination uptake: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize evidence-based strategies for improving pediatric immunization rates including physician behaviors, clinic and public health processes, community-based and parent-focused interventions, and legal and policy approaches RECENT FINDINGS: Studies continue to show the effectiveness of audit and feedback, provider reminders, standing orders, and reminder/recall to increase immunization rates. Provider communication strategies may improve immunization rates including use of a presumptive approach and motivational interviewing. Centralized reminder/recall (using a state Immunization Information System) is more effective and cost-effective compared to a practice-based approach. Recent work shows the success of text messages for reminder/recall for vaccination. Web-based interventions, including informational vaccine websites with interactive social media components, have shown effectiveness at increasing uptake of pediatric and maternal immunizations. Vaccination requirements for school attendance continue to be effective policy interventions for increasing pediatric and adolescent vaccination rates. Allowance for and ease of obtaining exemptions to vaccine requirements are associated with increased exemption rates.

SUMMARY

Strategies to increase vaccination rates include interventions that directly impact physician behavior, clinic and public health processes, patient behaviors, and policy. Combining multiple strategies to work across different settings and addressing different barriers may offer the best approach to optimize immunization coverage.

Increasing childhood influenza vaccination: a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Since the 2008 inception of universal childhood influenza vaccination, national rates have risen more dramatically among younger children than older children and reported rates across racial/ethnic groups are inconsistent. Interventions may be needed to address age and racial disparities to achieve the recommended childhood influenza vaccination target of 70%.

PURPOSE

To evaluate an intervention to increase childhood influenza vaccination across age and racial groups.

METHODS

In 2011-2012, a total of 20 primary care practices treating children were randomly assigned to the intervention and control arms of a cluster randomized controlled trial to increase childhood influenza vaccination uptake using a toolkit and other strategies including early delivery of donated vaccine, in-service staff meetings, and publicity.

RESULTS

The average vaccination differences from pre-intervention to the intervention year were significantly larger in the intervention arm (n=10 practices) than the control arm (n=10 practices); for children aged 9-18 years (11.1 pct pts intervention vs 4.3 pct pts control, p<0.05); for non-white children (16.7 pct pts intervention vs 4.6 pct pts control, p<0.001); and overall (9.9 pct pts intervention vs 4.2 pct pts control, p<0.01). In multi-level modeling that accounted for person- and practice-level variables and the interactions among age, race, and intervention, the likelihood of vaccination increased with younger age group (6-23 months); white race; commercial insurance; the practice's pre-intervention vaccination rate; and being in the intervention arm. Estimates of the interaction terms indicated that the intervention increased the likelihood of vaccination for non-white children in all age groups and white children aged 9-18 years.

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-strategy intervention that includes a practice improvement toolkit can significantly improve influenza vaccination uptake across age and racial groups without targeting specific groups, especially in practices with large percentages of minority children.

Cluster randomized trial of a toolkit and early vaccine delivery to improve childhood influenza vaccination rates in primary care

PURPOSE

To increase childhood influenza vaccination rates using a toolkit and early vaccine delivery in a randomized cluster trial.

METHODS

Twenty primary care practices treating children (range for n=536-8183) were randomly assigned to Intervention and Control arms to test the effectiveness of an evidence-based practice improvement toolkit (4 Pillars Toolkit) and early vaccine supplies for use among disadvantaged children on influenza vaccination rates among children 6 months-18 years. Follow-up staff meetings and surveys were used to assess use and acceptability of the intervention strategies in the Intervention arm. Rates for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 influenza seasons were compared. Two-level generalized linear mixed modeling was used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall increases in influenza vaccination rates were significantly greater in the Intervention arm (7.9 percentage points) compared with the Control arm (4.4 percentage points; P<0.034). These rate changes represent 4522 additional doses in the Intervention arm vs. 1390 additional doses in the Control arm. This effect of the intervention was observed despite the fact that rates increased significantly in both arms - 8/10 Intervention (all P<0.001) and 7/10 Control sites (P-values=0.04 to <0.001). Rates in two Intervention sites with pre-intervention vaccination rates >58% did not significantly increase. In regression analyses, a child's likelihood of being vaccinated was significantly higher with: younger age, white race (Odds ratio [OR]=1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.23-1.34), having commercial insurance (OR=1.30; 95%CI=1.25-1.35), higher pre-intervention practice vaccination rate (OR=1.25; 95%CI=1.16-1.34), and being in the Intervention arm (OR=1.23; 95%CI=1.01-1.50). Early delivery of influenza vaccine was rated by Intervention practices as an effective strategy for raising rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a multi-strategy toolkit and early vaccine supplies can significantly improve influenza vaccination rates among children in primary care practices but the effect may be less pronounced in practices with moderate to high existing vaccination rates. Clinical trial registry name/number: From Innovation to Solutions: Childhood Influenza/NCT01664793.

Factors associated with in-office influenza vaccination by U.S. pediatric providers

BACKGROUND

In the United States, influenza vaccination is recommended for all children 6 months and older; however, vaccination rates are below target levels. A broad sample of U.S. pediatric offices was assessed to determine factors that influence in-office influenza vaccination rates.

METHODS

Offices (N = 174) were recruited to participate in an observational study over three influenza seasons (2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011). Only data from the first year of an office's participation in the study were used. Associations of coverage and 2-dose compliance rates with office characteristics and selected vaccination activities were examined using univariate regression analyses and linear regression analyses using office characteristics identified a priori and vaccination activities with P values ≤ 0.10 in univariate analyses.

RESULTS

Influenza vaccination coverage for children 6 months to 18 years of age averaged 25.2% (range: 2.0%-69.1%) and 2-dose compliance for children < 9 years of age averaged 53.4% (range: 5.4%-96.2%). Factors associated with increased coverage were non-rural site (P = 0.025), smaller office size (fewer than 5000 patients; P < 0.001), use of evening and weekend hours to offer influenza vaccine (P = 0.004), a longer vaccination period (P = 0.014), and a greater influenza vaccine coverage rate among office staff (P = 0.012). Increased 2-dose compliance was associated with smaller office size (P = 0.001) and using patient reminders (P = 0.012) and negatively related to use of electronic provider reminders to vaccinate (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

To maximize influenza vaccine coverage and compliance, offices could offer the vaccine during evening and weekend hours, extend the duration of vaccine availability, encourage staff vaccination, and remind patients that influenza vaccination is due. Additional efforts may be required in large offices and those in rural locations.