Place of influenza vaccination among children--United States, 2010-11 through 2013-14 influenza seasons

Where are children ages 5-17 years receiving their COVID-19 vaccinations? Variations over time and by sociodemographic characteristics, United States

BACKGROUND

Knowing the settings where children ages 5-17 years received COVID-19 vaccination in the United States, and how settings changed over time and varied by socio-demographics, is of interest for planning and implementing vaccination programs.

METHODS

Data from the National Immunization Survey-Child COVID-19 Module (NIS-CCM) were analyzed to assess place of COVID-19 vaccination among vaccinated children ages 5-17 years. Interviews from July 2021 thru May 2022 were included in the analyses for a total of n = 39,286 vaccinated children. The percentage of children receiving their COVID-19 vaccine at each type of setting was calculated overall, by sociodemographic characteristics, and by month of receipt of COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

Among vaccinated children ages 5-11 years, 46.9 % were vaccinated at a medical place, 37.1 % at a pharmacy, 8.1 % at a school, 4.7 % at a mass vaccination site, and 3.2 % at some other non-medical place. Among vaccinated children ages 12-17 years, 35.1 % were vaccinated at a medical place, 47.9 % at a pharmacy, 8.3 % at a mass vaccination site, 4.8 % at a school, and 4.0 % at some other non-medical place. The place varied by time among children ages 12-17 years but minimally for children ages 5-11 years. There was variability in the place of COVID-19 vaccination by age, race/ethnicity, health insurance, urbanicity, and region.

CONCLUSION

Children ages 5-17 years predominantly received their COVID-19 vaccinations at pharmacies and medical places. The large proportion of vaccinated children receiving vaccination at pharmacies is indicative of the success in the United States of expanding the available settings where children could be vaccinated. Medical places continue to play a large role in vaccinating children, especially younger children, and should continue to stock COVID-19 vaccine to keep it available for those who are not yet vaccinated, including the newly recommended group of children < 5 years.

Missed opportunities for concomitant HPV vaccination among childhood cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Childhood cancer survivors are at higher risk of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related second cancers than adolescents without cancer, yet their HPV vaccination uptake is lower. Using a statewide sample, we evaluated whether survivors are at higher risk of missed opportunities for concomitant HPV vaccination.

METHODS

From statewide healthcare data, we identified encounters where vaccines were received. Concomitant HPV vaccine missed opportunities were defined as a vaccine encounter where the HPV vaccine was not administered, although eligibility criteria were met. From these encounters, our sample included 327 survivors identified from the Utah Cancer Registry, diagnosed 2000-2016 at ages 0-9, and a birth year and sex-matched sample without cancer from the general population (n = 1,911). Mixed-effects Poisson regression estimated the rate of concomitant missed opportunities per vaccine encounter and 95% confidence intervals by vaccine encounter type (all vaccines, flu shot only, or adolescent/catch-up) from 2013 to 2016.

RESULTS

Survivors had more concomitant HPV vaccine missed opportunities than the population sample (70.0% vs. 59.0%). On average, survivors were 12% more likely to have missed opportunities at vaccine encounters and 4% more likely at flu shot only encounters. The predicted excess risk of concomitant missed opportunities for survivors ranged from 0.5 per10 vaccine encounters to 1.1 per10 vaccine encounters. Higher parental education, rurality, younger first vaccine age, and chemotherapy were associated with missed opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

Childhood cancer survivors have more missed opportunities for concomitant HPV vaccination than a population sample. As flu shots should be administered annually, providers have a regular opportunity to recommend and deliver the HPV vaccine to survivors.

National and State-Specific Estimates of Settings of Receiving Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Among Adolescents in the United States

PURPOSE

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in the United States has been recommended for girls since 2006 and for boys since 2011. However, settings of receiving HPV vaccination have not been assessed. The purpose of this study is to assess settings of receiving HPV vaccination among adolescents in order to understand what strategies are needed to improve vaccination uptake.

METHODS

Data from the 2018 National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) were analyzed to assess place of HPV vaccination overall, and by gender, quarter, and other selected variables among adolescents in the United States. The 2016-2018 NIS-Teen data were combined to assess state-specific place of HPV vaccination.

RESULTS

Among vaccinated adolescents aged 13-17 years, a doctor's office was the most common place where HPV vaccination was received (79.2%), followed by clinics, health centers, or other medical facilities (13.5%), health department (4.1%), hospital or emergency room (2.3%), schools (.5%), and pharmacies or stores (.4%). Overall, 99.1% of adolescents aged 13-17 years received HPV vaccination at medical settings and only .9% at nonmedical settings. Reported vaccination in nonmedical settings by state ranged from less than .1% in Delaware, Florida, and New Hampshire to 4.1% in North Dakota, with a median of 1.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctor's offices were the most common medical setting for adolescents to receive HPV vaccination. Less than 1% of adolescents received vaccination at nonmedical settings. Continuing work with medical and nonmedical settings to identify and implement appropriate strategies are needed to improve HPV vaccination coverage among adolescents.

Using Influenza Vaccination Location Data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to Expand COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage

Effective COVID-19 vaccine distribution requires prioritizing locations that are accessible to high-risk target populations. However, little is known about the vaccination location preferences of individuals with underlying chronic conditions. Using data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), we grouped 162,744 respondents into high-risk and low-risk groups for COVID-19 and analyzed the odds of previous influenza vaccination at doctor’s offices, health departments, community settings, stores, or hospitals. Individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19 were more likely to be vaccinated in doctor’s offices and stores and less likely to be vaccinated in community settings.

Trends in place of early-season influenza vaccination among adults, 2014-15 through 2018-19 influenza seasons-The importance of medical and nonmedical settings for vaccination

BACKGROUND

Annual vaccination is the most effective strategy for preventing influenza. We assessed trends and demographic and access-to-care characteristics associated with place of vaccination in recent years.

METHODS

Data from the 2014-2018 National Internet Flu Survey were analyzed to assess trends in place of early-season influenza vaccination during the 2014-15 through 2018-19 seasons. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify factors independently associated with vaccination settings in the 2018-19 season.

RESULTS

Among vaccinated adults, the proportion vaccinated in medical (range: 49%-53%) versus nonmedical settings (range: 47%-51%) during the 2014-15 through 2018-19 seasons were similar. Among adults aged ≥18 years vaccinated early in the 2018-19 influenza season, a doctor's office was the most common place (34.4%), followed by pharmacies or stores (32.3%), and workplaces (15.0%). Characteristics significantly associated with an increased likelihood of receipt of vaccination in nonmedical settings among adults included household income ≥$50,000, having no doctor visits since July 1, 2018, or having a doctor visit but not receiving an influenza vaccination recommendation from the medical professional.

CONCLUSIONS

Place of early-season influenza vaccination among adults who reported receiving influenza vaccination was stable over 5 recent seasons. Both medical and nonmedical settings were important places for influenza vaccination. Increasing access to vaccination services in medical and nonmedical settings should be considered as an important strategy for improving vaccination coverage.

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.

Offering the Influenza Vaccine in a Pediatric Hand Surgery Clinic Increases Vaccination Rates

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of providing immediate access to the influenza vaccination for patients seen in a pediatric hand surgery clinic. Our hypothesis was that providing access would increase the rate of vaccination.

METHODS

This pilot study was a randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial that included all patients seen by a single surgeon, on a single day each week, in a hospital-based pediatric hand surgery practice clinic from October 18, 2016, to March 14, 2017. All patients between 6 months and 18 years of age seen during their initial visit during the study period were included. All patients were questioned on their vaccine status. For the intervention group, the influenza vaccine was offered. If requested, after providing educational materials, written consent from the parent or guardian was obtained. The vaccine was given by the registered nurse ordinarily assigned to the clinic. Demographic information and vaccine status for both groups at the end of clinic, including the date of receiving the vaccine, were recorded.

RESULTS

Similar proportions of patients in each group had received the vaccine prior to being seen in the clinic. In the intervention group, 80 children (67%) had received the vaccine by the end of clinic, compared with 29 (25%) in the control group. Patients who were offered the vaccine had a statistically significant higher vaccination rate. Of the 80 patients in the intervention group who received the vaccine, 47 (59%) received it in the hand clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

This project demonstrated that offering the influenza vaccine in a nontraditional setting, an outpatient hand surgery clinic, increased the proportion of patients receiving the vaccine.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic I.

Influenza Vaccination Coverage in Children With Neurologic Disorders and Their Siblings, July 2006 to June 2014

Children with neurologic disorders are at high risk for influenza-associated complications. We identified 184,460 children 1-17 years of age with neurologic disorders and 204,966 siblings in a commercial insurance claims database from July 2006 to June 2014. Among children with neurologic disorders, coverage increased from 22.4% in 2006-2007 to 42.3% in 2013-2014, but remained suboptimal. A lower proportion of siblings were vaccinated.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

Childhood influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal. Provider perceptions on strategies to achieve universal vaccination are needed. We assessed the perceptions and attitudes of primary care providers across 2 states regarding 2 strategies to potentially bolster rates: centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R), such as reminder/recall (R/R) notices from state immunization registries, and influenza vaccination by complementary community vaccinators (CCVs), such as retail pharmacies, schools, and health departments.

METHODS

We sent a mailed survey to a representative sample of providers across Colorado and New York. Questions addressed R/R activities for influenza vaccine, preferences and attitudes about the health department sending C-R/R notices for influenza vaccine, and attitudes about CCVs. Bivariate analyses assessed provider perceptions and compared perceptions by state.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 56% (n = 590/1052). Twenty-two percent of providers in Colorado and 33% in New York performed practice-based R/R for all patients during the 2015-16 influenza season. Eighty-one percent of providers in both states preferred the health department or had no preference for who sent C-R/R notices for influenza vaccine to their patients; most preferred to include their practice names on C-R/R messages. Many providers in both Colorado (75%) and New York (46%, P < .001) agreed that their patients like the option of having CCVs where children can receive influenza vaccine. Some providers expressed concerns regarding potential loss of income and/or difficulty documenting receipt of influenza vaccine at CCVs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most providers support C-R/R, and many support CCVs to increase influenza vaccination rates. Collaborations between traditional primary care providers and CCVs might boost coverage.

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.