A pilot measles vaccination campaign in Italy

Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on immunisation uptake and parental knowledge.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to July 2012); EMBASE + Embase Classic (OvidSP) (1947 to July 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to July 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2012); Global Health (CAB) (1910 to July 2012); Global Health Library (WHO) (searched July 2012); Google Scholar (searched September 2012), ISI Web of Science (searched September 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles. We searched for ongoing trials in The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched August 2012) and for grey literature in The Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (searched August 2012). We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs evaluating the effects of face to face interventions delivered to individual parents or groups of parents to inform or educate about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face to face intervention. Early childhood vaccines are all recommended routine childhood vaccines outlined by the World Health Organization, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) which is delivered to adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed database search results for inclusion. Grey literature searches were conducted and reviewed by a single author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs and one cluster RCT involving a total of 2978 participants. Three studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries and four were conducted in high-income countries. The cluster RCT did not contribute usable data to the review. The interventions comprised a mix of single-session and multi-session strategies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low and the studies were at moderate risk of bias overall. All these trials compared face to face interventions directed to individual parents with control.The three studies assessing the effect of a single-session intervention on immunisation status could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. The overall result is uncertain because the individual study results ranged from no evidence of effect to a significant increase in immunisation.Two studies assessed the effect of a multi-session intervention on immunisation status. These studies were also not pooled due to heterogeneity and the result was very uncertain, ranging from a non-significant decrease in immunisation to no evidence of effect.The two studies assessing the effect of a face to face intervention on knowledge or understanding of vaccination were very uncertain and were not pooled as data from one study were skewed. However, neither study showed evidence of an effect on knowledge scores in the intervention group. Only one study measured the cost of a case management intervention. The estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care.The review also considered the following secondary outcomes: intention to vaccinate child, parent experience of intervention, and adverse effects. No adverse effects related to the intervention were measured by any of the included studies, and there were no data on the other outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence available is low quality and suggests that face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about childhood vaccination have little to no impact on immunisation status, or knowledge or understanding of vaccination. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the cost of implementing the intervention, parent intention to vaccinate, parent experience of the intervention, or adverse effects. Given the apparently limited effect of such interventions, it may be feasible and appropriate to incorporate communication about vaccination into a healthcare encounter, rather than conduct it as a separate activity.

[Motives for non-vaccination: critical review of the international literature, 1950-1990]

Many countries have acknowledged that vaccination programs call for a mastery of technical and organizational elements if they are to become accessible to the population. One of these elements has been greatly underestimated: the participation of populations and their motivations. Experiences in several countries are here analysed, on the basis of a bibliographic revision of the period 1950-1990. Results show that existing studies vary in their conceptual and methodological focuses, according to the region in which research was carried out and to the kind of researcher involved. This fact is to be explained by the posture, common among researchers, of believing that they know in depth the subjective determinants of the behavior of the societies to which they belong. Based on this, they only use methodologies that allow them to arrive at a superficial understanding regarding the response of populations to the offer of vaccines.

Comparison of capillary blood versus venous blood samples in the assessment of immunity to measles

Seroepidemiological investigations are essential for assessing the efficacy of measles vaccination programmes. However, when large-scale sampling is needed, a major difficulty is the problem of taking venous blood, especially in children. An alternative method is the collection of capillary blood samples spotted on filter papers. The eluted extract from these 'blood' spots can be used instead of serum samples for measles laboratory diagnosis or investigations. Measles antibody detection is readily carried out by ELISA on serum samples. The same technique can be used on eluates from capillary blood spots. Measles antibody titres determined on matched serum and blood spot samples from 27 children were compared. A strong correlation was found between the results obtained with the two methods of blood sampling.