Influenza vaccination: a collaborative effort to improve the health of the community

Behavioral interventions for vaccination uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Human behavior and more specifically behavioral insight-based approaches to vaccine uptake have often been overlooked. While there have been a few narrative reviews indexed in Medline on behavioral interventions to increase vaccine uptake, to our knowledge, none have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering not just high but also low-and-middle income countries.

METHODS

We included 613 studies from the Medline database in our systematic review and meta-analysis categorizing different behavioral interventions in 9 domains: education campaigns, on-site vaccination, incentives, free vaccination, institutional recommendation, provider recommendation, reminder and recall, message framing, and vaccine champion. Additionally, considering that there is variability in the acceptance of vaccines among different populations, we assessed studies from both high-income countries (HICs) and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), separately.

FINDINGS

Our results showed that behavioral interventions can considerably improve vaccine uptake in most settings. All domains that we examined improved vaccine uptake with the highest effect size associated with provider recommendation (OR: 3.4 (95%CI: 2.5-4.6); Domain: motivation) and on-site vaccination (OR: 2.9 (95%CI: 2.3-3.7); Domain: practical issues). While the number of studies conducted in LMICs was smaller, the quality of studies was similar with those conducted in HICs. Nevertheless, there were variations in the observed effect sizes.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate that "provider recommendation" and "on-site vaccination" along with other behavioral interventions can be employed to increase vaccination rates globally.

A review of hospital-based interventions to improve inpatient influenza vaccination uptake for high-risk adults

BACKGROUND

Despite positive steps towards transforming immunisation understanding and practice to better incorporate adults, coverage, especially those at higher risk, is not where it should be. One way to increase uptake is to take advantage of environments outside of primary care which present easy opportunities for vaccination. This study provides a narrative review of hospital-based strategies in acute care settings aimed at improving influenza vaccination rates for adult inpatients.

METHODS

A search was conducted using Scopus, Embase and PubMed databases for articles reporting on hospital-based interventions aimed at improving influenza vaccination for adults. Studies published in English were included and descriptively analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 31 articles were included. Tested interventions included 7 standing order protocols (SOP); 4 reminders; 4 assessment/administration programs; 1 patient education program; 1 organisational-based program; 7 multi-component strategies and 8 studies comparing SOPs with other strategies. One article was included in both SOPs and reminders categories. Studies were published between 1983 and 2017 and conducted in the USA, Canada, or Australia. 18 studies reported statistical significance. Individually, each type of intervention showed success. SOPs were significantly more effective than other individual interventions, but multi-component interventions (which included an SOP) were more effective than SOPs alone. Three articles reported no significant increase in uptake attributed mainly to patient refusals, even with a strategy involving patient education. Only three studies tested provider-level strategies including hospital campaigns, hospital reward programs and interdepartmental competitions, and showed success.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital-based interventions are an effective means of improving opportunistic inpatient vaccination. Suggestions for future research include organisational or system-based interventions; qualitative review of barriers and enablers to inpatient vaccination programs; and re-examination of outpatient settings for vaccine delivery. Most studies were not randomised or controlled; therefore, we also recommend additional RCT studies to confirm existing findings on individual strategies.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of interventions to increase influenza vaccination uptake in people aged 60 years and older varies by country and participant characteristics. This review updates versions published in 2010 and 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess access, provider, system, and societal interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years and older in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ERIC for this update, as well as WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies to 7 December 2017. We also searched the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials of interventions to increase influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years or older in the community.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new RCTs for this update (total 61 RCTs; 1,055,337 participants). Trials involved people aged 60 years and older living in the community in high-income countries. Heterogeneity limited some meta-analyses. We assessed studies as at low risk of bias for randomisation (38%), allocation concealment (11%), blinding (44%), and selective reporting (100%). Half (51%) had missing data. We assessed the evidence as low-quality. We identified three levels of intervention intensity: low (e.g. postcards), medium (e.g. personalised phone calls), and high (e.g. home visits, facilitators).Increasing community demand (12 strategies, 41 trials, 53 study arms, 767,460 participants)One successful intervention that could be meta-analysed was client reminders or recalls by letter plus leaflet or postcard compared to reminder (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.15; 3 studies; 64,200 participants). Successful interventions tested by single studies were patient outreach by retired teachers (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.79 to 6.22); invitations by clinic receptionists (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76); nurses or pharmacists educating and nurses vaccinating patients (OR 152.95, 95% CI 9.39 to 2490.67); medical students counselling patients (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.35); and multiple recall questionnaires (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24).Some interventions could not be meta-analysed due to significant heterogeneity: 17 studies tested simple reminders (11 with 95% CI entirely above unity); 16 tested personalised reminders (12 with 95% CI entirely above unity); two investigated customised compared to form letters (both 95% CI above unity); and four studies examined the impact of health risk appraisals (all had 95% CI above unity). One study of a lottery for free groceries was not effective.Enhancing vaccination access (6 strategies, 8 trials, 10 arms, 9353 participants)We meta-analysed results from two studies of home visits (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61) and two studies that tested free vaccine compared to patient payment for vaccine (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82). We were unable to conduct meta-analyses of two studies of home visits by nurses plus a physician care plan (both with 95% CI above unity) and two studies of free vaccine compared to no intervention (both with 95% CI above unity). One study of group visits (OR 27.2, 95% CI 1.60 to 463.3) was effective, and one study of home visits compared to safety interventions was not.Provider- or system-based interventions (11 strategies, 15 trials, 17 arms, 278,524 participants)One successful intervention that could be meta-analysed focused on payments to physicians (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.77). Successful interventions tested by individual studies were: reminding physicians to vaccinate all patients (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.99); posters in clinics presenting vaccination rates and encouraging competition between doctors (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.22); and chart reviews and benchmarking to the rates achieved by the top 10% of physicians (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.37 to 4.97).We were unable to meta-analyse four studies that looked at physician reminders (three studies with 95% CI above unity) and three studies of facilitator encouragement of vaccination (two studies with 95% CI above unity). Interventions that were not effective were: comparing letters on discharge from hospital to letters to general practitioners; posters plus postcards versus posters alone; educational reminders, academic detailing, and peer comparisons compared to mailed educational materials; educational outreach plus feedback to teams versus written feedback; and an intervention to increase staff vaccination rates.Interventions at the societal levelNo studies reported on societal-level interventions.Study funding sourcesStudies were funded by government health organisations (n = 33), foundations (n = 9), organisations that provided healthcare services in the studies (n = 3), and a pharmaceutical company offering free vaccines (n = 1). Fifteen studies did not report study funding sources.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified interventions that demonstrated significant positive effects of low (postcards), medium (personalised phone calls), and high (home visits, facilitators) intensity that increase community demand for vaccination, enhance access, and improve provider/system response. The overall GRADE assessment of the evidence was moderate quality. Conclusions are unchanged from the 2014 review.

Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers in the United States, 1989-2002

Objectives.

We sought to estimate influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United States during 1989-2002 and to identify factors associated with vaccination in this group. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends annual influenza vaccination for HCWs to reduce transmission of influenza to patients at high risk for serious complications of influenza.

Design.

Analysis of cross-sectional data from 1989-2002 surveys conducted by the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). The outcome measure was self-reported influenza vaccination in the past 12 months. Bivariate and multivariate analysis of 2002 NHIS data.

Setting.

Household interviews conducted during 1989-2002, weighted to reflect the noninstitutionalized, civilian US population.

Participants.

Adults aged 18 years or older participated in the study. A total of 2,089 were employed in healthcare occupations or settings in 2002, and 17,160 were employed in nonhealthcare occupations or settings.

Results.

The influenza vaccination rate among US HCWs increased from 10.0% in 1989 to 38.4% in 2002, with no significant change since 1997. In a multivariate model that included data from the 2002 NHIS, factors associated with a higher rate of influenza vaccination among HCWs aged 18-64 years included age of 50 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.1), hospital employee status (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9), 1 or more visits to the office of a healthcare professional in the past 12 months (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2), receipt of employer-provided health insurance (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), a history of pneumococcal vaccination (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1), and history of hepatitis B vaccination (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4). Non-Hispanic black persons were less likely to be vaccinated (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) than non-Hispanic white persons. There were no significant differences in vaccination levels according to HCW occupation category.

Conclusions.

Influenza immunization among HCWs reached a plateau during 1997-2002. New strategies are needed to encourage US HCWs to receive influenza vaccination to prevent influenza illness in themselves and transmission of influenza to vulnerable patients.

Effectiveness of primary care-public health collaborations in the delivery of influenza vaccine: a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess effectiveness and feasibility of public-private collaboration in delivering influenza immunization to children.

METHODS

Four pediatric and four family medicine (FM) practices in Colorado with a common public health department (PHD) were randomized at the beginning of baseline year (10/2009) to Intervention (joint community clinics and PHD nurses aiding in delivery at practices); or control involving usual care without PHD. Generalized estimating equations compared changes in rates over baseline between intervention and control practices at end of 2nd intervention year (Y2=5/2011). Barriers to collaboration were examined using qualitative methods.

RESULTS

Overall, rates increased from baseline to Y2 by 9.2% in intervention and 3.2% in control (p<.0001), with significant increases in both pediatric and FM practices. The largest increases were seen among school-aged and adolescent children (p<.0001 for both), with differences for 6-month-old to 5-year-old children and for children with high-risk conditions not reaching significance. Barriers to collaboration included uncertainty regarding the delivery of vaccine supplies, concerns about using up all purchased vaccine by practices, and concerns about documentation of vaccination if collaboration occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of barriers, public-private collaboration resulted in significantly higher influenza immunization rates, particularly for older, healthy children who visit providers less frequently.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 and older is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess access, provider, system and societal interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years and older in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1950 to May week 3 2014), EMBASE (1980 to June 2014), AgeLine (1978 to 4 June 2014), ERIC (1965 to June 2014) and CINAHL (1982 to June 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase influenza vaccination uptake in people aged 60 and older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted influenza vaccine uptake data.

MAIN RESULTS

This update identified 13 new RCTs; the review now includes a total of 57 RCTs with 896,531 participants. The trials included community-dwelling seniors in high-income countries. Heterogeneity limited meta-analysis. The percentage of trials with low risk of bias for each domain was as follows: randomisation (33%); allocation concealment (11%); blinding (44%); missing data (49%) and selective reporting (100%). Increasing community demand (32 trials, 10 strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: three trials (n = 64,200) of letter plus leaflet/postcard compared to letter (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.15); two trials (n = 614) of nurses/pharmacists educating plus vaccinating patients (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.91 to 5.66); single trials of a phone call from a senior (n = 193) (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.79 to 6.22), a telephone invitation versus clinic drop-in (n = 243) (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76), a free groceries lottery (n = 291) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.76) and nurses educating and vaccinating patients (n = 485) (OR 152.95, 95% CI 9.39 to 2490.67).We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: postcard/letter/pamphlets (16 trials, n = 592,165); tailored communications (16 trials, n = 388,164); customised letter/phone-call (four trials, n = 82,465) and client-based appraisals (three trials, n = 4016), although several trials showed the interventions were effective. Enhancing vaccination access (10 trials, six strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: two trials (n = 2112) of home visits compared to clinic invitation (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61); two trials (n = 2251) of free vaccine (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82) and one trial (n = 321) of patient group visits (OR 24.85, 95% CI 1.45 to 425.32). One trial (n = 350) of a home visit plus vaccine encouragement compared to a home visit plus safety advice was non-significant.We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: nurse home visits (two trials, n = 2069) and free vaccine compared to no intervention (two trials, n = 2250). Provider- or system-based interventions (17 trials, 11 strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: two trials (n = 2815) of paying physicians (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.77); one trial (n = 316) of reminding physicians about all their patients (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.99); one trial (n = 8376) of posters plus postcards (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.22); one trial (n = 1360) of chart review/feedback (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.37 to 4.97) and one trial (n = 27,580) of educational outreach/feedback (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.81).Trials of posters plus postcards versus posters (n = 5753), academic detailing (n = 1400) and increasing staff vaccination rates (n = 26,432) were non-significant.We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: reminding physicians (four trials, n = 202,264) and practice facilitators (three trials, n = 2183), although several trials showed the interventions were effective. Interventions at the societal level We identified no RCTs of interventions at the societal level.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are interventions that are effective for increasing community demand for vaccination, enhancing access and improving provider/system response. Heterogeneity limited pooling of trials.

Interventions to mitigate emergency department and hospital crowding during an infectious respiratory disease outbreak: results from an expert panel

OBJECTIVE

To identify and prioritize potential Emergency Department (ED) and hospital-based interventions which could mitigate the impact of crowding during patient surge from a widespread infectious respiratory disease outbreak and determine potential data sources that may be useful for triggering decisions to implement these high priority interventions.

DESIGN

Expert panel utilizing Nominal Group Technique to identify and prioritize interventions, and in addition, determine appropriate "triggers" for implementation of the high priority interventions in the context of four different infectious respiratory disease scenarios that vary by patient volumes (high versus low) and illness severity (high versus low).

SETTING

One day in-person conference held November, 2011.

PARTICIPANTS

Regional and national experts representing the fields of public health, disease surveillance, clinical medicine, ED operations, and hospital operations.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Prioritized list of potential interventions to reduce ED and hospital crowding, respectively. In addition, we created a prioritized list of potential data sources which could be useful to trigger interventions.

RESULTS

High priority interventions to mitigate ED surge included standardizing admission and discharge criteria and instituting infection control measures. To mitigate hospital crowding, panelists prioritized mandatory vaccination and an algorithm for antiviral use. Data sources identified for triggering implementation of these interventions were most commonly ED and hospital utilization metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a prioritized list of potentially useful interventions to mitigate ED and hospital crowding in various outbreak scenarios. The data sources identified to "trigger" the implementation of these high priority interventions consist mainly of sources available at the local, institutional level.

Factors associated with differential uptake of seasonal influenza immunizations among underserved communities during the 2009-2010 influenza season

Influenza vaccination coverage remains low and disparities persist. In New York City, a community-based participatory research project (Project VIVA) worked to address this issue in Harlem and the South Bronx by supplementing existing vaccination programs with non-traditional venues (i.e., community-based organizations). We conducted a 10 min survey to assess access to influenza vaccine as well as attitudes and beliefs towards influenza vaccination that could inform intervention development for subsequent seasons. Among 991 participants recruited using street intercept techniques, 63% received seasonal vaccine only, 11% seasonal and H1N1, and 26% neither; 89% reported seeing a health care provider (HCP) during the influenza season. Correlates of immunization among those with provider visits during the influenza season included being US-born, interest in getting the vaccine, concern about self or family getting influenza, an HCP's recommendation and comfort with government. Among those without an HCP visit, factors associated with immunization included being US born, married, interest in getting the vaccine, understanding influenza information, and concern about getting influenza. Factors associated with lack of interest in influenza vaccine included being born outside the US, Black and uncomfortable with government. In medically underserved areas, having access to routine medical care and understanding the medical implications of influenza play an important role in enhancing uptake of seasonal influenza vaccination. Strategies to improve vaccination rates among Blacks and foreign-born residents need to be addressed. The use of non-traditional venues to provide influenza vaccinations in underserved communities has the potential to reduce health disparities.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community

BACKGROUND

Although the evidence to support influenza vaccination is poor, it is promoted by many health authorities. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in those 60 years or older.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in those 60 or older.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 3), containing the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (January 1950 to July 2010), PubMed (January 1950 to July 2010), EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 28), AgeLine (1978 to July 2010), ERIC (1965 to July 2010) and CINAHL (1982 to July 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to increase influenza vaccination rates in those aged 60 years and older, recording influenza vaccination status either through clinic records, billing data or local/national vaccination registers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four RCTs were included. All included RCTs studied seniors in the community and in high-income countries. No RCTs of society-level interventions were included. Heterogeneity was marked and meta-analysis was limited. Only five RCTs were graded at low and six at moderate risk of bias. They included three of 13 personalized postcard interventions (all three with the 95% confidence interval (CI) above unity), two of the four home visit interventions (both with 95% CI above unity, but one a small study), three of the four reminder to physicians interventions (none with 95% CI above unity) and three of the four facilitator interventions (one with 95% CI above unity, and one P < 0.01). The other 33 RCTs were at high risk of bias and no recommendations for practice can be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Personalized postcards or phone calls are effective, and home visits, and facilitators, may be effective. Reminders to physicians are not. There is insufficient good evidence for other interventions.

Partnering with nursing service improves health care worker influenza vaccination rates

BACKGROUND

Increasing the influenza vaccination rate in health care workers (HCWs) promotes patient safety as well as employee health. The average HCW influenza vaccination rate is approximately 35%. Various studies have analyzed the reasons for the low vaccination rate in HCWs and developed strategies aimed at increasing this rate.

METHODS

At the study hospital, the Nursing Department was contacted to recruit influenza (flu) coordinators from the various hospital departments to coordinate administration of influenza vaccinations in their respective departments, with the aim of increasing HCW vaccination rates. The flu coordinators received education about the influenza vaccine along with lists of employees, vaccination supplies, and consent/declination forms. Each flu coordinator was responsible for contacting the employees in his or her department/unit. Both consent and declination responses were documented.

RESULTS

Of the hospital's 3238 employees (including physicians), a total of 2534 were contacted (78%). Of these, 2008 consented to receive the influenza vaccine and 526 declined. This represented a 37% increase in the total number of HCWs contacted and a 20% increase in vaccine recipients over the previous influenza season.

CONCLUSIONS

Partnering with the Nursing Department increased the accessibility to and acceptance of influenza vaccination among HCWs. The HCWs reported positive experiences about receiving the vaccine in the work environment.

Perceptions related to bird-to-human avian influenza, influenza vaccination, and use of face mask

Background:

H5N1 avian influenza may become pandemic in humans in the near future. According to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) experience, anticipation of the pandemic may have impact on behaviors related to influenza vaccination (IV) and relevant public health behaviors such as wearing a face mask when having influenza-like-illnesses (ILI), which would play an important role in the control of human avian influenza outbreaks. This paper investigated the prevalence and factors related to IV uptake and use of face mask in public venues when having ILI symptoms.

Methods:

An anonymous cross-sectional population-based random telephone survey of 302 Hong Kong Chinese adults aged 18–60, using a structured questionnaire, was conducted in November 2005.

Results:

In the last 3 months, 17.9% of the respondents received IV; 36.6% of those presenting ILI symptoms often used face mask in public venues. Anticipation of a bird-to-human H5N1 outbreak, perceptions that such an outbreak would be worse than SARS, that IV was efficacious in preventing bird-to-human avian influenza transmission were associated with the studied IV behavior (OR=2.64–3.97, p < 0.05). Exposure to live birds, perceived similar symptoms between influenza and bird-to-human H5N1 avian influenza, that bird-to-human avian influenza was more lethal than SARS were predictive use of face mask when having ILI symptoms (OR = 4.25–8.34, p < 0.05).

Conclusion:

The prevalence of IV and use of face mask in the study population may be increasing, which may be related to concerns of avian influenza. Perceptions related to human avian influenza were associated with IV and mask use behaviors. This can potentially be turned into opportunities of promoting desirable public health behaviors.

Mass vaccination for annual and pandemic influenza

Influenza virus causes annual epidemics and occasional pandemics. Frequent mutations in circulating influenza strains ("antigenic drift") result in the need for annual vaccination. More than two-thirds of persons in the U.S. are recommended for annual vaccination. Because influenza vaccine is available seasonally, mass vaccination strategies are well suited to its delivery. Although doctors offices are the most frequent setting for influenza vaccination overall, workplaces, clinics, and community sites (retail stores and pharmacies) also are common vaccination settings. Influenza vaccination also is delivered in mass vaccination clinics to health care workers and military personnel. Universal influenza vaccination, which has been recommended as a strategy to improve prevention by increasing vaccination coverage and providing indirect protection of adults by decreasing infection and transmission among children, would require expanded use of mass vaccination, for example in schools, as well as in the community. Influenza pandemics occur when a new influenza A subtype is introduced into the population ("antigenic shift"). Most or all of the population is susceptible to the pandemic virus and two doses of vaccine may be needed for protection. U.S. pandemic preparedness and response plans indicate that the entire population should be vaccinated beginning with defined priority groups including those who provide essential services including healthcare and those at highest risk of severe illness and death. Pandemic influenza vaccination will occur primarily through the public sector in mass clinic settings. Vaccination program planning must consider issues including coordination, staffing, clinic location and lay-out, security, record keeping, and communications. Exercising vaccination clinics is important for preparedness and can be done in the context of annual influenza vaccination.