Raising Adult Vaccination Rates over 4 Years Among Racially Diverse Patients at Inner-City Health Centers

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Adult Vaccination: A Review of the State of Evidence

Background

Adult vaccination coverage remains low in the United States, particularly among racial and ethnic minority populations.

Objective

To conduct a comprehensive literature review of research studies assessing racial and ethnic disparities in adult vaccination.

Search Methods

We conducted a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant articles.

Selection Criteria

Research studies were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) study based in the United States, (2) evaluated receipt of routine immunizations in adult populations, (3) used within-study comparison of race/ethnic groups, and (4) eligible for at least one author-defined PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome) question.

Data Collection and Analysis

Preliminary abstract review was conducted by two authors. Following complete abstraction of articles using a standardized template, abstraction notes and determinations were reviewed by all authors; disagreements regarding article inclusion/exclusion were resolved by majority rule. The Social Ecological Model framework was used to complete a narrative review of observational studies to summarize factors associated with disparities; a systematic review was used to evaluate eligible intervention studies.

Results

Ninety-five studies were included in the final analysis and summarized qualitatively within two main topic areas: (1) factors associated with documented racial-ethnic disparities in adult vaccination and (2) interventions aimed to reduce disparities or to improve vaccination coverage among racial-ethnic minority groups. Of the 12 included intervention studies, only 3 studies provided direct evidence and were of Level II, fair quality; the remaining 9 studies met the criteria for indirect evidence (Level I or II, fair or poor quality).

Conclusions

A considerable amount of observational research evaluating factors associated with racial and ethnic disparities in adult vaccination is available. However, intervention studies aimed at reducing these disparities are limited, are of poor quality, and insufficiently address known reasons for low vaccination uptake among racial and ethnic minority adults.

County Social Vulnerability and Influenza Vaccine Rates: National and Local Estimates for Medicare Recipients

INTRODUCTION

Seasonal influenza vaccination among older adults is well below the recommendation of Healthy People 2020. Although geographic disparities in influenza vaccination are well documented, it remains unclear how community attributes correlate with influenza vaccination rates. Social vulnerability measures play an important role in interventions addressing vaccine equity; however, social vulnerability dimensions as corollaries of vaccination are poorly understood. To inform vaccine equity interventions, this analysis investigates spatially varying associations between county social vulnerability and influenza vaccination rate among Medicare recipients.

METHODS

County-level 2018 data (N=3,105) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index were merged with the percentage of Medicare recipients vaccinated against influenza. Multilevel linear regression and geographically weighted regression generated global and local estimates, adjusted for potential confounders. Analyses were conducted in November 2020-April 2021.

RESULTS

A 10-percentile point increase in the overall Social Vulnerability Index was associated with an 0.87-point decrease in percentage vaccinated (p<0.001) with substantial variation by Social Vulnerability Index theme and geography. A 10-percentile point increase in socioeconomic vulnerability was associated with a 1.6-point decrease in vaccination (p<0.001) with stronger associations in higher Social Vulnerability Index quartiles and in parts of the Midwest, South, and coastal Northeast. Other Social Vulnerability Index themes had smaller associations with mixed directions: household composition and disability estimates were negative, whereas estimates for minority status and language and housing and transportation were positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare recipients in socioeconomically vulnerable counties have low influenza vaccination rates, particularly in select regions of the country. Best practices to improve vaccine access and uptake should be targeted and should explicitly consider local socioeconomic vulnerability.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pneumococcal Vaccination and Uptake Improvement Programs in Underserved and General Population Adults Aged < 65 Years

In US adults aged < 65 years, pneumococcal vaccination is recommended when high-risk conditions are present, but vaccine uptake is low. Additionally, there are race-based differences in illness risk and vaccination rates. The cost-effectiveness of programs to improve vaccine uptake or of alternative vaccination policies to increase protection is unclear. A decision analysis compared, in US black and general population cohorts aged 50 years, the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination recommendations, without and with a vaccine uptake improvement program, and alternative population vaccine policies. Program-based uptake improvement (base case: 12.3% absolute increase, costing $1.78/eligible patient) was based on clinical trial data. US data informed population-specific pneumococcal risk. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated using Delphi panel and trial data. In both black and general population cohorts, an uptake improvement program for current vaccination recommendations was favored, costing $48,621 per QALY gained in black populations ($54,929/QALY in the general population) compared to current recommendations without a program. Alternative vaccination policies largely prevented less illness and were economically unfavorable. In sensitivity analyses, uptake programs were favored, at a $100,000/QALY threshold, unless they improved absolute vaccine uptake < 2.1% in blacks or < 2.6% in the general population. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Programs to increase adult pneumococcal vaccination uptake are economically reasonable compared to changes in vaccination recommendations, and more favorable in underserved minorities than in the general population. If addressing race-based health disparities is a priority, evidence-based programs to increase vaccination should be considered.

Culturally competent healthcare - A scoping review of strategies implemented in healthcare organizations and a model of culturally competent healthcare provision

BACKGROUND

Culturally and linguistically diverse patients access healthcare services less than the host populations and are confronted with different barriers such as language barriers, legal restrictions or differences in health beliefs. In order to reduce these disparities, the promotion of cultural competence in healthcare organizations has been a political goal. This scoping review aims to collect components and strategies from evaluated interventions that provide culturally competent healthcare for culturally and linguistically diverse patients within healthcare organizations and to examine their effects on selected outcome measures. Thereafter, we aim to organize identified components into a model of culturally competent healthcare provisions.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A systematic literature search was carried out using three databases (Pubmed, PsycINFO and Web of Science) to identify studies which have implemented and evaluated cultural competence interventions in healthcare facilities. PICO criteria were adapted to formulate the research question and to systematically choose relevant search terms. Sixty-seven studies implementing culturally competent healthcare interventions were included in the final synthesis. Identified strategies and components of culturally competent healthcare extracted from these studies were clustered into twenty categories, which were organized in four groups: Components of culturally competent healthcare-Individual level; Components of culturally competent healthcare-Organizational level; Strategies to implement culturally competent healthcare and Strategies to provide access to culturally competent healthcare. A model integrating the results is proposed. The overall effects on patient outcomes and utilization rates of identified components or strategies were positive but often small or not significant. Qualitative data suggest that components and strategies of culturally competent healthcare were appreciated by patients and providers.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review used a bottom-up approach to identify components and strategies of culturally competent healthcare interventions and synthesized the results in a model of culturally competent healthcare provision. Reported effects of single components or strategies are limited because most studies implemented a combination of different components and strategies simultaneously.

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.

Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates

BACKGROUND

Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population-based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient-oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various types of patient reminder and recall interventions to improve receipt of immunizations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2017. We also searched grey literature and trial registers to January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating immunization-focused patient reminder or recall interventions in children, adolescents, and adults who receive immunizations in any setting. We included no-intervention control groups, standard practice activities that did not include immunization patient reminder or recall, media-based activities aimed at promoting immunizations, or simple practice-based awareness campaigns. We included receipt of any immunizations as eligible outcome measures, excluding special travel immunizations. We excluded patients who were hospitalized for the duration of the study period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We present results for individual studies as relative rates using risk ratios, and risk differences for randomized trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before-after studies. We present pooled results for randomized trials using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The 75 included studies involved child, adolescent, and adult participants in outpatient, community-based, primary care, and other settings in 10 countries.Patient reminder or recall interventions, including telephone and autodialer calls, letters, postcards, text messages, combination of mail or telephone, or a combination of patient reminder or recall with outreach, probably improve the proportion of participants who receive immunization (risk ratio (RR) of 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.35; risk difference of 8%) based on moderate certainty evidence from 55 studies with 138,625 participants.Three types of single-method reminders improve receipt of immunizations based on high certainty evidence: the use of postcards (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30; eight studies; 27,734 participants), text messages (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; six studies; 7772 participants), and autodialer (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; five studies; 11,947 participants). Two types of single-method reminders probably improve receipt of immunizations based on moderate certainty evidence: the use of telephone calls (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.54; seven studies; 9120 participants) and letters to patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; 27 studies; 81,100 participants).Based on high certainty evidence, reminders improve receipt of immunizations for childhood (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.29; risk difference of 8%; 23 studies; 31,099 participants) and adolescent vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42; risk difference of 7%; 10 studies; 30,868 participants). Reminders probably improve receipt of vaccinations for childhood influenza (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.99; risk difference of 22%; five studies; 9265 participants) and adult influenza (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.43; risk difference of 9%; 15 studies; 59,328 participants) based on moderate certainty evidence. They may improve receipt of vaccinations for adult pneumococcus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other non-influenza vaccinations based on low certainty evidence although the confidence interval includes no effect of these interventions (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.78; four studies; 8065 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient reminder and recall systems, in primary care settings, are likely to be effective at improving the proportion of the target population who receive immunizations.

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.

The social ecological model as a framework for determinants of 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine uptake in the United States

Research on influenza vaccine uptake has focused largely on intrapersonal determinants (perceived risk, past vaccine acceptance, perceived vaccine safety) and on physician recommendation. The authors used a social ecological framework to examine influenza vaccine uptake during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Surveying an adult population (n = 2,079) in January 2010 with significant oversamples of Blacks and Hispanics, this study found that 18.4% (95% confidence interval = 15.6-21.5) had gotten the 2009 H1N1 vaccine. Variables at each level of the social ecological model were significant predictors of uptake as well as of intent to get the vaccine. The intrapersonal level explained 53%, the interpersonal explained 47%, the institutional level explained 34%, and the policy and community levels each explained 8% of the variance associated with vaccine uptake. The levels together explained 65% of the variance, suggesting that interventions targeting multiple levels of the framework would be more effective than interventions aimed at a single level.

Who participates in seasonal influenza vaccination? Past behavior moderates the prediction of adherence

Background. Vaccination effectively prevents seasonal influenza. To promote vaccination adherence, it is necessary to understand the motivational process that underlies vaccination behavior. This was examined along with the moderating influence of past behavior on intention formation. Methods. German employees (N = 594) completed questionnaires at baseline and at 7-month followup. Regression analyses were conducted for mediation and moderated mediation. Results. Intention at Time 1 mediated the effect of risk perception, and positive and negative outcome expectancies on Time 2 vaccination. Past behavior moderated this effect: there was a mediation effect for risk perception and outcome expectancies only for those individuals who did not participate annually. Conclusions. Risk perception and outcome expectancies influenced intentions to receive vaccination, which in turn predicted participation. Hence, these social-cognitive variables could be targeted in vaccination campaigns to increase intentions. However, vaccination experience affected the formation of intentions and should be accounted for when developing interventions.

Examining structural and clinical factors associated with implementation of standing orders for adult immunization

A proven method to increase vaccination rates in primary care is a standing orders program (SOP) for nonphysician staff to assess and vaccinate eligible individuals without a specific written physician order. This study describes a mixed methods approach to examining physicians' beliefs and attitudes about and adoption of SOPs for adult immunizations, specifically, influenza and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. Focus groups and in-depth interviews of physicians, nurses, practice managers, and the medical director of a managed care health plan were conducted. Results were used to enrich a concise survey based on the Awareness-to-Adherence model of physician behavior and previous research, which was mailed to 1,640 general internists and family physicians nationwide. Barriers to SOPs identified through qualitative methods were lack of interest in changing the status quo, a physician-dominated hierarchy, and fear of malpractice. Facilitators included having an electronic medical record and a practice culture that was open to change. The survey (response rate 67%) confirmed the facilitators and further identified patient, physician, and practice factors that served as barriers to establishing and maintaining SOPs. This mixed methods approach provided the opportunity to develop a tailored and practice-oriented survey for examining the contextual factors influencing clinical providers' decisions to implement SOPs for adult immunization.

Use of standing orders for adult influenza vaccination a national survey of primary care physicians

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination of adults remains below recommended levels. Standing orders programs (SOPs) that allow nonphysician medical staff to assess eligibility and administer vaccines without an individualized physician's order are a proven method to increase vaccination rates. However, recent data on their use are not available.

PURPOSE

Investigators surveyed primary care physicians nationwide in 2009 to assess factors related to awareness and use of SOPs.

METHODS

Using the AMA Master List, a stratified random sample of U.S. family physicians (n=820) and general internists (n=820) was selected to receive a mailed questionnaire. The inclusion criterion was providing primary care to adults in an office-based practice. The primary outcome measure, analyzed in 2010, was consistent use of SOPs.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 67% (1015/1517). Forty-two percent of respondents who immunized adults in their practices reported consistent use of SOPs. Those physicians differed in several dimensions, including awareness of recommendations and regulations regarding SOPs for vaccines, size and type of practice, number and level of training of clinical staff, attributes of the staff. The two variables in logistic regression models that were associated with the highest likelihood of using SOPs were awareness of recommendations to use them (OR=3.0; 95% CI=2.2, 4.1) and agreement with their effectiveness (OR=2.7, 95% CI=1.9, 3.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than half of physicians report using SOPs for influenza vaccination, a number that is not much higher than it was about a decade ago. Approaches to increase use of SOPs are needed.

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.

Using quantitative and qualitative approaches to understand racial disparities in adult vaccination

BACKGROUND

One proposed explanation for the persistence of racial disparities in adult immunizations is that minority patients receive primary care at practices that differ substantively from practices where white patients receive care. This study used both quantitative and qualitative methods to assess physician and practice factors contributing to disparities in a sample of inner-city, urban, and suburban practices in low to moderate income neighborhoods.

METHODS

Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and influenza vaccination rates were determined from medical record review in a sample of 2021 elderly (aged > or = 65 years) patients. Their physicians were surveyed about office systems for adult immunizations and structured observations of practice physical features, and operations were conducted. Case studies of practices with lowest and highest rates and the largest racial disparities are presented.

RESULTS

Overall, weighted PPV vaccination rate was 60%, but rates differed significantly by race (65.8% for whites vs 36.5% for minorities, P < .001 by stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test). Two of 6 minority panels had PPV rates less than 20%. Overall, weighted influenza vaccination rate, as measured by receipt of the vaccine in 3 of the 5 most recent seasons, was 51.9%, but rates also differed significantly by race (55.6% for whites vs 36.2% for minorities, P < .03, by stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test).

CONCLUSIONS

Low rates in 2 minority panels, racial disparity between minorities and whites in mixed panels, and between-panel variation in rates contributed to the overall differences in vaccination rates by race.

Understanding adult vaccination in urban, lower-socioeconomic settings: influence of physician and prevention systems

PURPOSE

Vaccination rates for pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and influenza vaccine are relatively low in disadvantaged urban populations. This study was designed to assess which physician and practice characteristics might explain differences in rates across physicians.

METHODS

PPV and influenza vaccination rates were determined for 2,021 patients aged 65 years and older receiving care from 30 physicians in 17 practices surveyed about their office systems for providing adult immunizations. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses were used to examine the relationships among vaccination rates, patient-level characteristics, and physician variables.

RESULTS

Overall, the weighted PPV vaccination rate was 60.0% and varied widely across physicians (range, 11%-98%). At the patient level in HLM, patient race (P=.01) and age (P = .02), but not neighborhood income, were associated with PPV status. By linking physician survey data with PPV rates, we found the best pair of physician variables to be "reported time spent with patients for a well visit" (P = .01) and "use of enhanced immunization documentation" (P=.10). The overall influenza vaccination rate was 51.9% (range, 22%-96%). Patient race (P=.003) and age (P = .002) were associated with influenza vaccination. The pair of physician variables with the strongest association with influenza vaccination was "use of standing orders" (P <.001) and "average observed physician examination room time," regardless of visit type (P=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination rates vary widely in urban settings and are associated with practice characteristics such as time spent with patients and, for influenza vaccine, use of standing orders.