Adoption of reminder and recall messages for immunizations by pediatricians and public health clinics

Who are vaccine champions and what implementation strategies do they use to improve adolescent HPV vaccination? Findings from a national survey of primary care professionals

BACKGROUND

Implementation science researchers often cite clinical champions as critical to overcoming organizational resistance and other barriers to the implementation of evidence-based health services, yet relatively little is known about who champions are or how they effect change. To inform future efforts to identify and engage champions to support HPV vaccination, we sought to describe the key characteristics and strategies of vaccine champions working in adolescent primary care.

METHODS

In 2022, we conducted a national survey with a web-based panel of 2527 primary care professionals (PCPs) with a role in adolescent HPV vaccination (57% response rate). Our sample consisted of pediatricians (26%), family medicine physicians (22%), advanced practice providers (24%), and nursing staff (28%). Our survey assessed PCPs' experience with vaccine champions, defined as health care professionals "known for helping their colleagues improve vaccination rates."

RESULTS

Overall, 85% of PCPs reported currently working with one or more vaccine champions. Among these 2144 PCPs, most identified the champion with whom they worked most closely as being a physician (40%) or nurse (40%). Almost all identified champions worked to improve vaccination rates for vaccines in general (45%) or HPV vaccine specifically (49%). PCPs commonly reported that champion implementation strategies included sharing information (79%), encouragement (62%), and vaccination data (59%) with colleagues, but less than half reported that champions led quality improvement projects (39%). Most PCPs perceived their closest champion as being moderately to extremely effective at improving vaccination rates (91%). PCPs who did versus did not work with champions more often recommended HPV vaccination at the earliest opportunity of ages 9-10 rather than later ages (44% vs. 33%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings of our national study suggest that vaccine champions are common in adolescent primary care, but only a minority lead quality improvement projects. Interventionists seeking to identify champions to improve HPV vaccination rates can expect to find them among both physicians and nurses, but should be prepared to offer support to more fully engage them in implementing interventions.

Nurses' perceptions, experiences, and practices regarding human papillomavirus vaccination: results from a cross-sectional survey in Montana

BACKGROUND

Nationally, much of the focus on improving human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake has been on effective strategies that physicians use to promote vaccination. However, in large, predominately rural states like Montana, nurses and medical assistants play critical roles in immunization services delivery, and their viewpoints are imperative in designing strategies to increase vaccination rates. We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive study to determine nurses' perceptions, experiences, and practices regarding human papillomavirus vaccination in a rural and medically underserved region of the United States.

METHODS

We designed, pilot-tested, and disseminated an online survey instrument to nurses and medical assistants working in clinics participating in the Vaccines for Children program in Montana. The online surveys were administered from November 2020 to March 2021. Survey questions focused on clinic vaccination practices, respondents' perceptions of the HPV vaccine, perceived barriers to vaccine uptake, and general opinions on potential strategies to improve HPV vaccination rates.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 227 respondents. Overall, 90% of nurses strongly agreed or agreed that the HPV vaccine is important and had confidence in the vaccine's safety. More nurses reported experiencing greater parental vaccine refusal or delay for male patients regardless of age. About 53.7% of nurses reported that their clinics had reminder/recall systems to encourage parents to bring their children for vaccination. Nurses identified misinformation from social media, infrequent wellness visits, and vaccine safety concerns as barriers to HPV vaccine uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings identified several promising initiatives to accelerate vaccination in primarily rural states like Montana, including promoting widespread adoption of reminder/recall systems, training nurses in evidence-based techniques to provide strong vaccine recommendations, and leveraging social media to disseminate consistent messages about the HPV vaccine recommendations for both sexes and its role in cancer prevention.

The effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations in health care: a systematic review

Background

Champions have been documented in the literature as an important strategy for implementation, yet their effectiveness has not been well synthesized in the health care literature. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether champions, tested in isolation from other implementation strategies, are effective at improving innovation use or outcomes in health care.

Methods

The JBI systematic review method guided this study. A peer-reviewed search strategy was applied to eight electronic databases to identify relevant articles. We included all published articles and unpublished theses and dissertations that used a quantitative study design to evaluate the effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations within health care settings. Two researchers independently completed study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal. We used content analysis and vote counting to synthesize our data.

Results

After screening 7566 records titles and abstracts and 2090 full text articles, we included 35 studies in our review. Most of the studies (71.4%) operationalized the champion strategy by the presence or absence of a champion. In a subset of seven studies, five studies found associations between exposure to champions and increased use of best practices, programs, or technological innovations at an organizational level. In other subsets, the evidence pertaining to use of champions and innovation use by patients or providers, or at improving outcomes was either mixed or scarce.

Conclusions

We identified a small body of literature reporting an association between use of champions and increased instrumental use of innovations by organizations. However, more research is needed to determine causal relationship between champions and innovation use and outcomes. Even though there are no reported adverse effects in using champions, opportunity costs may be associated with their use. Until more evidence becomes available about the effectiveness of champions at increasing innovation use and outcomes, the decision to deploy champions should consider the needs and resources of the organization and include an evaluation plan. To further our understanding of champions’ effectiveness, future studies should (1) use experimental study designs in conjunction with process evaluations, (2) describe champions and their activities and (3) rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of champions’ activities.

Registration

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ba3d2). Registered on November 15, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00315-0.

Barriers to and facilitators of early childhood immunization in rural areas of the United States: a systematic review of the literature

•

Early childhood vaccination coverage is low in rural areas of the United States.

•

Reminder-recall & positive family-provider relationships facilitate vaccine uptake.

•

Parental hesitancy is a barrier to early childhood vaccination in the rural U.S.

•

Vaccine referrals & distance to providers are also rural-specific barriers.

•

To increase vaccine coverage, interventions across rural populations are needed.

Early childhood vaccination rates are lower in rural areas of the U.S. compared with suburban and urban areas. Our aim was to identify barriers to and facilitators of early childhood immunization in rural U.S. communities. We completed a systematic review of original research conducted in the U.S. between January 1, 2000-July 25, 2021. We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. We included studies that examined barriers to and facilitators of routine immunizations in children <36 months old in rural areas. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, we reported studies’ methodologies and targeted populations, definitions of rurality, and common themes across studies that reflected barriers to or facilitators of vaccination. Ultimately, 17 papers met inclusion criteria for review. The majority of studies (10/17) were conducted within one U.S. state, and the same number (10/17) were conducted prior to 2005. Facilitators of vaccine uptake in rural communities identified across studies included reminder/recall systems and parents’ relationships with providers. Parental hesitancy, negative clinic experiences, referrals outside of primary care settings, and distance to providers were identified as barriers to vaccination in rural settings. This review revealed a limited scope of evidence on barriers to and facilitators of early childhood immunization in rural communities. More investigations of the causes of low vaccine coverage and the effectiveness of interventions for increasing vaccine uptake are urgently needed in rural pediatric populations to address persistent rural–urban immunization disparities.

Centralized Reminder/Recall for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Findings From Two States-A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) using Immunization Information Systems has been effective in increasing childhood immunization rates. Previously, C-R/R using autodialer for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine did not raise rates. We assessed C-R/R for HPV vaccine using other modalities and focused on younger adolescents.

METHODS

We conducted a three-arm pragmatic RCT in randomly sampled primary care practices in Colorado (n = 88) and New York (n = 136), proportionate to where adolescents received care. We randomized, within practices, adolescents aged 11-14 years who had not completed the HPV vaccination series to receive C-R/R using different modalities (Colorado: autodialer, mail, or control; New York: autodialer, text, or control). Up to two reminders were sent in intervention arms for each dose needed between 2/2017 and 12/2018.

RESULTS

In Colorado, no significant differences were found for series initiation (31.3% control, 31.1% autodial, 31.8% mail), with slight improvement for series completion in the autodialer arm (29.7% control, 31.1% autodialer, p = .04) but not the mail arm (30.9%, p = .06). No significant differences were found in New York for series initiation (24.1% for all arms) or completion (17.1% control, 16.9% autodial, 17.9% text). Adjusted analyses showed higher completion rates for the autodialer arm in Colorado but not for other arms. In Colorado, C-R/R reduced time to series completion by around 2 months. Cost per adolescent was $1.81 for mail; under $.40 for all other modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

C-R/R has less benefit for raising HPV vaccination rates than other studies have noted for childhood immunizations, although it may quicken series completion at little cost.

The Contribution of Reminder-Recall to Vaccine Delivery Efforts: A Narrative Review

Reminders, alerting patients to the need for vaccines that will be due in the future, and recall messages, informing patients about vaccines that are overdue, have been shown to improve immunization rates for children and adolescents in numerous systematic reviews. Therefore, reminder and recall interventions (R/R) are recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services for increasing immunization rates on the basis of strong evidence. R/R messages can be delivered by mail (letter or postcard), via personal or auto-dialer phone calls, by text or e-mail or via patient-portals and can simply be alerts to action or can include educational material with the aim of motivating patients to seek vaccination. R/R has also been shown to be a relatively low-cost intervention with high cost-effectiveness compared with other recommended strategies. However, although R/R as a strategy is consistently effective and cost-effective overall, there is wide variation in the impact of R/R by 1) modality of how it is delivered, 2) the targeted vaccine, 3) the age group, and 4) whether the R/R is conducted centrally by a health system or Immunization Information System or by individual practices. This narrative review summarizes the literature about effectiveness of R/R within each of these categories. We also discuss limitations of R/R, with a focus on the potential impact of parental vaccine hesitancy in blunting its effectiveness and problems with data integrity, on which R/R relies. We also discuss challenges to sustaining R/R efforts, including potential methods of funding for R/R efforts.

A conceptual model to guide research on the activities and effects of innovation champions

Background

The importance of having a champion to promote implementation efforts has been discussed in the literature for more than five decades. However, the empirical literature on champions remains underdeveloped. As a result, health organizations commonly use champions in their implementation efforts without the benefit of evidence to guide decisions about how to identify, prepare, and evaluate their champions. The goal of this article is to present a model of champion impact that draws upon previous literature and is intended to inform future research on champions and serve as a guide for practitioners serving in a champion role.

Methods

The proposed model is informed by existing literature, both conceptual and empirical. Prior studies and reviews of the literature have faced challenges in terms of operationalizing and reporting on champion characteristics, activities, and impacts. The proposed model addresses this challenge by delineating these constructs, which allows for consolidation of factors previously discussed about champions as well as new hypothesized relationships between constructs.

Results

The model proposes that a combination of champion commitment and champion experience and self-efficacy influence champion performance, which influences peer engagement with the champion, which ultimately influences the champion's impact. Two additional constructs have indirect effects on champion impact. Champion beliefs about the innovation and organizational support for the champion affect champion commitment.

Conclusion

The proposed model is intended to support prospective studies of champions by hypothesizing relationships between constructs identified in the champion literature, specifically relationships between modifiable factors that influence a champion's potential impact. Over time, the model should be modified, as appropriate, based on new findings from champion-related research.

Strengthening Vaccine Confidence and Acceptance in the Pediatric Provider Office

Although vaccine acceptance and uptake are overall high among children in the United States, vaccine delays or refusals are a growing concern. Vaccine hesitancy is a challenge for the pediatric provider, given the diverse factors associated with hesitancy and the limited evidence on effective strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy in the provider office. In this article, we review available evidence and approaches for vaccine communication, including the importance of using a whole-team approach, building trust, starting the conversation early, using a presumptive approach for vaccine recommendations, motivational interviewing with parents who have concerns for vaccines, and additional techniques for responding to parent questions. We also review organizational strategies to help create a culture of immunization in the practice, including evidence-based approaches for increasing vaccine uptake and efficiency. Although these communication approaches and organizational strategies are intended to reassure parents who are vaccine hesitant that all routine, universally recommended vaccines are safe and effective, they likely will take on increased significance as the development, implementation, and evaluation of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines continue to unfold. [Pediatr Ann. 2020;49(12):e523-e531.].

Evaluating the effect of maternal mHealth text messages on uptake of maternal and child health care services in South Africa: a multicentre cohort intervention study

Background

There are high expectations that mobile health (mHealth) strategies will increase uptake of health care services, especially in resource strained settings. Our study aimed to evaluate effects of an mHealth intervention on uptake of maternal health services.

Methods

This was an intervention cohort study conducted at six public antenatal and postnatal care clinics in inner-city Johannesburg, South Africa. The intervention consisted of twice-weekly informative and pregnancy stage-based maternal health information text messages sent to women during pregnancy until their child was one year of age. The intervention arm of 87 mother-infant pairs was compared to a control arm of 90 pairs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare the probability of the outcome between the two groups.

Results

Intervention participants had higher odds of attending all government-recommended antenatal and postnatal visits, all recommended first year vaccinations (OR: 3.2, 95% CI 1.63–6.31) and had higher odds of attending at least the recommended four antenatal visits (OR: 3.21, 95% CI 1.73–5.98).

Conclusion

We show an improvement in achieving complete maternal-infant continuum of care, providing evidence of a positive impact of informative maternal mHealth messages sent to pregnant women and new mothers.

Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN41772986. Registered 13 February 2019—Retrospectively registered, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN41772986

Identifying Strategies to Reduce Missed Opportunities for HPV Vaccination in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study of Positive Deviants

The objectives of this study were to assess the contextual factors, practice strategies, and sustainability of interventions implemented during a national quality improvement (QI) project to raise human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates. We conducted semistructured interviews with positive deviant practices that successfully reduced missed opportunities by ≥20% for HPV vaccination in the prior year. We assessed leadership support, motivators, interventions used, and sustainability. Key themes related to QI teams included strong leadership support, multidisciplinary teams, having a practice champion, and a collaborative environment. Themes related to the interventions included using a presumptive bundled recommendation for all appropriate vaccines at age 11, previsit planning, and reminders for preventive visits, which were sustainable for most practices 1-year postintervention. Both internal practice-level factors (multidisciplinary teams, collaboration, and previsit planning) and organizational factors (institutional support and health system-level reminders for preventive visits) were key to a successful QI intervention to improve HPV vaccination.

Physicians' Use of Evidence-Based Strategies to Increase Adult Vaccination Uptake

INTRODUCTION

This study assesses the following among primary care physicians: (1) the use of evidence-based strategies to improve adult vaccination rates, (2) the number of strategies employed simultaneously, and (3) characteristics associated with assessing adult vaccinations at each visit.

METHODS

An internet and mail survey was administered between December 2015 and January 2016 on primary care physicians designed to be representative of the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians memberships. Data analysis was conducted in 2019.

RESULTS

The response rate was 66% (617 of 935); 94% reported using electronic health records. Standing orders (84%) and electronic provider reminders at a visit (61%) were the most common strategies reported for influenza vaccine. Electronic provider reminders at a visit (53%) and recording a vaccination in an immunization registry (32%) were the most common strategies reported for all noninfluenza vaccines. Most physicians reported using 2 or more strategies, although this was more common for influenza (74%) than for noninfluenza (62%) vaccines. In multivariable analysis, physicians who reported assessing adult vaccinations at every patient visit were more likely to work in practices where decisions about purchasing and handling vaccines were made at a larger system level (RR=1.20, 95% CI=1.04,1.40), and they reported using electronic provider reminders (RR=1.38, 95% CI=1.15, 1.69) and standing orders (RR=1.45, 95% CI=1.21, 1.75) for all noninfluenza adult vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

Several strategies are being used to increase adult vaccination, particularly for the influenza vaccine. Investment in implementing standing orders and electronic clinical decision support for all routine adult vaccinations could help facilitate assessment of adult vaccinations at each visit and potentially improve adult vaccination rates.

Effect of Patient Portal Reminders Sent by a Health Care System on Influenza Vaccination Rates: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Influenza vaccination rates across the US are low. Because few practices send patient reminders for influenza vaccination, a scalable patient reminder system is needed.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of patient reminders sent via a health care system's electronic health record patient portal on influenza vaccination rates.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic, 4-arm randomized clinical trial was performed from October 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, across the UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) health care system. A total of 164 205 patients in 52 primary care practices who had used the patient portal within 12 months were included.

Interventions

Patients due for an influenza vaccine were sent a letter via the patient portal of the health care system reminding them about the importance of influenza vaccination, safety of the vaccine, and morbidity associated with influenza. Patients were randomized within primary care practices to 1 of 4 study groups (no reminder [n = 41 070] vs 1 reminder [n = 41 055], 2 reminders [n = 41 046], or 3 reminders [n = 41 034]).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was receipt of 1 or more influenza vaccines as documented in the electronic health record, which was supplemented with influenza vaccination data from external sources (eg, pharmacies). Secondary outcomes were influenza vaccination rates among subgroups and influenza vaccinations self-reported by patients in reply to the portal-based query as having been received elsewhere.

Results

A total of 164 205 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.2 [19.6] years; 95 779 [58.3%] female) were randomly allocated to 1 of the 4 study arms. In the primary analysis across all ages and not including patient self-reported vaccinations in reply to portal reminders, influenza vaccination rates were 37.5% for those receiving no reminders, 38.0% for those receiving 1 reminder (P = .008 vs no reminder), 38.2% for those receiving 2 reminders (P = .03 vs no reminder), and 38.2% for those receiving 3 reminders (P = .02 vs no reminder). In the secondary analysis not including patient self-reported vaccinations, among adults aged 18 to 64 years (vaccination rates: 32.0% in the control group, 32.8% in the 1-reminder group, 32.8% in the 2-reminder group, and 32.8% in the 3-reminder group; P = .001), male patients (vaccination rates: 37.3% vs 38.3%, 38.6%, and 38.8%; P = .001), non-Hispanic patients (vaccination rates: 37.6% vs 38.2%, 38.3%, and 38.2%; P = .004), and those who were not vaccinated in the prior 2 years (vaccination rates: 15.3% vs 15.9%, 16.3%, and 16.1%; P < .001), vaccination rates were higher in the portal reminder groups than in the control group; the findings in these 3 subgroups mirrored the findings in the entire population. When self-reported vaccinations received elsewhere were included, influenza vaccination rates were 1.4 to 2.9 percentage points higher in the portal reminder groups, with a dose-response effect (0 reminders: 15 537 [37.8%]; 1 reminder: 16 097 [39.2%]; 2 reminders: 16 426 [40.0%]; and 3 reminders: 16 714 [40.7%]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Generic patient portal reminders were effective in minimally increasing influenza vaccination rates, but more intensive or more targeted patient motivational strategies appear to be needed.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03666026.

Effect of State Immunization Information System Based Reminder/Recall for Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial of Autodialer, Text, and Mailed Messages

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination.

STUDY DESIGN

Two simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities-4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine.

RESULTS

In New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and $16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages.

CONCLUSIONS

Centralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03294473 and NCT03246100.

Effect of State Immunization Information System Centralized Reminder and Recall on HPV Vaccination Rates

BACKGROUND

Although autodialer centralized reminder and recall (C-R/R) from state immunization information systems (IISs) has been shown to raise childhood vaccination rates, its impact on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates is unclear.

METHODS

In a 4-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial across 2 states, we randomly selected practices representative of the specialty (pediatrics, family medicine, and health center) where children received care. Within each practice, patients 11 to 17.9 years old who had not completed their HPV vaccine series (NY: N = 30 616 in 123 practices; CO: N = 31 502 in 80 practices) were randomly assigned to receive 0, 1, 2, or 3 IIS C-R/R autodialer messages per vaccine dose. We assessed HPV vaccine receipt via the IIS, calculated intervention costs, and compared HPV vaccine series initiation and completion rates across study arms.

RESULTS

In New York, HPV vaccine initiation rates ranged from 37.0% to 37.4%, and completion rates were between 29.1% and 30.1%, with no significant differences across study arms. In Colorado, HPV vaccine initiation rates ranged from 31.2% to 33.5% and were slightly higher for 1 reminder compared with none, but vaccine completion rates, ranging from 27.0% to 27.8%, were similar. On adjusted analyses in Colorado, vaccine initiation rates were slightly higher for 1 and 3 C-R/R messages (adjusted risk ratios 1.07 and 1.04, respectively); completion rates were slightly higher for 1 and 3 C-R/R messages (adjusted risk ratios 1.02 and 1.03, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

IIS-based C-R/R for HPV vaccination did not improve HPV vaccination rates in New York and increased vaccination rates slightly in Colorado.

Centralized Reminder/Recall to Increase Influenza Vaccination Rates: A Two-State Pragmatic Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) by health departments using immunization information systems is more effective and cost effective than practice-based approaches for increasing childhood vaccines but has not been studied for influenza vaccination. We assessed effectiveness and cost of C-R/R for increasing childhood influenza vaccination compared with usual care.

METHODS

Within Colorado (CO) and New York (NY), random samples of primary care practices (pediatric, family medicine, and health center) were selected proportionate to where children are served-65 practices (N = 54,353 children) in CO; 101 practices (N = 65,777) in NY. We conducted 4-arm RCTs per state (1, 2, or 3 autodial reminders vs usual care), with randomization at the patient level within practices from 10/2016 to 1/2017.

RESULTS

In CO, the maximum absolute difference in receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine was 1.7% between the 2 R/R group and control (adjusted risk ratio [ARR] of 1.06 [1.01, 1.10]); other R/R arms did not differ significantly. In NY, ARRs for the study arms versus control varied from 1.05 (1.01, 1.10) for 3 R/R to 1.06 (1.01, 1.11) for 1-2 R/R groups and maximum absolute increase in vaccination was 0.6%. In time-to-event analyses, study arm was a significant predictor of vaccination in CO (P = .001) but not in NY. Costs/child randomized to one message were $.17 in CO and $.23 in NY.

CONCLUSIONS

C-R/R for influenza vaccine using autodial had low-level effects on increasing influenza rates in 2 states. Given the feasibility and low cost of C-R/R in previous trials, its utility for influenza should be re-examined using different modalities.

Text message reminders to improve infant immunization in Guatemala: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Millions of infants worldwide remain under-immunized and at risk for unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Text messaging may offer a low-cost solution. We aimed to evaluate text message reminders to improve infant immunization in Guatemala.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted at four public health clinics in rural and urban Guatemala. Infants ages six weeks to six months presenting for the first visit of the primary immunization series were randomly and equally allocated to an intervention or usual care group. Intervention participants were sent three text reminders before the second and third vaccine visits. The main outcome was timeliness of the second and third visits of the primary immunization series.

RESULTS

Of 1088 families approached for enrollment between March to November 2016, 871 were eligible and 720 (82.7%) participated; only 54 families did not own a cell phone. Due to country-wide vaccine shortages, visit completion was used as a proxy for overall immunization coverage. In intention to treat analysis, both intervention and usual care groups had high rates of visit completion, but intervention participants presented on the scheduled date more often (151 [42.2%] of 358 intervention vs. 111 [30.7%] of 362 usual care participants for visit 2, p = 0.001, and 112 [34.0%] of 329 intervention vs. 90 [27.0%] of 333 usual care participants for visit 3, p = 0.05). Intervention caregivers were significantly more likely to want to receive future text message reminders for vaccines and other appointments and were more willing to pay for these reminders.

CONCLUSION

Caregivers who were sent text message reminders in urban and rural Guatemala were less delayed for their child's immunization visits and reported high user satisfaction. Text message reminders may be an effective tool to increase infant vaccination coverage in low-income settings by reminding parents to vaccinate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02567006 at clinicaltrials.gov.

Text Message Reminders for Child Influenza Vaccination in the Setting of School-Located Influenza Vaccination: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Half of US school children receive influenza vaccine. In our previous trials, school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) raised vaccination rates by 5 to 8 percentage points. We assessed whether text message reminders to parents could raise vaccination rates above those observed with SLIV. Within urban elementary schools we randomized families into text message + SLIV (intervention) versus SLIV alone (comparison). All parents were sent 2 backpack notifications plus 2 autodialer phone reminders about SLIV at a single SLIV clinic. Intervention group parents also were sent 3 text messages from the school nurse encouraging flu vaccination via either primary care or SLIV. Among 15 768 children at 32 schools, vaccination rates were text + SLIV (40%) and SLIV control (40%); 4% of students per group received influenza vaccination at SLIV. Text message reminders did not raise influenza vaccination rates above those observed with SLIV alone. More intensive interventions are needed to raise influenza vaccination rates.

A population-based reminder intervention to improve human papillomavirus vaccination rates among adolescents at routine vaccination age

OBJECTIVES

Public health authorities have the resources to conduct efficient immunization reminder interventions to improve vaccine uptake. The objective of this initiative was to design and implement a cost-effective centralized HPV vaccine reminder using New York State Immunization Information System data as one of five prespecified activities to increase initiation and completion among 11- to 13-year-old adolescents.

METHODS

The New York State Department of Health sent reminder letters to the parents or guardians of eligible adolescents who were due for the first dose of HPV vaccine and observed HPV vaccine administration in the six months after each mailing. Subjects were randomized into an intervention group, mailed on May 14, 2015 and a control group, mailed on December 8, 2015.

RESULTS

The analysis consisted of 81,558 eligible letter recipients. Letter recipients were 2 percent more likely to initiate vaccination than control subjects. Significant increases in vaccine uptake were observed for all age and gender strata. The intervention cost was $30.95 for each adolescent who initiated the HPV vaccine series. New York State Department of Health received far less public feedback, including negative feedback, about this intervention that was originally anticipated.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health entities can effectively utilize existing resources to conduct large-scale reminder interventions targeting a jurisdiction's entire 11- to 13-year-old population.

Inside help: An integrative review of champions in healthcare-related implementation

Background/aims:

The idea that champions are crucial to effective healthcare-related implementation has gained broad acceptance; yet the champion construct has been hampered by inconsistent use across the published literature. This integrative review sought to establish the current state of the literature on champions in healthcare settings and bring greater clarity to this important construct.

Methods:

This integrative review was limited to research articles in peer-reviewed, English-language journals published from 1980 to 2016. Searches were conducted on the online MEDLINE database via OVID and PubMed using the keyword “champion.” Several additional terms often describe champions and were also included as keywords: implementation leader, opinion leader, facilitator, and change agent. Bibliographies of full-text articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed for additional references not yet identified via the main strategy of conducting keyword searches in MEDLINE. A five-member team abstracted all full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria.

Results:

The final dataset for the integrative review consisted of 199 unique articles. Use of the term champion varied widely across the articles with respect to topic, specific job positions, or broader organizational roles. The most common method for operationalizing champion for purposes of analysis was the use of a dichotomous variable designating champion presence or absence. Four studies randomly allocated of the presence or absence of champions.

Conclusions:

The number of published champion-related articles has markedly increased: more articles were published during the last two years of this review (i.e. 2015–2016) than during its first 30 years (i.e. 1980–2009).

The number of champion-related articles has continued to increase sharply since the year 2000. Individual studies consistently found that champions were important positive influences on implementation effectiveness. Although few in number, the randomized trials of champions that have been conducted demonstrate the feasibility of using experimental design to study the effects of champions in healthcare.

Barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination in primary care practices: a mixed methods study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Background

In the United States, the effective, safe huma papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine is underused and opportunities to prevent cancer continue to be missed. National guidelines recommend completing the 2–3 dose HPV vaccine series by age 13, well before exposure to the sexually transmitted virus. Accurate characterization of the facilitators and barriers to full implementation of HPV vaccine recommendations in the primary care setting could inform effective implementation strategies.

Methods

We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to systematically investigate and characterize factors that influence HPV vaccine use in 10 primary care practices (16 providers) using a concurrent mixed methods design. The CFIR was used to guide collection and analysis of qualitative data collected through in-person semi-structured interviews with the primary care providers. We analyzed HPV vaccine use with data abstracted from medical charts. Constructs that most strongly influenced vaccine use were identified by integrating the qualitative and quantitative data.

Results

Of the 72 CFIR constructs assessed, seven strongly distinguished and seven weakly distinguished between providers with higher versus lower HPV vaccine coverage. The majority of strongly distinguishing constructs were facilitators and were related to characteristics of the providers (knowledge and beliefs; self-efficacy; readiness for change), their perception of the intervention (relative advantage of vaccinating younger vs. older adolescents), and their process to deliver the vaccine (executing). Additional weakly distinguishing constructs that were facilitators were from outer setting (peer pressure; financial incentives), inner setting (networks and communications and readiness for implementation) and process (planning; engaging, and reflecting and evaluating). Two strongly distinguishing constructs were barriers to use, one from the intervention (adaptability of the age of initiation) and the other from outer setting (patient needs and resources).

Conclusions

Using CFIR to systematically examine the use of this vaccine in independent primary care practices enabled us to identify facilitators and barriers at the provider, interpersonal and practice level that need to be addressed in future efforts to increase vaccine use in such settings. Our findings suggest that implementation strategies that target the provider and help them to address multi-level barriers to HPV vaccine use merit further investigation.

Provider Communication, Prompts, and Feedback to Improve HPV Vaccination Rates in Resident Clinics

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates lag behind vaccination rates for other adolescent vaccines; a bundled intervention may improve HPV vaccination rates. Our objective is to evaluate the impact of quality improvement (QI) training plus a bundled practice-based intervention (provider prompts plus communication skills training plus performance feedback) on improving HPV vaccinations in pediatric resident continuity clinics.

METHODS

Staff and providers in 8 resident clinics participated in a 12-month QI study. The intervention included training to strengthen provider communication about the HPV vaccine. Clinics also implemented provider prompts, received monthly performance feedback, and participated in learning collaborative calls. The primary outcome measure was eligible visits with vaccination divided by vaccine-eligible visits (captured HPV vaccination opportunities). Practices performed chart audits that were fed into monthly performance feedback on captured HPV vaccination opportunities. We used conditional logistic regression (conditioning on practice) to assess captured vaccination opportunities, with the time period of the study (before and after the QI intervention) as the independent variable.

RESULTS

Overall, captured opportunities for HPV vaccination increased by 16.4 percentage points, from 46.9% to 63.3%. Special cause was demonstrated by centerline shift, with 8 consecutive points above the preintervention mean. On adjusted analyses, patients were more likely to receive a vaccine during, versus before, the intervention (odds ratio: 1.87; 95% confidence interval: 1.54-2.28). Captured HPV vaccination rates improved at both well-child and other visits (by 11.7 and 13.0 percentage points, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A bundled intervention of provider prompts and training in communication skills plus performance feedback increased captured opportunities for HPV vaccination.

A Learning Collaborative Model to Improve Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Rates in Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates remain low, in part because of missed opportunities (MOs) for vaccination. We used a learning collaborative quality improvement (QI) model to assess the effect of a multicomponent intervention on reducing MOs.

METHODS

Study design: pre-post using a QI intervention in 33 community practices and 14 pediatric continuity clinics over 9 months to reduce MOs for HPV vaccination at all visit types.

MEASURES

outcome measures comprised baseline and postproject measures of 1) MOs (primary outcome), and 2) HPV vaccine initiation and completion. Process measures comprised monthly chart audits of MOs for HPV vaccination for performance feedback, monthly Plan-Do-Study-Act surveys and pre-post surveys about office systems.

INTERVENTION

providers were trained at the start of the project on offering a strong recommendation for HPV vaccination. Practices implemented provider prompts and/or standing orders and/or reminder/recall if desired, and were provided monthly feedback on MOs to assess their progress.

ANALYSES

chi-square tests were used to assess changes in office practices, and logistic regression used to assess changes in MOs according to visit type and overall, as well as HPV vaccine initiation and completion.

RESULTS

MOs overall decreased (from 73% to 53% in community practices and 62% to 55% in continuity clinics; P < .01, and P = .03, respectively). HPV vaccine initiation increased for both genders in community practices (from 66% to 74% for female, 57% to 65% for male; P < .01), and for male patients in continuity clinics (from 68% to 75%; P = .05). Series completion increased overall in community practices (39% to 43%; P = .04) and for male patients in continuity clinics (from 36% to 44%; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Office systems changes using a QI model and multicomponent interventions decreased rates of MO for HPV vaccination and increased initiation and completion rates among some gender subgroups. A learning collaborative model provides an effective forum for practices to improve HPV vaccine delivery.

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.

Variation in Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Uptake and Acceptability Between Female and Male Adolescents and Their Caregivers

HPV vaccination coverage is suboptimal. Previous research largely focused on vaccinating girls. This study aimed to identify factors associated with HPV vaccination among male and female adolescents. We conducted secondary analyses using the National Immunization Survey-Teen. We specified parallel logistic models to examine associations of adolescent, caregiver, and provider characteristics with vaccination status among boys and girls. The primary outcome was HPV vaccination status defined as unvaccinated, initiated, or completed. Additionally, we analyzed caregivers' intent to initiate or complete the three-dose series. The vaccination completion rate was 26 %. Among teens aged 13-17 years, 19 % initiated, but did not complete the vaccine. Additionally, 14 % of males completed the 3-dose series as compared to 38 % of females. Vaccination rates were higher among teens receiving a provider recommendation [girls: adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.33, 95 % confidence interval (CI) (2.44, 4.55); boys: AOR = 10.0, 95 % CI (7.69, 12.5)]. Moreover, provider recommendation was associated with caregivers' intent to initiate vaccination [girls: AOR = 2.32, 95 % CI (1.77, 3.02); boys: AOR = 2.76, 95 % CI (2.22, 3.43)]. Other associations differed by gender. Higher vaccine initiation rates were associated with younger age and residing in the mid-west for girls and racial/ethnic minority and eligibility for the "Vaccine for Children" program for boys. Provider recommendation for vaccination was the strongest predictor for both genders; however, it is insufficient to achieve high coverage rates, especially among boys. Factors associated with HPV vaccination were different for males and females. These findings suggest providers should consider gender bias with regard to HPV vaccination.

Association of provider recommendation and offer and influenza vaccination among adults aged ≥18 years - United States

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination has been recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months since 2010.

METHODS

Data from the 2016 National Internet Flu Survey were analyzed to assess provider vaccination recommendations and early influenza vaccination during the 2016-17 season among adults aged ≥18 years. Predictive marginals from a multivariable logistic regression model were used to identify factors independently associated with early vaccine uptake by provider vaccination recommendation status.

RESULTS

Overall, 24.0% visited a provider who both recommended and offered influenza vaccination, 9.0% visited a provider who only recommended but did not offer, 25.1% visited a provider who neither recommended nor offered, and 41.9% did not visit a doctor from July 1 through date of interview. Adults who reported that a provider both recommended and offered vaccine had significantly higher vaccination coverage (66.6%) compared with those who reported that a provider only recommended but did not offer (48.4%), those who neither received recommendation nor offer (32.0%), and those who did not visit a doctor during the vaccination period (28.8%). Results of multivariable logistic regression indicated that having received a provider recommendation, with or without an offer for vaccination, was significantly associated with higher vaccination coverage after controlling for demographic and access-to-care factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Provider recommendation was significantly associated with influenza vaccination. However, overall, 67.0% of adults did not visit a doctor during the vaccination period or did visit a doctor but did not receive a provider recommendation. Evidence-based strategies such as client reminder/recall, standing orders, provider reminders, or health systems interventions in combination should be undertaken to improve provider recommendation and influenza vaccination coverage. Other factors significantly associated with a higher level of influenza vaccination included age ≥50 years, being Hispanic, having a college or higher education, having a usual place for medical care, and having public health insurance.

Barriers, facilitators, and potential strategies for increasing HPV vaccination: A statewide assessment to inform action

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate how state level strategies in South Carolina could maximize HPV vaccine uptake.

DESIGN

An environmental scan identified barriers, facilitators, and strategies for improving HPV vaccination in South Carolina. Interviews were conducted with state leaders from relevant organizations such as public health agencies, medical associations, K-12 schools, universities, insurers, and cancer advocacy organizations. A thematic content analysis design was used. Digital interview files were transcribed, a data dictionary was created and data were coded using the data dictionary.

RESULTS

Thirty four interviews were conducted with state leaders. Barriers to HPV vaccination included lack of HPV awareness, lack of provider recommendation, HPV vaccine concerns, lack of access and practice-level barriers. Facilitators included momentum for improving HPV vaccination, school-entry Tdap requirement, pharmacy-based HPV vaccination, state immunization registry, HEDIS measures and HPV vaccine funding. Strategies for improving HPV vaccination fell into three categories: 1) addressing lack of awareness about the importance of HPV vaccination among the public and providers; 2) advocating for policy changes around HPV vaccine coverage, vaccine education, and pharmacy-based vaccination; and 3) coordination of efforts.

DISCUSSION

A statewide environmental scan generated a blueprint for action to be used to improve HPV vaccination in the state.

Evidence-based vaccination strategies in obstetrics and gynecology settings: Current practices and methods for assessment

Obstetrician-gynecologists have the potential to play an important role in the delivery of immunizations to women. However, despite national recommendations, immunization rates among pregnant women and adults in general remain low. Pragmatic immunization delivery trials are needed to demonstrate how best to deliver vaccines in such settings. We report the development and implementation of 2 novel methodologies for immunization delivery research and quality improvement in such settings. The first was the development and application of a 47-point Immunization Delivery Scale that formally assessed variability among practices in their engagement in a variety of evidence-based practices for improving immunization rates. The second was a covariate-constrained randomization technique - a method for achieving balance between study arms in cluster-randomized trials that is especially applicable to pragmatic trials.. To best achieve meaningful and interpretable findings, we recommend use of these or similar techniques in future immunization research and quality improvement projects in OB/GYN settings.

Knowledge of influenza vaccination recommendation and early vaccination uptake during the 2015-16 season among adults aged ≥18years - United States

BACKGROUND

Since 2010, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended that all persons aged ≥6months receive annual influenza vaccination.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2015 National Internet Flu Survey (NIFS), to assess knowledge and awareness of the influenza vaccination recommendation and early influenza vaccination coverage during the 2015-16 season among adults. Predictive marginals from a multivariable logistic regression model were used to identify factors independently associated with adults' knowledge and awareness of the vaccination recommendation and early vaccine uptake during the 2015-16 influenza season.

RESULTS

Among the 3301 respondents aged ≥18years, 19.6% indicated knowing that influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6months. Of respondents, 62.3% indicated awareness that there was a recommendation for influenza vaccination, but did not indicate correct knowledge of the recommended age group. Overall, 39.9% of adults aged ≥18years reported having an influenza vaccination. Age 65years and older, being female, having a college or higher education, not being in work force, having annual household income ≥$75,000, reporting having received an influenza vaccination early in the 2015-16 season, having children aged ≤17years in the household, and having high-risk conditions were independently associated with a higher correct knowledge of the influenza vaccination recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 1 in 5 had correct knowledge of the recommendation that all persons aged ≥6months should receive an influenza vaccination annually, with some socio-economic groups being even less aware. Clinic based education in combination with strategies known to increase uptake of recommended vaccines, such as patient reminder/recall systems and other healthcare system-based interventions are needed to improve vaccination, which could also improve awareness.

Comparison of Office-Based Versus Outsourced Immunization Recall Services

OBJECTIVE

Given poor use of recall in primary care practices, we compared outsourced versus office-based recall systems.

STUDY DESIGN

From 2011 to 2013, we enrolled 87 individual Arkansas providers in distinct practices treating their own patients <24 months of age which were randomized to usual care (A), office-based (B), or outsourced (C) recall groups.

RESULTS

At the end of study, recall activity was 19.4%, 55.0%, and 92.6% for Groups A, B, and C, respectively (B and C vs A: P < .001). Only 68 Group B patients were identified as needing immunizations versus 826 in Group C. The majority of successful contacts were made through mobile phone (41.3%) or text message (32.6%). The total cost per practice per week was significantly lower for Group C versus Group B ($39.50 and $53.00, respectively; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

With limited electronic health record use, an outsourced recall system is more sustainable and less costly than an office-based system.

Understanding the Financial Implications of Immunization Reminder/Recall in a Multipractice Pediatric Group

OBJECTIVE

Immunization reminder/recall is widely recommended as an effective strategy for increasing vaccination rates. We examined the revenue generated from well-child visits scheduled as a result of reminder/recall activities implemented in a multipractice pediatric organization.

METHODS

Patients aged 19 to 35 months who were due or overdue for vaccines were identified from participating practices and assigned to either standard or enhanced reminder/recall activities. Participants who received standard reminder/recall were observed for the 6-week study period, and the number of appointments in which vaccines were administered was tracked. Participants who received enhanced reminder/recall were contacted up to 3 times and received a letter followed by up to 2 phone calls. Financial information associated with appointments scheduled during the study period was obtained, and revenue was calculated for each dose of vaccine administered. Reminder/recall costs were calculated and overall revenue generated was calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 3916 children who were potentially due or overdue for immunizations. After review and manual uploading of missing historical vaccines, a total of 1892 participants received the reminder/recall initiative; 942 received standard reminder/recall, and 950 received enhanced reminder/recall. One hundred eighty-two (19%) standard and 277 (29%) enhanced reminder/recall participants scheduled an appointment by the end of the study period (P < .001). After subtracting the cost of reminder/recall activities, an additional $20,066 and $20,235 were generated by standard and enhanced reminder/recall, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that conducting reminder/recall is at a minimum financially neutral, and might increase revenue generated by vaccine administration.

Centralized Reminder/Recall to Increase Immunization Rates in Young Children: How Much Bang for the Buck?

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of: 1) centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS) versus practice-based reminder/recall (PB-R/R) approaches to increase immunization rates; 2) different levels of C-R/R intensity; and 3) C-R/R with versus without the name of the child's provider.

METHODS

We conducted 3 sequential cluster-randomized trials involving children aged 19 to 25 months in 15 Colorado counties in March 2013 (trial 1), October 2013 (trial 2), and May 2014 (trial 3). In C-R/R counties, the intensity of the intervention decreased sequentially in trials 1 through 3, from 3 to 1 recall messages. In PB-R/R counties, practices were offered training using CIIS and financial support. The percentage of children with up-to-date (UTD) vaccinations was compared 6 months after recall. A mixed-effects model assessed the association between C-R/R versus PB-R/R and UTD rates.

RESULTS

C-R/R was more effective in trials 1 to 3 (relative risk = 1.11; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.20; P = .009). Effectiveness did not decrease with decreasing intervention intensity (P = .59). Costs decreased with decreasing intensity in the C-R/R arm, from $18.72 per child brought UTD in trial 1 to $10.11 in trial 3. Costs were higher and more variable in the PB-R/R arm, ranging from $20.63 to $237.81 per child brought UTD. C-R/R was significantly more effective if the child's practice name was included (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

C-R/R was more effective and cost-effective than PB-R/R for increasing UTD rates in young children and was most effective if messages included the child's provider name. Three reminders were not more effective than one, which may be explained by the increasing accuracy of contact information in CIIS over the course of the trials.

Effects of Phone and Text Message Reminders on Completion of the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Series

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of phone or text message reminders to parents of adolescents on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series completion in Rochester, NY.

METHODS

We performed parallel randomized controlled trials of phone and text reminders for HPV vaccine for parents of 11- to 17-year olds in three urban primary care clinics. The main outcome measures were time to receipt of the third dose of HPV vaccine and HPV vaccination rates.

RESULTS

We enrolled 178 phone intervention (180 control) and 191 text intervention (200 control) participants. In multivariate survival analysis controlling for gender, age, practice, insurance, race, and ethnicity, the time from enrollment to receipt of the third HPV dose for those receiving a phone reminder compared with controls was not significant overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30, p = .12) but was for those enrolling at dose 1 (HR = 1.91, p = .007). There was a significant difference in those receiving a text reminder compared with controls (HR = 2.34, p < .0001; an average of 71 days earlier). At the end of the study, 48% of phone intervention versus 40% of phone control (p = .34), and 49% of text intervention versus 30% of text control (p = .001) adolescents had received 3 HPV vaccine doses.

CONCLUSIONS

In this urban population of parents of adolescents, text message reminders for HPV vaccine completion for those who had already started the series were effective, whereas phone message reminders were only effective for those enrolled at dose 1.

[Positive impact on the Expanded Program on Immunization when sending call-back SMS through a Computerized Immunization Register, Bobo Dioulasso (Burkina Faso)]

The impact of a Computerized Immunization Register (CIR) on Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI), with sending SMS to parents before immunization sessions, has never been studied in sub-Saharan Africa. The objective of this study is to measure EPI quickness and completeness of vaccinations after sending call-back SMS to parents through CIR put in place in a health center. In a health center, chosen at random (Colma 1) in the city of Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, West Africa, mothers, at first EPI session, if they had a mobile phone available at hand or in her surrounding, were randomized for receiving, or not, a call-back SMS before following EPI sessions, after child registration on a Francophone CIR (Siloxane's Intervax ©). Mothers, which were sent SMS and did not correctly followed sessions were asked through mobile phone why their child was late for EPI. 523 newborns were included in the study, with 253 whose parents were sent SMS, and 268 being informed of sessions only by ordinary methods. At second EPI session at 2 months of age, there was a statistical significant increase of coverage for children whose parents received SMS (p<0.001). Quickness to come also to this session was significantly shorter when parents received SMS (p=0.03). At third EPI session at 3 months of age, attendance to EPI for children whose parents were sent SMS was significantly better (p<0.001). Quickness to come to this session was shorter for children with SMS (p=0.02). At fourth EPI session at 4 months of age, attendance for children with SMS was significantly better for children whose parents were sent SMS (p<0.001). Quickness to come to this session was better but not significantly different (p=0.49). Out of 101 children registered as late for EPI sessions in Colma 1 CIR, even with call-back SMS, 19 (19%) parents could not be reached on the telephone. 31/82 (38%) mothers had shifted for EPI to a more proximate vaccination center (Colma 2), and 5 (6%) to private or civil servants clinic. 14/82 (17%) mothers had been travelling far from health center. Ten (12%) admitted neglect of EPI sessions. Two (2%) children had deceased, and one mother did not come back to Colma 1 after her child's AEFI. One child has been dismissed two times of vaccination following recommendation not to open a measles multi-dose vial for a single child, and did not come back. Of 523 children registered in CIR, 77 (14.7%) could not be found in the paper registers of Colma 1. Quickness and completeness for EPI is increased by sending SMS with help of CIR. An official number should be given for each child registered in CIR, consulted by health staff admitting children in urgency, allowing EPI vaccinations completion. With CIR safeguards, CIR should replace paper registers and should be used to send EPI reports by internet at central levels, helping MOH coverage determination and MAPI surveillance. The fall of coverage due to restriction policy not to open a multidose vial for a single child is low. Health staff should institute telephone call-back for badly immunized children registered on CIR and incorporate in it, with SMS call-back, pregnant women, to better complete prenatal sessions and tetanus vaccination.

SMS text message reminders to improve infant vaccination coverage in Guatemala: A pilot randomized controlled trial

•

A novel SMS vaccine reminder platform was created in a LMIC.

•

SMS vaccine reminders were proven feasible to implement in a LMIC.

•

SMS vaccine reminders were acceptable to use in a LMIC with high user satisfaction.

•

SMS vaccine reminders have the potential for widespread scalability at low cost.

Background

Patient reminder systems are an evidence-based way to improve childhood vaccination rates but are difficult to implement in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Short Message Service (SMS) texts may offer a potential low-cost solution, especially in LMICs where mobile phones are becoming more ubiquitous.

Objective

To determine if an SMS-based vaccination reminder system aimed at improving completion of the infant primary immunization series is feasible and acceptable in Guatemala.

Methods

A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted at two public health clinics in Guatemala City. Infants aged 8–14 weeks presenting for the first dose of the primary immunization series were enrolled in March–April 2013. Participants randomized into the intervention received three SMS reminders one week before the second and third dose. A follow-up acceptability survey was administered to both groups.

Results

The participation rate was 86.8% (321/370); 8 did not own a cell phone and 12 could not use SMS. 96.9% of intervention parents were sent at least one SMS reminder prior to visit 2 and 96.3% prior to visit 3. Both intervention and usual care participants had high rates of vaccine and visit completion, with a non-statistically significant higher percentage of children in the intervention completing both visit 2 (95.0% vs. 90.1%, p = .12) and visit 3 (84.4% vs. 80.7%, p = .69). More intervention vs. usual care parents agreed that SMS reminders would be helpful for remembering appointments (p < .0001), agreed to being interested in receiving future SMS reminders (p < .0001), and said that they would be willing to pay for future SMS reminders (p = .01).

Conclusion

This proof of concept evaluation showed that a new application of SMS technology is feasible to implement in a LMIC with high user satisfaction. Larger studies with modifications in the SMS system are needed to determine effectiveness (Clinical Trial Registry NCT01663636).

Parental Choice of Recall Method for HPV Vaccination: A Pragmatic Trial

OBJECTIVES

Completion rates for the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) series among adolescents remain low. Effectiveness of recall with parents choosing the method (preference-based recall) for increasing HPV series completion is unstudied. Within a cluster-randomized trial, we examined effectiveness of preference-based recall compared with usual care for increasing series completion and the association of recall choices with completion.

METHODS

All Kaiser Permanente Colorado pediatric practices (n = 7) were randomized to intervention (n = 4) or control (n = 3) by using covariate-constrained randomization. From January to June 2013, parents at intervention practices whose adolescents received HPV 1 were asked the recall method they preferred for subsequent doses and if they also wanted their child reminded. Completion rates were assessed 1 year after HPV 1.

RESULTS

At intervention practices, 374 (43%) of 867 patients were enrolled; 39% preferred text, 18% e-mail, 9% auto-dialer, and 34% 2-methods; 19% chose to have adolescent also recalled. Intervention adolescents were more likely to complete (63% vs 38%) than were controls (adjusted risk ratio 1.47 [1.38-1.57]) and less likely to be late in completing the series (45% vs 57%, P = .02). Rates of completion were similar between different recall methods, but significantly higher for those preferring e-mail and phone compared withother methods (90% vs 60%. P = .008). Completion rates were similar for adolescents who also received recalls (62%) versus those who did not (63%).

CONCLUSIONS

Preference-based recall was effective in increasing HPV series completion rates, with point estimates substantially higher than for most published studies of reminder/recall.

Promoting HPV Vaccination in Safety-Net Clinics: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate effects of a multicomponent intervention (human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccine-specific brochure and recalls) on HPV vaccination and secondarily examine if race/ethnicity moderates effects.

METHODS

Unvaccinated girls aged 11 to 18 years attending 4 safety-net pediatric clinics and their parent/guardian (n = 814 dyads) were randomized to (1) active comparison (general adolescent vaccine brochure), or (2) intervention consisting of a HPV vaccine-specific brochure, telephone recalls to parents who declined, and recalls to patients overdue for doses 2 and 3. HPV 1-dose and 3-dose coverages were assessed via electronic health records 12 months after randomization. Multivariate logistic regressions estimated adjusted odds and marginal predicted vaccine coverage by study arm and race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Intent-to-treat analyses found no main effect of the HPV vaccine-specific brochure on 1-dose coverage (42.0% vs 40.6%); however, secondary analyses found race/ethnicity was a significant moderator such that the intervention was effective only for Hispanic individuals (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.02), and not effective for black individuals (AOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41-1.13). Recalls to parents who declined the vaccine during the index visit were not effective, but recalls to patients overdue for doses 2 and 3 were effective at increasing 3-dose coverage regardless of race/ethnicity (AOR 1.99; 95% CI 1.16-3.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Educational materials describing only the HPV vaccine were effective for Hispanic but not black individuals. Future research should test mechanisms that may mediate intervention effects for different racial/ethnic groups, such as different informational needs or vaccine schemas (experiences, beliefs, norms).

Effectiveness and Cost of Bidirectional Text Messaging for Adolescent Vaccines and Well Care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and cost of bidirectional short messaging service in increasing rates of vaccination and well child care (WCC) among adolescents.

METHODS

We included all adolescents needing a recommended adolescent vaccine (n = 4587) whose parents had a cell-phone number in 5 private and 2 safety-net pediatric practices. Adolescents were randomized to intervention (n = 2228) or control (n = 2359). Parents in the intervention group received up to 3 personalized short messaging services with response options 1 (clinic will call to schedule), 2 (parent will call clinic), or STOP (no further short messaging service). Primary outcomes included completion of all needed services, WCC only, all needed vaccinations, any vaccination, and missed opportunity for vaccination.

RESULTS

Intervention patients were more likely to complete all needed services (risk ratio [RR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.53), all needed vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.12-1.50), and any vaccination (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.20-1.54). Seventy-five percent of control patients had a missed opportunity versus 69% of intervention (P = .002). There was not a significant difference for WCC visits. Responding that the clinic should call to schedule ("1") was associated with the highest effect size for completion of all needed services (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.41-2.54). Net cost ranged from $855 to $3394 per practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Bidirectional short messaging service to parents was effective at improving rates for all adolescent vaccinations and for all needed services, especially among parents who responded they desired a call from the practice.

A Systems Approach to Improving Tdap Immunization Within 5 Community-Based Family Practice Settings: Working Differently (and Better) by Transforming the Structure and Process of Care

OBJECTIVES

We examined how family medicine clinic physicians and staff worked in collaborative teams to implement an automated clinical reminder to improve tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) booster vaccine administration and documentation.

METHODS

A clinical reminder was developed at 5 University of Michigan family medicine clinics to identify patients 11 to 64 years old who were in need of the Tdap booster vaccine. Quality improvement cycles were used to improve clinic care processes. Immunization rates from 2008 to 2011 were compared with rates at 4 primary care control clinics.

RESULTS

Vaccination rates among eligible patients increased from 15.5% to 47.3% within the family medicine clinics and from 14.1% to 30.2% within the control clinics. After adjustment for covariates, family medicine patients had a higher probability of vaccination than control patients during each measurement period (0.17 vs 0.15 at baseline, 0.53 vs 0.22 during year 1, and 0.50 vs 0.30 during year 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Automated clinical reminders, when designed and implemented via a consensus-based framework that addresses the process of care, can dramatically improve provision of preventive health care.

Overcoming Challenges to Childhood Immunizations Status

Vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements, preventing both mortality and morbidity. However, overall immunization rates are still below the 90% target for Healthy People 2020. There remain significant disparities in immunization rates between children of different racial/ethnic groups, as well as among economically disadvantaged populations. There are systemic issues and challenges in providing access to immunization opportunities. In addition, vaccine hesitancy contributes to underimmunization. Multiple strategies are needed to improve immunization rates, including improving access to vaccines and minimizing financial barriers to families. Vaccine status should be assessed and vaccines given at all possible opportunities.

Effectiveness of centralized text message reminders on human papillomavirus immunization coverage for publicly insured adolescents

PURPOSE

We evaluated a managed care organization (MCO)-generated text message reminder-recall system designed to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial of text reminder-recall for parents of 3,812 publicly insured adolescents aged 11-16 years with no prior HPV vaccinations who were enrolled in a single MCO and were patients at one of 39 primary care practices. We determined the rate of HPV receipt for intervention versus control with the Kaplan-Meier failure function and determined hazard ratios using a clustered stratified Cox model, clustering on primary care provider and stratified on practice. We examined results for all subjects, and for those with a valid phone number, stratified by age group (11-13 years and 14-16 years) and gender. A post hoc analysis included all subjects and controlled for age and gender.

RESULTS

HPV dose 1 vaccination rates were not significantly different when all participants were included, but for the subset of parents (54%) able to receive messages, HPV dose 1 rates were 13% for the control group and 16% for the intervention group; hazard ratio, 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.6; p = .04), when controlling for age and gender. There were no significant findings in the analysis stratified by age and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

MCO-based text reminders are feasible and have a modest effect on HPV dose 1 vaccination rates for those parents able to receive text messages with valid phone numbers in the MCO database. Future studies should examine a similar intervention for those parents who already accepted the first HPV vaccine dose.

Age-specific strategies for immunization reminders and recalls: a registry-based randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies have found reminder/recall to be effective in increasing immunization rates, little guidance exists regarding the specific ages at which it is optimal to send reminder/recall notices.

PURPOSE

To assess the relative effectiveness of centralized reminder/recall strategies targeting age-specific vaccination milestones among children in urban areas during June 2008-June 2009.

METHODS

Three reminder/recall strategies used capabilities of the Michigan Care Improvement Registry (MCIR), a statewide immunization information system: a 7-month recall strategy, a 12-month reminder strategy, and a 19-month recall strategy. Eligible children were randomized to notification (intervention) or no notification groups (control). Primary study outcomes included MCIR-recorded immunization activity (administration of ≥1 new dose, entry of ≥1 historic dose, entry of immunization waiver) within 60 days following each notification cycle.

RESULTS

A total of 10,175 children were included: 2,072 for the 7-month recall, 3,502 for the 12-month reminder, and 4,601 for the 19-month recall. Immunization activity was similar between notification versus no notification groups at both 7 and 12 months. Significantly more 19-month-old children in the recall group (26%) had immunization activity compared to their counterparts who did not receive a recall notification (19%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although recall notifications can positively affect immunization activity, the effect may vary by targeted age group. Many 7- and 12-month-olds had immunization activity following reminder/recall; however, levels of activity were similar irrespective of notification, suggesting that these groups were likely to receive medical care or immunization services without prompting.

Vaccine-preventable diseases: from paediatric to adult targets

The morbidity and mortality related to many communicable infectious diseases have significantly decreased in Western countries largely because of the use of antibiotics, and the implementation of well-planned vaccination strategies and national immunisation schedules specifically aimed at infants and children. However, although immunisation has proved to be highly effective for public health, more effort is needed to improve the currently sub-optimal rates of vaccination against various diseases among adults who may be at risk because of their age, medical condition or occupation. The vaccines currently licenced in Western countries are safe, immunogenic and effective against many infectious diseases and their complications, but the availability of newer vaccines or vaccines with new indications, the evolving ecology and epidemiology of many infections, population ageing, and other demographic changes (i.e. the increasing prevalence of chronic comorbidities and immunodeficiencies, mass migration, new working relationships, and widespread international tourism) require changes in the approach to immunisation. There is now a need for appropriate preventive measures for adults and the elderly aimed at protecting people at risk by using every possible catch-up opportunity and recommending specific age-related schedules on the basis of local epidemiology.

Novel immunization reminder/recall approaches: rural and urban differences in parent perceptions

OBJECTIVE

To assess the following among parents of young children: (1) preferences about the source of immunization reminder/recall (R/R) messages, (2) the degree of acceptability of different R/R modalities, and (3) factors that influence preferences, including rural and urban characteristics.

METHODS

We conducted a survey among parents of children 19 to 35 months old who needed ≥1 immunization according to the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). Equal numbers of urban and rural respondents were randomly selected. Up to 4 surveys were mailed to each parent who had a valid address.

RESULTS

After removing invalid addresses, the response rate was 55% (334 of 607). Half of parents (49.7%) had no preference about whether the public health department or their child's doctor sent reminders. Urban parents were more likely to prefer R/R come from their child's doctor (46.7%) compared to rural parents (33.7%), P = .003. Mail was the preferred R/R method (57.7%), then telephone (17.0%), e-mail (12.7%), and text message (10.7%). Although not preferred, 60.1% reported it would be acceptable to receive R/R by e-mail and 46.2% by text message. Factors associated with preferring to receive R/R from their child's doctor were urban residence and educational level of college graduate or greater.

CONCLUSIONS

A large portion of parents are willing to be reminded about vaccinations by their health department rather than their child's provider and via novel modalities, such as e-mail or text messaging. Urbanicity and higher educational level were associated with preferring that R/R come from a provider.

Provider attitudes toward public-private collaboration to improve immunization reminder/recall: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

To assess primary care providers' current reminder/recall practices, preferences for collaboration with health departments in reminder/recall efforts, attitudes toward practice-based and population-based reminder/recall, and experiences with a population-based reminder/recall intervention.

METHODS

Providers responsible for making decisions about immunization delivery at all primary care practices that participate in the Colorado Immunization Information System were surveyed. Data collection was preceded by an intervention in which half of 14 counties received a population-based reminder/recall intervention conducted by the health department. Practice staff involved in immunization activities were then selected for semistructured telephone interviews that were based on the location of their practice within specified strata, including whether they were in the intervention counties, urban/rural location, and practice type.

RESULTS

A total of 282 (73.6%) of 383 of providers responded to the survey, and 253 who administered vaccines to children 19 to 35 months were retained; 82 staff members at 36 practices were interviewed. Providers' preferences for who should conduct reminder/recall were almost evenly split, with slightly more indicating that it should be conducted by the health department. Cost and feasibility issues were perceived barriers to conducting practice-based recall, particularly among urban practices. Support for population-based reminder/recall was highest among rural practices. Concern about perceived inaccuracies in immunization registry data was the major barrier to conducting population-based reminder/recall. The population-based intervention did not create an undue burden on practices.

CONCLUSIONS

A collaborative approach to reminder/recall involving both providers and health departments is preferable for many providers and may be a viable solution to the barriers of practice-based reminder/recall.

Physicians' human papillomavirus vaccine recommendations, 2009 and 2011

BACKGROUND

Physician recommendation is a key predictor of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake. Understanding factors associated with recommendation is important for efforts to increase current suboptimal vaccine uptake.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine physician recommendations to vaccinate female patients aged 11-26 years, in 2009 and 2011, at 3 and 5 years postvaccine licensure, respectively. A second aim was to identify trends in factors associated with vaccine recommendation for ages 11 and 12 years.

METHODS

Nationally representative samples of physicians practicing family medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology were randomly selected from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile (n=1538 in 2009, n=1541 in 2011). A mailed survey asked physicians about patient and clinical practice characteristics; immunization support; and frequency of HPV vaccine recommendation ("always" ≥75% of the time vs other). Analyses were conducted in 2012.

RESULTS

Completed surveys were received from 1013 eligible physicians (68% response rate) in 2009 and 928 (63%) in 2011. The proportion of physicians who reported always recommending HPV vaccine increased significantly from 2009 to 2011 for patients aged 11 or 12 years (35% vs 40%, respectively; p=0.03), but not for patients aged 13-17 years (53% vs 55%; p=0.28) or 18-26 years (50% vs 52%; p=0.52). Physician specialty, age, and perceived issues/barriers to vaccination were associated with vaccine recommendation for patients aged 11 or 12 in both years.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest a modest increase in recommendations for HPV vaccination of girls aged 11 or 12 years over a 2-year period; however, recommendations remain suboptimal for all age groups despite national recommendations for universal immunization.

Parental and provider preferences and concerns regarding text message reminder/recall for early childhood vaccinations

OBJECTIVE

To assess parental, provider, and medical staff opinions about text message reminder/recall for early childhood vaccination.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted between January and March 2011 among 200 parents of 6-59 month-old children, 26 providers, and 20 medical staff at four academically-affiliated pediatric practices in New York City with text messaging experience. Survey questions addressed interest in, preferences for, and concerns/barriers related to vaccine-related text message reminder/recall.

RESULTS

Parents were primarily Latino, Spanish-speaking, and had a high school education or less. Most parents owned a text message-enabled cell phone (89%) and used text messaging services (97%). While 84% had never received health-related text messages, 88% were comfortable receiving them. Nearly all parents reported interest in receiving reminder/recall text messages, many endorsing them over phone calls and/or letters. Preferences included personalization, interactivity, and multiple messages. While 25% of parents had no concerns, 38% were concerned about incorrect numbers; only 6% worried about cost. Providers and staff were also supportive of vaccine-related text messages. Their biggest concerns were correct cell phone numbers, appointment availability, and increased call volume.

CONCLUSION

Text message reminder/recall for early childhood vaccination was widely supported. Important barriers were identified that should be addressed to maximize their effectiveness.

Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial

OBJECTIVES

We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of population-based recall (Pop-recall) versus practice-based recall (PCP-recall) at increasing immunizations among preschool children.

METHODS

This cluster-randomized trial involved children aged 19 to 35 months needing immunizations in 8 rural and 6 urban Colorado counties. In Pop-recall counties, recall was conducted centrally using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). In PCP-recall counties, practices were invited to attend webinar training using CIIS and offered financial support for mailings. The percentage of up-to-date (UTD) and vaccine documentation were compared 6 months after recall. A mixed-effects model assessed the association between intervention and whether a child became UTD.

RESULTS

Ten of 195 practices (5%) implemented recall in PCP-recall counties. Among children needing immunizations, 18.7% became UTD in Pop-recall versus 12.8% in PCP-recall counties (P < .001); 31.8% had documented receipt of 1 or more vaccines in Pop-recall versus 22.6% in PCP-recall counties (P < .001). Relative risk estimates from multivariable modeling were 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10, 1.37) for becoming UTD and 1.26 (95% CI = 1.15, 1.38) for receipt of any vaccine. Costs for Pop-recall versus PCP-recall were $215 versus $1981 per practice and $17 versus $62 per child brought UTD.

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based recall conducted centrally was more effective and cost-effective at increasing immunization rates in preschool children.

Human papillomavirus vaccine initiation and awareness: U.S. young men in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in men/boys aged 9-26 years. In 2009, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) provided a permissive recommendation allowing HPV vaccine administration to this group.

PURPOSE

To assess HPV vaccination initiation and coverage, evaluate awareness of HPV and HPV vaccine, and identify factors independently associated with such awareness among men aged 18-26 years.

METHODS

Data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey were analyzed in 2011.

RESULTS

In 2010, HPV vaccination initiation among men aged 18-26 years was 1.1%. Among the 1741 men interviewed in this age group, nearly half had heard of HPV (51.8%). Overall, about one third of these men had heard of the HPV vaccine (34.8%). Factors independently associated with a higher likelihood of awareness of both HPV and HPV vaccine among men aged 18-26 years included having non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity; a higher education level; a U.S. birthplace; more physician contacts; private health insurance; received other vaccines; and reported risk behaviors related to sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

CONCLUSIONS

HPV vaccination initiation among men aged 18-26 years in 2010 was low. HPV and HPV vaccine awareness were also low, and messages in this area directed to men are needed. Since ACIP published a recommendation for routine use of HPV4 among men/boys in December 2011, continued monitoring of HPV vaccination uptake among men aged 18-26 years is useful for evaluating the vaccination campaigns, and planning and implementing strategies to increase coverage.