Randomized controlled trial of an immunization recall intervention for adolescents

Factors Associated With Repeat Pediatric Influenza Vaccination Among Inconsistent Vaccinators

Promoting consistent vaccination practices may help improve suboptimal influenza vaccination rates. This study evaluated the prevalence and correlates of repeat influenza (flu) vaccination among children who had previously received the vaccine inconsistently. An online survey study was conducted in 2022 among parents of commercially insured children ages 3 to 19 years who were previously inconsistently vaccinated. Of 317 respondents, 85% reported that their child received a flu vaccine in the 2021 to 2022 flu season. Among these parents, 61% reported concern that their child would get sick from flu as the most important reason for vaccinating. Repeat vaccination was less likely among parents who reported that school/daycare requirements were a reason for vaccinating in the prior season (odd ratio [OR] = 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.05-0.55). Our findings suggest that school policies may improve vaccination rates among inconsistent vaccinators.

Mobile Phone Text Message Reminders to Improve Vaccination Uptake: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Mobile phone text message reminders (MPTMRs) have been implemented globally to promote vaccination uptake and recall rates. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of MPTMRs on vaccination recall rates.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials of caregivers of children, adolescents, or adults who received MPTMRs for improving vaccine uptake and recall visits. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, and Scopus to identify relevant studies published up to 24 January 2024. We used Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool to assess the included studies and reported the results as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals, using a random effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 25 studies for inclusion. All studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. The evidence supports MPTMRs for improving vaccination uptake compared to usual care (RR = 1.09 [95%CI: 1.06, 1.13], I2 = 76%). Intervention characteristics, country setting, country economic status, and vaccination type had no bearing on the effectiveness of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

MPTMRs have a positive effect, albeit relatively small, on vaccination uptake. These findings may assist public health practitioners, policymakers, and vaccine researchers in evidence-based decision making that focuses on MPTMRs and their impact on vaccination coverage.

Effect of Automated and Personalized Outreach Messages on Well-Child Visit Catch Up: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of text/telephone outreach messages and personal contact attempts on well-child care (WCC) scheduling and completion and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine receipt.

METHODS

We conducted an intent-to-treat, 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial with 3 replications at 3 academic pediatric primary care practices from September 27, 2020 to August 6, 2021. We randomized participants to 1 of 4 groups: 1 automated message (group 1), 2 automated messages (group 2), 1 automated message plus personal contact attempts (group 3), or 2 automated messages plus personal contact attempts (group 4). Outcomes included: 1) scheduled WCC within 2 weeks (secondary outcome), 2) completed WCC within 8 weeks (secondary outcome), 3) receipt of first MMR by 15 months of age or second MMR within 3 months of first message for 4-year-olds (primary outcome).

RESULTS

We randomized 1312 patients (mean [SD] age = 38.8 [19.3] months, 53.5% male, 72.8% non-Hispanic Black, 86.9% Medicaid-enrolled). Scheduling rates were significantly higher in groups with personal contact attempts compared to those without (1 = 15.2%, 2 = 12.5%, 3 = 29.3%, and 4 = 31.5%). WCC completion rates also differed across groups: 1 = 27.4%, 2 = 22.3%, 3 = 32.0%, and 4 = 29.4%, with groups 3 and 4 having significantly higher rates than group 2. Similarly, groups 3 (30.2%) and 4 (31.8%) had significantly higher rates of receiving the MMR vaccine compared to group 2 (23.5%) but not group 1 (28.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Outreach messages that were followed by personal contact attempts increased the rates of scheduling and completing WCCs and receiving the MMR vaccine, providing a useful tool to re-engage at-risk populations.

Interventions to Improve Immunization Coverage Among Children and Adolescents: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Vaccinations are recognized as a feasible, cost-effective public health intervention for reducing the burden and associated mortality of many infectious diseases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of potential interventions to improve the uptake of vaccines among children and adolescents.

METHODS

We performed a literature search until December 2020. Eligible studies were identified using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, and other sources. We included studies conducted on children and adolescents aged 5 to 19 years. Studies comprised of hospitalized children and those with comorbid conditions were excluded. Two authors independently performed the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Findings from 120 studies (123 articles), of which 95 were meta-analyzed, reveal that vaccination education may increase overall vaccination coverage by 19% (risk ratio [RR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.26), reminders by 15% (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.18), interventions for providers by 13% (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19), financial incentives by 67% (RR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.40-1.99), and multilevel interventions by 25% (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.41). The impact of school-based clinics and policy and legislation on overall vaccination coverage is still uncertain, and no impact of a multicomponent intervention on overall vaccination coverage was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational interventions, reminders, provider-directed interventions, financial incentives, and multilevel interventions may improve vaccination coverage among school-aged children and adolescents.

Personal Phone Calls Lead to Decreased Rates of Missed Appointments in an Adolescent/Young Adult Practice

INTRODUCTION

Nationally, hospital practice missed appointment rates are high. Our goal was to reduce the rate of missed appointments in an Adolescent/Young Adult Practice through quality improvement methods.

METHODS

During the 12-month intervention period, administrative staff called patients the day before their primary or specialty care appointments to remind them of the date, time, and location, as well as patients who did not attend their appointments to ask about the reason for their missed appointment. We implemented Plan-Do-Study-Act interventions and analyzed data to compare missed appointment rates between the 12 months before and after February 1, 2017, the project intervention date.

RESULTS

Results showed significant reductions in the missed appointment rate for the Adolescent/Young Adult Practice. A control chart showed a shift in the mean overall percent of completed appointments from 76.7% to 79.2%. The most common reasons for missed appointments included forgetting (39.2%), conflicts with work/school (11.0%), or emailing the provider without contacting administrative staff (7.8%). There were significant reductions in missed appointment rates for both males and females as well as patients who were ≥20 years old, identified English or Spanish as their primary language, had public or private insurance, identified as Black or Hispanic, or did or did not require an interpreter.

CONCLUSION

These data show that targeted interventions such as personalized reminder calls can be effective in reducing patient missed appointment rates in Adolescent/Young Adult Practices.

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.

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.

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.

Interventions to reduce inequalities in vaccine uptake in children and adolescents aged <19 years: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In high-income countries, substantial differences exist in vaccine uptake relating to socioeconomic status, gender, ethnic group, geographic location and religious belief. This paper updates a 2009 systematic review on effective interventions to decrease vaccine uptake inequalities in light of new technologies applied to vaccination and new vaccine programmes (eg, human papillomavirus in adolescents).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ASSIA, The Campbell Collaboration, CINAHL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Eppi Centre, Eric and PsychINFO for intervention, cohort or ecological studies conducted at primary/community care level in children and young people from birth to 19 years in OECD countries, with vaccine uptake or coverage as outcomes, published between 2008 and 2015.

RESULTS

The 41 included studies evaluated complex multicomponent interventions (n=16), reminder/recall systems (n=18), outreach programmes (n=3) or computer-based interventions (n=2). Complex, locally designed interventions demonstrated the best evidence for effectiveness in reducing inequalities in deprived, urban, ethnically diverse communities. There is some evidence that postal and telephone reminders are effective, however, evidence remains mixed for text-message reminders, although these may be more effective in adolescents. Interventions that escalated in intensity appeared particularly effective. Computer-based interventions were not effective. Few studies targeted an inequality specifically, although several reported differential effects by the ethnic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Locally designed, multicomponent interventions should be used in urban, ethnically diverse, deprived populations. Some evidence is emerging for text-message reminders, particularly in adolescents. Further research should be conducted in the UK and Europe with a focus on reducing specific inequalities.

Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy - A systematic review

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts.

METHODS

A systematic review of peer reviewed (January 2007-October 2013) and grey literature (up to October 2013) was conducted using a broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy concerning vaccines. This search strategy was applied and adapted across several databases and organizational websites. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for 166 (peer reviewed) and 15 (grey literature) evaluation studies. In addition, the quality of evidence relating to a series of PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control, outcomes) questions defined by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy (WG) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria; data were analyzed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.

Improving immunization rates in a hospital-based primary care practice

OBJECTIVE

We implemented a quality improvement initiative aimed at reaching a 95% immunization rate for patients aged 24 months. The setting was a hospital-based pediatric primary care practice in Boston, Massachusetts. We defined immunization as full receipt of the vaccine series as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

METHODS

The initiative was team-based and structured around 3 core interventions: systematic identification and capture of target patients, use of a patient-tracking registry, and patient outreach and care coordination. We measured monthly overall and modified immunization rates for patients aged 24 months. The modified rate excluded vaccine refusals and practice transfers. We plotted monthly overall and modified immunization rates on statistical process control charts to monitor progress and evaluate impact.

RESULTS

We measured immunization rates for 3298 patients aged 24 months between January 2009 and December 2012. Patients were 48% (n = 1576) female, 77.3% (n = 2548) were African American or Hispanic, and 70.2% (n = 2015) were publicly insured. Using control charts, we established mean overall and modified immunization rates of 90% and 93%, respectively. After implementation, we observed an increase in the mean modified immunization rate to 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

A quality improvement initiative enabled our pediatric practice to increase its modified immunization rate to 95% for children aged 24 months. We attribute the improvement to the incorporation of medical home elements including a multidisciplinary team, patient registry, and care coordination.

Improving immunization delivery using an electronic health record: the ImmProve project

OBJECTIVE

Though an essential pediatric preventive service, immunizations are challenging to deliver reliably. Our objective was to measure the impact on pediatric immunization rates of providing clinicians with electronic health record-derived immunization prompting.

METHODS

Operating in a large, urban, hospital-based pediatric primary care clinic, we evaluated 2 interventions to improve immunization delivery to children ages 2, 6, and 13 years: point-of-care, patient-specific electronic clinical decision support (CDS) when children overdue for immunizations presented for care, and provider-specific bulletins listing children overdue for immunizations.

RESULTS

Overall, the proportion of children up to date for a composite of recommended immunizations at ages 2, 6, and 13 years was not different in the intervention (CDS active) and historical control (CDS not active) periods; historical immunization rates were high. The proportion of children receiving 2 doses of hepatitis A immunization before their second birthday was significantly improved during the intervention period. Human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization delivery was low during both control and intervention periods and was unchanged for 13-year-olds. For 14-year-olds, however, 4 of the 5 highest quarterly rates of complete HPV immunization occurred in the final year of the intervention. Provider-specific bulletins listing children overdue for immunizations increased the likelihood of identified children receiving catch-up hepatitis A immunizations (hazard ratio 1.32; 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.56); results for HPV and the composite of recommended immunizations were of a similar magnitude but not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In our patient population, with high baseline uptake of recommended immunizations, electronic health record-derived immunization prompting had a limited effect on immunization delivery. Benefit was more clearly demonstrated for newer immunizations with lower baseline uptake.