What happens at two? Immunisation stakeholders' perspectives on factors influencing sub-optimal childhood vaccine uptake for toddlers in regional and remote Western Australia

BACKGROUND

In Western Australia (WA), children aged 24 months living regionally or remotely (non-urban) have suboptimal vaccine uptake. As there has not yet been a systematic approach to understanding the facilitators and barriers to childhood vaccination in regional and remote WA, this study aimed to understand the views of key immunisation stakeholders regarding barriers and solutions.

METHODS

Drawing on the World Health Organization's "Tailoring Immunization Programmes" approach, we undertook a qualitative study with three forms of data collection: (1) semi-structured interviews with immunisation experts within Australia's immunisation system, (2) a semi-structured focus group with immunisation coordinators and health workers working in regional or remote WA, and (3) member checking with senior staff from WA Health. Data from the interviews and focus group was deductively analysed using the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model on NVivo 20.

RESULTS

There was no clear consensus on the typical under-vaccinated child in country WA. A range of barriers were identified: lack of awareness of the vaccine schedule, difficult access to vaccination services, a shortage in a workforce able to have meaningful conversations with vaccine hesitant parents, ineffective reminder systems, and the rapid spread of misinformation. Participants described previous efforts used to improve vaccine uptake, and felt the following would improve uptake: better access to vaccine clinics, building capacity of Aboriginal Health Workers, and vaccine reminders.

CONCLUSION

This is the first time the facilitators and barriers to routine childhood vaccine uptake in country WA has been explored. Addressing some of these barriers may see an increase in uptake.

Pneumococcal vaccination and primary care presentations for acute respiratory tract infection and antibiotic prescribing in older adults

BACKGROUND

While the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) has demonstrated its role in preventing severe pneumococcal disease, its impact on more non-specific conditions like acute respiratory tract infection (ARI) and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the role of PPV23 in prevention of presentations for ARI and LRTI and related antibiotic prescriptions among older adults in primary care.

METHODS

Using a nationwide general practice dataset, we followed a cohort of regularly attending patients aged ≥65 years from 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2018 for presentations for ARI, LRTI, and related antibiotic prescriptions. Associations between PPV23 receipt and each outcome were assessed using a multiple failures survival model to estimate hazard ratios (HR) adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and various health measures.

RESULTS

A cohort of 75,264 patients aged ≥65 years (mean 75.4, 56% female) in 2014 was followed. The incidence of presentations for ARI, ARI-related antibiotic prescription, LRTI, and LRTI-related antibiotic prescription was 157.6, 76.0, 49.6, and 24.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively. Recent PPV23 vaccine receipt was associated with a small reduction in ARI presentations (adjusted HR vaccinated vs. unvaccinated 0.96; 95%CI 0.94-0.98; p = 0.002); however, there was no reduction in ARI-related antibiotic prescription, LRTI presentation, nor LRTI-related antibiotic prescription (adjusted HR were 0.99[95%CI 0.96-1.03], 1.04[95%CI 0.99-1.09], 1.07[95%CI 1.00-1.14]).

CONCLUSION

PPV23 vaccination in older adults may result in a small reduction in the incidence of total ARI presentations in primary care. However, the effect is small and residual confounding cannot be excluded.

Adverse events following immunisation: Prospective cohort study evaluating Australian children presenting to specialist immunisation clinics

OBJECTIVE

Prior experience of an adverse event following immunisation is a known barrier to vaccination. Limited Australian data evaluating adverse event recurrence among children exists to inform clinical decisions. We aimed to assess adverse event following immunisation recurrence among children with prior adverse events and to evaluate if family history increased adverse event risk.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted from March 3rd until August 18th, 2023. Children ≤ 16 years with prior adverse events following immunisation in themselves or family were recruited from specialist immunisation clinics at two quaternary paediatric hospitals. Adverse event outcomes were collected via surveys administered at presentation, three, and eight days post vaccination, and analysed by key characteristics and potential risk factors.

RESULTS

Forty three of forty nine (43/49, 87.8 %) children enrolled received further vaccines. Of those who completed the follow up surveys, 50.0 % (16/32) reported an adverse event. Recurrence of prior adverse events occurred for 23.3 % (10/43, 95 % CI: 11.8 % - 38.6 %) of the cohort. Two of twelve (2/12, 16.7 %) participants with prior serious adverse events who received further vaccines reported a serious adverse event recurrence. No post review serious adverse events were observed in children with prior non serious adverse events. Neurological conditions were a risk factor for prior (neurological condition 3/3 versus no neurological condition 2/40, p < 0.001) and post review (neurological condition 2/3 versus no neurological condition 0/28, p = 0.006) post vaccination seizures. Family history had no relationship to post review adverse events (family history 5/8 versus no family history 11/23, p = 0.685).

CONCLUSION

Revaccination is safe for the majority of children with a personal or family history of adverse event following immunisation.

From program suspension to the pandemic: A qualitative examination of Australia's vaccine pharmacovigilance system over 10 years

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Australian seasonal influenza vaccination program for children under 5 years of age was suspended due to an unexpected increase in fever and febrile convulsions causally associated with one particular influenza vaccine brand. A subsequent national review made seven recommendations to improve vaccine pharmacovigilance. Ten years on, in advance of implementing the COVID-19 immunisation program, we evaluated views on the capacity of Australia's vaccine pharmacovigilance system to promptly detect, examine and communicate a signal.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between July and October 2020 with individuals with expertise in vaccine safety in Australia using an interview guide informed by key Australian and international frameworks. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to code data using a deductive approach.

RESULTS

Interviews with seventeen participants enabled six themes to be identified. Participants described improvement and significant innovation within Australia's vaccine pharmacovigilance system over the decade since 2010, particularly through establishment of a new active, cohort event monitoring system using short message service surveys. Participants thought Australia had a good foundation for COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance; implementation of the COVID-19 immunisation program was seen as a potential driver for ongoing enhancement through: a) improved integration of the active surveillance and spontaneous reporting systems, and; b) development of population-level active surveillance, including through data linkage. Transparent communication was considered essential to address the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19 and broader vaccine safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccine safety experts in Australia convey confidence in the innovative pharmacovigilance systems implemented over the past 10 years. While Australia has a multifaceted system incorporating both active surveillance and spontaneous reporting systems, COVID-19 vaccine implementation represents an opportunity to enhance current systems and to develop new, systematic approaches to vaccine pharmacovigilance that should make both a local and global contribution.