Promising Practices for School-located Vaccination Clinics--: Part II: Clinic Operations and Program Sustainability
Knox County Health Department, 140 Dameron Ave., Knoxville, TN 37917, USA.PEDIATRICS (Impact Factor: 5.47). 03/2012; 129 Suppl 2(Supplement):S81-7. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-0737G
A school-located mass vaccination program can enable rapid vaccination of a large number of students while minimizing disruption of their school activities. During 3 consecutive influenza seasons beginning in 2005, the Knox County Health Department conducted school-located mass vaccination clinics using live attenuated influenza vaccine. Overall, the proportion of elementary schoolchildren vaccinated with live attenuated influenza vaccine exceeded 40% each year. We describe key lessons learned in clinic operations, including obtaining informed consent, defining the organizational structure and roles, preparing the school, staffing, training, supplies, vaccine management, team communication, and data management. We conclude by discussing program costs and sustainability.
- PEDIATRICS 03/2012; 129 Suppl 2(Supplement 2):S51-3. DOI:10.1542/peds.2011-0737B · 5.47 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Influenza vaccination coverage for U.S. school-aged children is below the 80% national goal. Primary care practices may not have the capacity to vaccinate all children during influenza vaccination season. No real-world models of school-located seasonal influenza (SLV-I) programs have been tested. Determine the feasibility, sustainability, and impact of an SLV-I program providing influenza vaccination to elementary school children during the school day. In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial of SLV-I during two vaccination seasons, schools were randomly assigned to SLV-I versus standard of care. Seasonal influenza vaccine receipt, as recorded in the state immunization information system (IIS), was measured. Intervention and control schools were located in a single western New York county. Participation (intervention or control) included the sole urban school district and suburban districts (five in Year 1, four in Year 2). After gathering parental consent and insurance information, live attenuated and inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines were offered in elementary schools during the school day. Data on receipt of ≥1 seasonal influenza vaccination in Year 1 (2009-2010) and Year 2 (2010-2011) were collected on all student grades K through 5 at intervention and control schools from the IIS in the Spring of 2010 and 2011, respectively. Additionally, coverage achieved through SLV-I was compared to coverage of children vaccinated elsewhere. Preliminary data analysis for Year 1 occurred in Spring 2010; final quantitative analysis for both years was completed in late Fall 2012. Results are shown for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, respectively: Children enrolled in suburban SLV-I versus control schools had vaccination coverage of 47% vs 36%, and 52% vs 36% (p<0.0001 both years). In urban areas, coverage was 36% vs 26%, and 31% vs 25% (p<0.001 both years). On multilevel logistic analysis with three nested levels (student, school, school district) during both vaccination seasons, children were more likely to be vaccinated in SLV-I versus control schools; ORs were 1.6 (95% CI=1.4, 1.9; p<0.001) and 1.5 (95% CI=1.3, 1.8; p<0.001). Delivering influenza vaccine during school is a promising approach to improving pediatric influenza vaccination coverage. ClinicalTrials.govNCT01224301.American journal of preventive medicine 01/2014; 46(1):1-9. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.08.021 · 4.53 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Context and objective: Maine implemented a statewide pre-K through 12-school vaccination program during the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic. The main objective of this study was to determine which school, nurse, consent form, and clinic factors were associated with school-level vaccination rates for the first dose of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccine. Methods: In April 2010, school nurses or contacts were e-mailed electronic surveys. Generalized linear mixed regression was used to predict adjusted vaccination rates using random effects to account for correlations within school districts. Elementary and secondary (middle and high) schools were analyzed separately. Results: Of 645 schools invited to participate, 82% (n = 531) completed the survey. After excluding schools that were ineligible or could not provide outcome data, data for 256 elementary and 124 secondary public schools were analyzed and included in the multivariable analyses. The overall, unadjusted, vaccination rate was 51% for elementary schools and 45% for secondary schools. Elementary schools that had 50 or fewer students per grade, had availability of additional nursing staff, which did not require parental presence at the H1N1 clinic or disseminated consent forms by mail and backpack (compared with backpack only) had statistically significant (P < .05) higher (adjusted) vaccination rates. For secondary schools, the vaccination rate for schools with the lowest proportion of students receiving subsidized lunch (ie, highest socioeconomic status) was 58% compared with 37% (P < .001) for schools with the highest proportion receiving subsidized lunch. Conclusions: Several factors were independently associated with vaccination rates. For elementary schools, planners should consider strategies such as providing additional nursing staff and disseminating consent forms via multiple methods. The impact of additional factors, including communication approaches and parent and student attitudes, needs to be investigated, especially for secondary schools.Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 10/2014; 21(2). DOI:10.1097/PHH.0000000000000156 · 1.47 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.