Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Reminders for Children with High-Risk Conditions A Registry-Based Randomized Trial
ABSTRACT Children with chronic conditions have an increased risk of complications from influenza and have low influenza vaccination rates.
To assess the feasibility and effectiveness of using a statewide immunization information system (IIS) for seasonal influenza vaccine reminders from local health departments (LHDs) targeting children with high-risk conditions.
A randomized community intervention.
The study was conducted in a population of 3618 children aged 24-60 months with a high-risk condition residing in three Michigan counties. Children were identified using a statewide IIS in October 2008.
Children were randomized to intervention (reminder) or control (no reminder) groups. Reminders for seasonal influenza vaccination were mailed by LHDs in November 2008.
Feasibility of notification (address validity, address deliverability) was assessed (November 2008-February 2009), and frequencies of notification feasibility measures were determined (analyses conducted in 2010). Effectiveness of notification (seasonal influenza vaccine receipt) was assessed using bivariate logistic regression.
Among 3618 children with a high-risk condition, 2730 (75.5%) had not received a 2008-2009 influenza vaccination and were eligible at the time of notification. Among children assigned to the reminder group (n=1374), 42.6% had an address determined to be either invalid, undeliverable, or both. Among those with valid addresses (n=2001), a greater percentage of children with deliverable reminders received at least one influenza vaccination (30.8%) during the outcome observation period than did children assigned to no reminder (24.3%, OR=1.39, 95% CI=1.13, 1.72); children with an undeliverable reminder had an influenza vaccination rate (22.8%) similar to children assigned to no reminder.
Receipt of a reminder was positively associated with seasonal influenza vaccination. However, more than 40% of children assigned to receive a reminder were determined to have an invalid or undeliverable address, emphasizing the need for increased quality of IIS contact information.
This study is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01431183.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Influenza is a common cause of morbidity and mortality, especially among the elderly and those with certain chronic diseases. Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for individuals in at-risk groups, but rates of vaccination are particularly low in children with high-risk conditions (HRCs). To conduct a systematic review of studies that have examined interventions aimed at improving influenza vaccination in children with HRCs. Two databases - PubMed and SCOPUS - were searched (with no time or language restrictions) using a combination of keywords - Influenza AND vaccination OR immunization OR children AND asthma OR malignancy OR high-risk AND reminder. Duplicates were removed, and abstracts of relevant articles were screened using specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. Thirteen articles were selected, and five additional studies were identified following a review of the reference lists of the initial thirteen articles, bringing the total number to eighteen. Most studies were conducted in the United States. Among the 18 studies, there was one systematic review of a specific intervention in asthmatic children, seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), six before-and-after studies, one non-randomized controlled trial, one retrospective cohort study, one quasi-experimental post-test study, and one letter to editors. Interventions reported include multi-component strategies, letter reminders, telephone recall, letters plus telephone calls, an asthma education tool and year-round scheduling for influenza vaccination, amongst others. There is good evidence that reminder letters will improve influenza vaccination uptake in children with HRCs, but the evidence that telephone recall or a combination of letter reminder and telephone recall will improve uptake is weak. It is not known if multiple reminder letters are more effective than single letters or if multi-component strategies are more effective than single or dual component strategies. There is a need for further research of these interventions, possibly outside the United States. Crown Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Vaccine 12/2014; 33(6). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.013 · 3.49 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine whether provision of vaccine-health-literacy-promoting information in text message vaccine reminders improves receipt and timeliness of the second dose of influenza vaccine within a season for children in need of 2 doses. During the 2012-2013 season, families of eligible 6-month through 8-year-old children were recruited at the time of their first influenza vaccination from 3 community clinics in New York City. Children (n = 660) were randomly assigned to "educational" text message, "conventional" text message, and "written reminder-only" arms. At enrollment, all arms received a written reminder with next dose due date. Conventional messages included second dose due date and clinic walk-in hours. Educational messages added information regarding the need for a timely second dose. Receipt of second dose by April 30 was assessed by using χ(2) tests. Timeliness was assessed by receipt of second dose by 2 weeks after due date (day 42) using χ(2) and over time using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. Most families were Latino and publicly insured with no significant between-arm differences between groups. Children in the educational arm were more likely to receive a second dose by April 30 (72.7%) versus conventional (66.7%) versus written reminder-only arm (57.1%; P = .003). They also had more timely receipt by day 42 (P < .001) and over time (P < .001). In this low-income, urban, minority population, embedding health literacy information improved the effectiveness of text message reminders in promoting timely delivery of a second dose of influenza vaccine, compared with conventional text messages and written reminder only. Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.Pediatrics 01/2015; 135(1):e83-91. DOI:10.1542/peds.2014-2475 · 5.30 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite advances in the treatment and prevention of influenza, it is still considered an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Annual vaccination is the safest and most effective mean of prevention. Our study aims were to explore the uptake of influenza vaccination among children with gastrointestinal disorders, and to characterize non-adherent patients. The present cross-sectional study included parents of pediatric patients attending the Gastroenterology Institute at Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel between September and October 2011. Parents were asked to complete a questionnaire concerning demographic and clinical parameters, influenza vaccination of the child, and reasons for not vaccinating the child, when appropriate. The study population included 273 patients (50% female), with a median age of 10 years (range, 2-18 years). Overall, the rate of seasonal influenza vaccination was 30.8%. Higher rates were found among immunosuppressed patients (46.1%), and in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (50%). There was no significant effect of patient age, gender, ethnic origin or parental level of education on the vaccination rate. Vaccination rates were significantly associated with parents' information and knowledge of, as well as their personal beliefs regarding the vaccine (P<0.001). Influenza vaccination rates are relatively low in the pediatric population attending gastroenterology clinics, in both high- and low-risk groups. The importance of parental knowledge in compliance with influenza vaccination of children should prompt general pediatricians and gastroenterologists to discuss and address the common misconceptions regarding the vaccine. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Vaccine 11/2014; 33(1). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.10.086 · 3.49 Impact Factor