Article

Improving influenza vaccination rates of high-risk inner-city children over 2 intervention years.

Department of Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3518 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
The Annals of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.61). 01/2006; 4(6):534-40. DOI: 10.1370/afm.612
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Influenza immunization rates among children with high-risk medical conditions are disappointingly low, and relatively few data are available on raising rates, particularly over 2 years. We wanted to determine whether interventions tailored to individual practice sites improve influenza immunization rates among high-risk children in inner-city health centers over 2 years.
A before-after trial to improve influenza immunization of children was conducted at 5 inner-city health centers (residencies and faith-based). Sites selected interventions from a menu (eg, standing orders, patient and clinician reminders, education) proved to increase vaccination rates, which were directed at children aged 2 to 17 years with high-risk medical conditions. Intervention influenza vaccination rates and 1 and 2 years were compared with those of the preintervention year (2001-2002) and of a comparison site.
Influenza vaccination rates improved modestly from baseline (10.4%) to 13.1% during intervention year 1 and to 18.7% during intervention year 2 (P <.001), with rates reaching 31% in faith-based practices. Rates increased in all racial and age-groups and in Medicaid-insured children. The increase in rates was significantly greater in intervention health centers (8.3%) than in the comparison health center (0.7%; P <.001). In regression analyses that controlled for demographic factors, vaccination status was associated with intervention year 1 (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-2.2) and with intervention year 2 (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.3-3.4), as well as with practice type. Adolescents had lower vaccination rates than children 2 to 6 years old (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7).
Tailored interventions selected from a menu of interventions modestly increased influenza vaccination rates over 2 years at health centers serving children from low-income families. We recommend this strategy for faith-based practices and residencies with 1 practice site, but further research is needed on multisite practices and to achieve higher influenza vaccination rates.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
71 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To increase childhood influenza vaccination rates using a toolkit and early vaccine delivery in a randomized cluster trial. Twenty primary care practices treating children (range for n=536-8183) were randomly assigned to Intervention and Control arms to test the effectiveness of an evidence-based practice improvement toolkit (4 Pillars Toolkit) and early vaccine supplies for use among disadvantaged children on influenza vaccination rates among children 6 months-18 years. Follow-up staff meetings and surveys were used to assess use and acceptability of the intervention strategies in the Intervention arm. Rates for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 influenza seasons were compared. Two-level generalized linear mixed modeling was used to evaluate outcomes. Overall increases in influenza vaccination rates were significantly greater in the Intervention arm (7.9 percentage points) compared with the Control arm (4.4 percentage points; P<0.034). These rate changes represent 4522 additional doses in the Intervention arm vs. 1390 additional doses in the Control arm. This effect of the intervention was observed despite the fact that rates increased significantly in both arms - 8/10 Intervention (P<0.001) and 7/10 Control sites (P-values 0.04 to <0.001). Rates in two Intervention sites with pre-intervention vaccination rates >58% did not significantly increase. In regression analyses, a child's likelihood of being vaccinated was significantly higher with: younger age, white race (Odds ratio [OR]=1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.23-1.34), having commercial insurance (OR=1.30; 95%CI=1.25-1.35), higher pre-intervention practice vaccination rate (OR=1.25; 95%CI=1.16-1.34), and being in the Intervention arm (OR=1.23; 95%CI=1.01-1.50). Early delivery of influenza vaccine was rated by Intervention practices as an effective strategy for raising rates. Implementation of a multi-strategy toolkit and early vaccine supplies can significantly improve influenza vaccination rates among children in primary care practices but the effect may be less pronounced in practices with moderate to high existing vaccination rates. Clinical trial registry name/number: From Innovation to Solutions: Childhood Influenza.
    Vaccine 04/2014; · 3.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Change champions are important for moving new innovations through the phases of initiation, development, and implementation. Although research attributes positive health care changes to the help of champions, little work provides details about the champion role. Using a combination of immersion/crystallization and matrix techniques, we analyzed qualitative data, which included field notes of team meetings, interviews, and transcripts of facilitator meetings, from a sample of 8 practices. Our analysis yielded insights into the value of having 2 discrete types of change champions: (1) those associated with a specific project (project champions) and (2) those leading change for entire organizations (organizational change champions). Relative to other practices under study, those that had both types of champions who complemented each other were best able to implement and sustain diabetes care processes. We provide insights into the emergence and development of these champion types, as well as key qualities necessary for effective championing. Practice transformation requires a sustained improvement effort that is guided by a larger vision and commitment and assures that individual changes fit together into a meaningful whole. Change champions-both project and organizational change champions-are critical players in supporting both innovation-specific and transformative change efforts.
    The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 09/2012; 25(5):676-85. · 1.76 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Asthma is a major public health concern in the U.S. pediatric population. Children with asthma tend to fare worse when they acquire respiratory illnesses such as influenza, requiring more episodic office visits and hospitalizations than do healthy children with the same illnesses. Despite the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that children with chronic diseases be immunized for seasonal influenza annually, influenza immunization rates in this population peaks at < 30%. The purpose of this literature review was to examine the effectiveness of reminder/recall systems in improving influenza immunization rates among children with asthma. METHOD: This literature review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Of the 178 articles found, 12 met criteria for inclusion. Articles were included if they addressed influenza vaccination in asthmatic children and "high-risk" children and considered asthmatics in the definition of "high risk." Additionally, inclusion criteria required discussion of at least one mode of reminder method or recall method that was used to influence the rate of influenza vaccination in children with asthma. For the purposes of this review, "reminders" is defined as any action performed by health provider or representative of the health provider that was aimed at informing and/or reiterating to patients the importance of influenza vaccination for asthmatic children and/or the potential for increased morbidity with acquisition of the flu and/or availability of the vaccine. "Recall" methods included all efforts made by the health provider or his/her representative to encourage patients to return to clinics for vaccination during the influenza season. Articles were excluded if they focused on improving influenza vaccination rates in healthy children and if they used reminder/recall systems to influence vaccination against diseases other than influenza. No systematic review was found on this particular topic. RESULTS: Providers have used reminder and recall systems that alert patients of the need for vaccination and encourage compliance with this recommendation. Implemented techniques included verbal and mailed reminders, electronically generated alerts, and year-round scheduling of flu vaccination appointments. DISCUSSION: Improvements have been seen in influenza immunization rates with the implementation of reminder/recall systems; however, most have been modest. Enhancements in patient education and access to vaccination are other areas of needed improvement.
    Journal of Pediatric Health Care 02/2012; · 1.76 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
1 Download
Available from