Article

Influenza vaccination of high-risk children - What the providers say

National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.28). 03/2006; 30(2):111-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.10.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Despite a longstanding national recommendation to administer influenza vaccine to children at high risk for disease complications, physicians' adherence remains low. This study evaluated physicians' perspectives on previously documented and persistent under-utilization of influenza vaccine for high-risk children.
A cross-sectional survey mailed in 2001-2002 to a nationally representative sample of 1460 U.S. physicians in four key medical specialties. The primary outcome was whether the physician provided annual influenza vaccine to children with asthma or other cardiopulmonary diseases. The hypothesis was that factors predicting reported use would fall into four categories: (1) physician knowledge, (2) physician endorsement of recommendation, (3) perceived barriers, and (4) practice patterns.
The overall response rate was 55% (n=600), but differed by specialty. Most physicians were knowledgeable about the recommendation, but collectively tended to overestimate their own achievements in immunizing high-risk children. Adherence varied by physician specialty, endorsement of recommendation, perceived barriers (including difficulty identifying subpopulations of high-risk children and confusion about who should vaccinate those receiving care from multiple providers), and under-utilization of strategies known to improve vaccination rates.
Better communication strategies are needed to resolve confusion about providing influenza vaccine to high-risk children in subspecialty settings. Because of the difficulties in selectively identifying high-risk patient subgroups, research is needed to assist in putting support strategies into practice. Findings from research in promising areas of practice-based quality improvement may be particularly applicable.

0 Followers
 · 
77 Views
  • Source
    04/2013; 5(2):E74. DOI:10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2012.01.11
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To better understand why immunosuppressed individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) fail to receive influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. These cross-sectional data were derived from the 2009 cycle of the Lupus Outcomes Study (LOS), an annual longitudinal telephone survey of individuals with confirmed SLE. Respondents were included in the analysis if they had taken immunosuppressive medications in the past year. We assessed any prior receipt of pneumococcal vaccine and influenza vaccine in the past year, and then elicited reasons for not receiving vaccination. We used bivariate statistics and multivariate logistic regression to assess frequency and predictors of reported reasons for not obtaining influenza or pneumococcal vaccines. Among 508 respondents who received immunosuppressants, 485 reported whether they had received vaccines. Among the 175 respondents who did not receive an influenza vaccine, the most common reason was lack of doctor recommendation (55%), followed by efficacy or safety concerns (21%), and lack of time (19%). Reasons for not receiving pneumococcal vaccine (N = 159) were similar: lack of recommendation (87%), lack of time (7%), and efficacy or safety concerns (4%). Younger, less-educated, non-white patients with shorter disease duration, as well as those immunosuppressed with steroids alone, were at the greatest risk for not receiving indicated vaccine recommendations. The most common reason why individuals with SLE did not receive pneumococcal and influenza vaccines was that physicians failed to recommend them. Data suggest that increasing vaccination rates in SLE will require improved process quality at the provider level, as well as addressing patient concerns and barriers. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 01/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.01.002 · 3.63 Impact Factor