BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of interventions to increase influenza vaccination uptake in people aged 60 years and older varies by country and participant characteristics. This review updates versions published in 2010 and 2014.
OBJECTIVES: To assess access, provider, system, and societal interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years and older in the community.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ERIC for this update, as well as WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies to 7 December 2017. We also searched the reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials of interventions to increase influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years or older in the community.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We included three new RCTs for this update (total 61 RCTs; 1,055,337 participants). Trials involved people aged 60 years and older living in the community in high-income countries. Heterogeneity limited some meta-analyses. We assessed studies as at low risk of bias for randomisation (38%), allocation concealment (11%), blinding (44%), and selective reporting (100%). Half (51%) had missing data. We assessed the evidence as low-quality. We identified three levels of intervention intensity: low (e.g. postcards), medium (e.g. personalised phone calls), and high (e.g. home visits, facilitators).Increasing community demand (12 strategies, 41 trials, 53 study arms, 767,460 participants)One successful intervention that could be meta-analysed was client reminders or recalls by letter plus leaflet or postcard compared to reminder (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.15; 3 studies; 64,200 participants). Successful interventions tested by single studies were patient outreach by retired teachers (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.79 to 6.22); invitations by clinic receptionists (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76); nurses or pharmacists educating and nurses vaccinating patients (OR 152.95, 95% CI 9.39 to 2490.67); medical students counselling patients (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.35); and multiple recall questionnaires (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24).Some interventions could not be meta-analysed due to significant heterogeneity: 17 studies tested simple reminders (11 with 95% CI entirely above unity); 16 tested personalised reminders (12 with 95% CI entirely above unity); two investigated customised compared to form letters (both 95% CI above unity); and four studies examined the impact of health risk appraisals (all had 95% CI above unity). One study of a lottery for free groceries was not effective.Enhancing vaccination access (6 strategies, 8 trials, 10 arms, 9353 participants)We meta-analysed results from two studies of home visits (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61) and two studies that tested free vaccine compared to patient payment for vaccine (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82). We were unable to conduct meta-analyses of two studies of home visits by nurses plus a physician care plan (both with 95% CI above unity) and two studies of free vaccine compared to no intervention (both with 95% CI above unity). One study of group visits (OR 27.2, 95% CI 1.60 to 463.3) was effective, and one study of home visits compared to safety interventions was not.Provider- or system-based interventions (11 strategies, 15 trials, 17 arms, 278,524 participants)One successful intervention that could be meta-analysed focused on payments to physicians (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.77). Successful interventions tested by individual studies were: reminding physicians to vaccinate all patients (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.99); posters in clinics presenting vaccination rates and encouraging competition between doctors (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.22); and chart reviews and benchmarking to the rates achieved by the top 10% of physicians (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.37 to 4.97).We were unable to meta-analyse four studies that looked at physician reminders (three studies with 95% CI above unity) and three studies of facilitator encouragement of vaccination (two studies with 95% CI above unity). Interventions that were not effective were: comparing letters on discharge from hospital to letters to general practitioners; posters plus postcards versus posters alone; educational reminders, academic detailing, and peer comparisons compared to mailed educational materials; educational outreach plus feedback to teams versus written feedback; and an intervention to increase staff vaccination rates.Interventions at the societal levelNo studies reported on societal-level interventions.Study funding sourcesStudies were funded by government health organisations (n = 33), foundations (n = 9), organisations that provided healthcare services in the studies (n = 3), and a pharmaceutical company offering free vaccines (n = 1). Fifteen studies did not report study funding sources.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified interventions that demonstrated significant positive effects of low (postcards), medium (personalised phone calls), and high (home visits, facilitators) intensity that increase community demand for vaccination, enhance access, and improve provider/system response. The overall GRADE assessment of the evidence was moderate quality. Conclusions are unchanged from the 2014 review.
Despite official recommendations for health care workers to receive the influenza vaccine, uptake remains low. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted to understand the evidence about interventions to improve influenza vaccine uptake among health care workers. We identified twelve randomized controlled trials that, collectively, assessed six major categories of interventions involving 193,924 health care workers in high-income countries. The categories were educational materials and training sessions, improved access to the vaccine, rewards following vaccination, organized efforts to raise vaccine awareness, reminders to get vaccinated, and the use of lead advocates for vaccination. Only one of the four studies that evaluated the effect of a single intervention in isolation demonstrated a significantly higher vaccine uptake rate in the intervention group, compared to controls. However, five of the eight studies that evaluated a combination of strategies showed significantly higher vaccine uptake. Despite the low quality of the studies identified, the data suggest that combined interventions can moderately increase vaccine uptake among health care workers. Further methodologically appropriate trials of combined interventions tailored to individual health care settings and incorporating less-studied strategies would enhance the evidence about interventions to improve immunization uptake among health care workers.
CONTEXT: Population-level coverage for immunization against many vaccine-preventable diseases remains below optimal rates in the U.S. The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended several interventions to increase vaccination coverage based on systematic reviews of the evaluation literature. The present study provides the economic results from those reviews.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was conducted (search period, January 1980 through February 2012) to identify economic evaluations of 12 interventions recommended by the Task Force. Evidence was drawn from included studies; estimates were constructed for the population reach of each strategy, cost of implementation, and cost per additional vaccinated person because of the intervention. Analyses were conducted in 2014.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Reminder systems, whether for clients or providers, were among the lowest-cost strategies to implement and the most cost effective in terms of additional people vaccinated. Strategies involving home visits and combination strategies in community settings were both costly and less cost effective. Strategies based in settings such as schools and MCOs that reached the target population achieved additional vaccinations in the middle range of cost effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: The interventions recommended by the Task Force differed in reach, cost, and cost effectiveness. This systematic review presents the economic information for 12 effective strategies to increase vaccination coverage that can guide implementers in their choice of interventions to fit their local needs, available resources, and budget.
Influenza vaccination is recommended for healthcare workers (HCWs), but coverage is often low. We reviewed studies evaluating interventions to increase seasonal influenza vaccination coverage in HCWs, including a meta-regression analysis to quantify the effect of each component. Fourty-six eligible studies were identified. Domains conferring a high risk of bias were identified in most studies. Mandatory vaccination was the most effective intervention component (Risk Ratio of being unvaccinated [RRunvacc] = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.08-0.45), followed by "soft" mandates such as declination statements (RRunvacc = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.45-0.92), increased awareness (RRunvacc = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71-0.97) and increased access (RRunvacc = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78-1.00). For incentives the difference was not significant, while for education no effect was observed. Heterogeneity was substantial (τ(2) = 0.083). These results indicate that effective alternatives to mandatory HCWs influenza vaccination do exist, and need to be further explored in future studies.
BACKGROUND: Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to the implementation of improvement in health professional performance. Attempts to change the behaviour of health professionals may be impeded by a variety of different barriers, obstacles, or factors (which we collectively refer to as determinants of practice). Change may be more likely if implementation strategies are specifically chosen to address these determinants.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether tailored intervention strategies are effective in improving professional practice and healthcare outcomes. We compared interventions tailored to address the identified determinants of practice with either no intervention or interventions not tailored to the determinants.
SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index to May 2014. We conducted a final search in December 2014 (in MEDLINE only) for more recently published trials. We conducted searches of the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in March 2013. We also handsearched two journals.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified determinants of practice, which reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes, and where at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified determinants of practice.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook qualitative and quantitative analyses, the quantitative analysis including two elements: we carried out 1) meta-regression analyses to compare interventions tailored to address identified determinants with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants, and 2) heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, use of a theory when developing the intervention, whether adjustment was made for local factors, and number of domains addressed with the determinants identified.
MAIN RESULTS: We added nine studies to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 32 comparing an intervention tailored to address identified determinants of practice to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants. The outcome was implementation of recommended practice, e.g. clinical practice guideline recommendations. Fifteen studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.93, P value < 0.001). The 17 studies not included in the meta-analysis had findings showing variable effectiveness consistent with the findings of the meta-regression.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increase in the number of new studies identified, our overall finding is similar to that of the previous review. Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate. The number of studies remains small and more research is needed, including trials comparing tailored interventions to no or other interventions, but also studies to develop and investigate the components of tailoring (identification of the most important determinants, selecting interventions to address the determinants). Currently available studies have used different methods to identify determinants of practice and different approaches to selecting interventions to address the determinants. It is not yet clear how best to tailor interventions and therefore not clear what the effect of an optimally tailored intervention would be.
The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts.
METHODS: A systematic review of peer reviewed (January 2007-October 2013) and grey literature (up to October 2013) was conducted using a broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy concerning vaccines. This search strategy was applied and adapted across several databases and organizational websites. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for 166 (peer reviewed) and 15 (grey literature) evaluation studies. In addition, the quality of evidence relating to a series of PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control, outcomes) questions defined by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy (WG) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria; data were analyzed using Review Manager.
RESULTS: Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have recommended all health care workers receive an annual influenza vaccination because nosocomial influenza infection has the ability to increase patient morbidity and mortality. Despite these recommendations by the CDC, vaccination rates have remained low among health care workers. The purpose of the project was to use existing research to investigate barriers to vaccination by health care workers and evidence-based interventions to include in a vaccination program. A systematic review of the literature was conducted, informed by the theoretical frameworks of the health belief model and the health promotion model. Barriers to vaccination were identified by reviewing data from 8 survey-based studies focused on identifying cited barriers from 22,484 health care workers. Evidence-based interventions were identified by reviewing data from 10 interventional studies that varied in significance and study design. Barriers and evidence-based interventions were identified from existing research findings, and only studies that focused on health care workers were used for data collection. Analysis was conducted by identifying study sample, participants, research design, and level of significance, and summarizing findings. The 3 main barriers to vaccination are doubts regarding efficacy, lack of convenience, and fear of adverse reactions. Analyses of evidence-based interventions revealed that health care worker vaccination programs should include health care worker education and a convenient vaccination delivery system to improve vaccination rates. Increasing influenza vaccination rates among health care workers has the ability to improve patient safety by decreasing the potential of nosocomial infection from influenza.
BACKGROUND: Effective communication of risks and benefits to patients is critical for shared decision making. PURPOSE: To review the comparative effectiveness of methods of communicating probabilistic information to patients that maximize their cognitive and behavioral outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (1966 to March 2014) and CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966 to December 2011) using several keywords and structured terms. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective or cross-sectional studies that recruited patients or healthy volunteers and compared any method of communicating probabilistic information with another method. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighty-four articles, representing 91 unique studies, evaluated various methods of numerical and visual risk display across several risk scenarios and with diverse outcome measures. Studies showed that visual aids (icon arrays and bar graphs) improved patients' understanding and satisfaction. Presentations including absolute risk reductions were better than those including relative risk reductions for maximizing accuracy and seemed less likely than presentations with relative risk reductions to influence decisions to accept therapy. The presentation of numbers needed to treat reduced understanding. Comparative effects of presentations of frequencies (such as 1 in 5) versus event rates (percentages, such as 20%) were inconclusive. LIMITATION: Most studies were small and highly variable in terms of setting, context, and methods of administering interventions. CONCLUSION: Visual aids and absolute risk formats can improve patients' understanding of probabilistic information, whereas numbers needed to treat can lessen their understanding. Due to study heterogeneity, the superiority of any single method for conveying probabilistic information is not established, but there are several good options to help clinicians communicate with patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
INTRODUCTION: Despite longstanding recommendations by public-health authorities vaccination coverage in health care workers worldwide are poor. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the trials conducted to increase seasonal influenza vaccination rates among health care workers.
RESULTS: Ten articles met the pre-determined criteria. For all article the score calculation was performed.
DISCUSSION: The combination of an educational and a promotional element appared the most effective in augmenting the influenza vaccination coverage among health care workers. But some cases, the intervention did not contribute to increasing the vaccination rates among health care workers. In any case, the quality of controlled trials plays an important role in the results obtained by carrying out a specific intervention and contributed to obtaining this debatable results.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Research was conducted using Scopus and PubMed database. We selected all clinical trials to perform the meta-analyses.
