Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to improve vaccination coverage in children adolescents and adults.

Background Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result of low immunization rates, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care and large demands on primary care physicians, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. A common theme across immunization programs in all nations involves the challenge of determining the denominator of eligible recipients (e.g. all children who should receive the measles vaccine) and identifying the best strategy to ensure high vaccination rates. Strategies have focused on patient-oriented interventions (e.g., patient reminders), provider interventions and system interventions. One intervention strategy involves patient reminder and recall systems. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of patient reminder and recall systems in improving immunization rates and compare the effects of various types of reminders in different settings or patient populations. Search strategy A systematic search was performed for the initial review using MEDLINE (1966-1998) and four other bibliographic databases: EMBASE, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and CAB Abstracts. Authors also performed a search of The Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) register in April 2001 to update the review. Two authors reviewed the lists of titles and abstracts and used the inclusion criteria to mark potentially relevant articles for full review. The reference lists of all relevant articles and reviews were back searched for additional studies. Publications of abstracts, proceedings from scientific meetings and files of study collaborators were also searched for references. In December 2004 the EPOC register was searched to identify relevant articles to update the review. Study design Randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies written in English. Types of participants Health care personnel who deliver immunizations and children (birth to 18 years) or adults (18 years and up) who receive immunizations in any setting. Types of interventions Any intervention that falls within the EPOC scope (See Group Details) and that includes patient reminder or recall systems, or both, in at least one arm of the study. Types of outcome measures Immunization rates or the proportion of the target population up-to-date on recommended immunizations. Outcomes were acceptable for either individual vaccinations (e.g. influenza vaccination) or standard combinations of recommended vaccinations (e.g. all recommended vaccinations by a specific date or age). Data collection Each study was read independently by two reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by a formal reconciliation process to achieve consensus. Analysis Results are presented for individual studies as relative rates for randomized controlled trials and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before and after studies. Pooled results for RCTs only were presented using the random effects model. Main results Five new studies were added for this update. Increases in immunization rates due to reminders were in the range of 1 to 20 percentage points. Reminders were effective for childhood vaccinations (OR = 1.45, 95% CI =1.28, 1.66), childhood influenza vaccinations (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.65, 4.98), adult pneumococcus, tetanus, and Hepatitis B (OR = 2.19, 95% CI = 1.21, 3.99), and adult influenza vaccinations (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.31, 2.09). All types of reminders were effective (postcards, letters, telephone or autodialer calls), with telephone being the most effective but most costly. Authors' conclusions Patient reminder and recall systems in primary care settings are effective in improving immunization rates within developed countries.

/pdf/patient-reminder-and-patient-recall-systems-to-improve-1do2wwr0mo.pdf

Patient reminder and patient recall systems to improve immunization rates.

Background
Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine‐preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population‐based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient‐oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review.

/pdf/patient-reminder-and-recall-interventions-to-improve-3ug3aafnfb.pdf

Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates

CONTEXT: An overarching national health goal of Healthy People 2010 is to eliminate disparities in leading health care indicators including immunizations. Disparities in US childhood immunization rates persist, with inner-city, black, and Hispanic children having lower rates. Although practice or clinic-based interventions, such as patient reminder/recall systems, have been found to improve immunization rates in specific settings, there is little evidence that those site-based interventions can reduce disparities in immunization rates at the community level.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a community-wide reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) system for childhood immunizations on known disparities in immunization rates between inner-city versus suburban populations and among white, black, and Hispanic children within an entire county.

SETTING: Monroe County, New York (birth cohort: 10 000, total population: 750 000), which includes the city of Rochester. Three geographic regions within the county were compared: the inner city of Rochester, which contains the greatest concentration of poverty (among 2-year-old children, 64% have Medicaid); the rest of the city of Rochester (38% have Medicaid); and the suburbs of the county (8% have Medicaid).

INTERVENTIONS: An RRO system was implemented in 8 city practices in 1995 (covering 64% of inner-city children) and was expanded to 10 city practices by 1999 (covering 74% of inner-city children, 61% of rest-of-city children, and 9% of suburban children). The RRO intervention involved lay community-based outreach workers who were assigned to city practices to track immunization rates of all 0- to 2-year-olds, and to provide a staged intervention with increasing intensity depending on the degree to which children were behind in immunizations (tracking for all children, mail, or telephone reminders for most children, assistance with transportation or scheduling for some children, and home visits for 5% of children who were most behind in immunizations and who faced complex barriers).

STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Three separate cohorts of 0- to 2-year-old children were assessed-those residing in the county in 1993, 1996, and 1999.

STUDY DESIGN: Immunization rates were measured for each geographic region in Monroe County at 3 time periods: before the implementation of a systematic RRO system (1993), during early phases of implementation of the RRO system (1996), and after implementation of the RRO system in 10 city practices (1999). Immunization rates were compared for children living in the 3 geographic regions, and for white, black, and Hispanic children. Immunization rates were measured by the same methodology in each of the 3 time periods. A denominator of children was obtained by merging patient lists from the practice files of most pediatric and family medicine practices in the county (covering 85% to 89% of county children). A random sample of children (>500 from the suburbs and >1200 from the city for each sampling period) was then selected for medical chart review at practices to determine demographic characteristics (including race and ethnicity) and immunization rates. City children were oversampled to allow detection of effects by geographic region and race. Rates for the 3 geographic regions and for the entire county were determined using Stata to adjust for the clustered sampling.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Immunization rates at 12 and 24 months for recommended vaccines (4 diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis:3 polio:1 measles-mumps-rubella: > or =1 Haemophilus influenzae type b on or after 12 months of age).

RESULTS: DISPARITIES BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Baseline immunization rates (1993) for 24-month-olds were as follows: inner city (55%), rest of city (64%), and suburbs (73%), with an 18% difference in rates between the inner city and suburbs. By 1996, immunization rates rose faster in the inner city (+21% points) than in the suburbs (+14% points) so that the difference in rates between the inner city and suburbs had narrowed to 11%. In 1999, rates were similar across geographic regions: inner city (84%), rest of city (81%), and suburbs (88%), with a 4% difference between the inner city and suburbs. DISPARITIES BY RACE AND ETHNICITY: Immunization rates were available in 1996 and 1999 by race and ethnicity. Twenty-four-month immunization rates in 1996 showed disparities: white (89%), black (76%), and Hispanic (74%), with a 13% difference between rates for white and black children and a 15% difference between white and Hispanic children. In 1999, rates were similar across the groups: white (88%), black (81%), and Hispanic (87%), with a 7% difference between rates for white and black children, and a 1% difference between white and Hispanic children.

CONCLUSIONS: A community-wide intervention of patient RRO raised childhood immunization rates in the inner city of Rochester and was associated with marked reductions in disparities in immunization rates between inner-city and suburban children and among racial and ethnic minority populations. By targeting a relatively manageable number of primary care practices that serve city children and using an effective strategy to increase immunization rates in each practice, it is possible to eliminate disparities in immunizations for vulnerable children.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/110/5/e58.full.pdf

Reducing geographic, racial, and ethnic disparities in childhood immunization rates by using reminder/recall interventions in urban primary care practices.

Objectives. To determine the relative impact of parental characteristics, provider behavior, and the provision of free vaccines through state-sponsored vaccine volume programs (VVPs) on the immunization status of children followed by private pediatricians. Study Design. Retrospective and cross-sectional surveys of immunization data. Setting. The offices of 15 private pediatricians, from 11 states, who were members of the Pediatric Research in Office Settings network. Seven of these physicians used vaccines provided through VVPs. Patients. Children 2 to 3 years old followed by the participating physicians. Methods. The immunization status of children was assessed from two separate samples. For sample 1, immunization data were abstracted from the medical records of 60 consecutive eligible children seen in each office. Parents of the selected children indicated the method of payment for immunizations and the education levels of the mothers. Because this cross-sectional survey might have oversampled frequent health care users, a retrospective chart review of up to 75 randomly selected children in each pediatrician9s practice was also conducted (sample 2). Additional data were collected from the parents of children in sample 2 by telephone interviews. For both samples, patients were considered to be fully immunized if they had received four diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis/diphtheria-tetanus vaccines, three oral poliovirus/inactivated poliovirus vaccines, and one measles-mumps-rubella vaccine before their second birthdays. Before collecting vaccination data, pediatricians completed a survey detailing their immunization beliefs and practices. Logistic regression was used to identify factors that were independently associated with a child being fully immunized. Results. For sample 1, 81.7% of the 857 children surveyed were fully immunized. Practitioner-specific immunization rates varied widely, ranging from 51% to 97%. The immunization rate of children who received vaccines provided by VVPs was similar to that of children whose immunizations were not provided by VVPs (81.2% vs 82.2%; odds ratio [OR] for a VVP as a predictor for being fully immunized, 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.32). In addition, parents who paid for immunizations out of pocket were as likely to have fully immunized children as those who had little or no out-of-pocket expenditures for vaccines (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.13). In the logistic model, only individual pediatrician and size of the metropolitan area in which the pediatrician9s practice was located were significant predictors of a child9s immunization status. The results from sample 2 were similar; 82.1% of the 772 surveyed patients were fully immunized. With sample 2, individual pediatrician and age of the child at the time of the survey were the only predictors of immunization status. The OR of a VVP as a predictor of a child being fully immunized was 1.37 (95% CI, 0.65 to 2.90). Conclusions. Individual provider behavior may be the most important determinant of the immunization status of children followed by private pediatricians. In our samples, the effect of parental characteristics was limited. State-sponsored VVPs were not associated with higher immunization rates, perhaps because cost of vaccines did not seem to be a significant barrier to immunization in this population.

The Influence of Provider Behavior, Parental Characteristics, and a Public Policy Initiative on the Immunization Status of Children Followed by Private Pediatricians: A Study From Pediatric Research in Office Settings

THE RESURGENCE of measles in the United States between 1989 and 1991 was associated with 55622 reported cases, 1,2 11251 hospitalizations, and over 42 000 hospital days (unpublished data, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1992) and 166 suspected deaths from measles. 3 The main cause of the epidemic was failure to vaccinate children at the recommended ages, 12 to 15 months. 4 For editorial comment, see p 1844. While 97% to 98% of children are vaccinated by or shortly after school entry with four doses of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine, three doses of oral poliovirus vaccine, and one dose of measles, mumps, rubella vaccine, series-complete immunization levels among preschool children are considerably lower. Recent surveys of school entrants in nine cities that measured immunization status as of the second birthday documented that only 52% to 71% had been vaccinated against measles. 5 Series-complete immunization levels ranged

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr4205.pdf

Standards for Pediatric Immunization Practices

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

James E. Strain

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Standards for Pediatric Immunization Practices