Impact of public vaccination programs on adult vaccination rates: two examples from Ontario, Canada

This study examined adult vaccination rates in Metropolitan Toronto/Peel Region following the implementation of publicly funded adult pneumococcal and universal influenza vaccination programs in Ontario. Community-living adults eligible for pneumococcal vaccines were surveyed regarding vaccination rates, and factors potentially associated with vaccination. Influenza vaccine rates increased over time, but only respondents 65 years of age and older met Canadian targets. Pneumococcal vaccine rates were below target for all respondents. More than 90% of unvaccinated respondents had seen a physician within the past year, and most vaccinations occurred in a physician's office, suggesting a role for physician advocacy to improve immunization rates. Adult vaccination programs may be less successful than pediatric programs in achieving vaccine uptake, and require on-going assessment and promotion.     

Practice and Physician Characteristics Associated with Influenza Vaccination Delivery Rates Following a Patient Reminder Letter Intervention

As part of the “Provider and Patient Reminders in Ontario: Multi-strategy Prevention Tools” demonstration project, the purpose of this study was to explore the practice and physician characteristics associated with influenza vaccination rates following a reminder letter intervention for patients 65 years of age and older. Using a sample of 179 physicians, we estimated a multiple linear regression model to examine variables predictive of vaccination delivery rates. Several provider characteristics, including certification with the College of Family Physicians of Canada and practicing in an urban area, were predictive of the success of the reminder letter campaign. Examining other physician and practice factors associated with vaccination delivery following a reminder letter campaign may help improve such prevention efforts.     

Association of Pneumococcal and Influenza Vaccination With Patient–Physician Communication in Older Adults: A Nationwide Cross-sectional Study From the JAGES 2016

BackgroundIncreasing the coverage of vaccinations recommended by the World Health Organization in the older adult population is an urgent issue, especially in the context of avoiding co-epidemics during the current coronavirus disease 2019 crisis. The aim of this study was to examine factors associated with the quality of perceived patient–physician communication and whether this variable was associated with increased odds of vaccination.MethodsWe used cross-sectional data from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study conducted from October 2016 to January 2017. The participants were 22,253 physically and cognitively independent individuals aged 65 or older living in 39 municipalities in Japan. Multilevel logit models were used to estimate the odds of vaccination.ResultsAmong the participants, 40.0% and 58.8% had received pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations as per the recommended schedule, respectively. People with low educational levels were more likely to have a family physician but rate their experience in asking questions lower than those with higher educational levels. Having a family physician and high rating for physicians’ listening attitude were positively associated with increased odds of pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations. High rating for patients’ questioning attitude and shared decision-making, compared to an ambiguous attitude toward medical decision-making, were positively associated with increased odds of pneumococcal vaccination.ConclusionThe results suggest that promotion of having a family physician, better patient–physician communication, and shared decision-making may encourage older adults to undergo recommended vaccinations.Key words: patient–physician communication, shared decision-making, pneumococcal vaccine, influenza vaccine, older adults     

Provider attitudes regarding use of an immunization information system to identify children with asthma for influenza vaccination.

OBJECTIVES: Despite longstanding national guidelines, many children with asthma do not receive annual influenza vaccinations. Information from Medicaid-administrative claims data was integrated into the Michigan Care Improvement Registry (MCIR) to prompt providers regarding influenza vaccination among children with high-risk conditions such as asthma. The attitudes of pediatric primary care providers regarding the implementation of this system were assessed. METHODS: A survey was sent in February 2006 to office-based general pediatricians (n = 300) and family physicians (n = 300) in Michigan. The survey focused on influenza vaccination during the 2005-2006 influenza season and attitudes regarding a reminder system for providers using the MCIR. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 67 percent. MCIR participation was high (91%) among respondents, and most (83%) had MCIR information available to them prior to visits with pediatric patients. Most physicians (75%) considered the MCIR high-risk indicator for influenza vaccination a feature that they would find helpful. Some respondents reported concerns that the reminder system is limited to Medicaid patients only (44%) and regarding the completeness of Medicaid data to identify children with asthma (24%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians have a positive overall view of a statewide registry-based automated reminder system to assist in identifying children with asthma for influenza vaccination, albeit with specific areas of concern.     

Improving preventive care at a medical clinic: how can the patient help?

We developed a comprehensive individualized preventive care reminder system and then tested the hypothesis that directly involving patients in the reminder process would lead to greater use of preventive services than involving physicians only. There were three experimental groups of 350 patients each: in group 1 physicians and patients received the reminder; in group 2 physicians only received the reminder; in group 3 neither physicians nor patients received the reminder. Nine preventive care services were studied: blood pressure measurement; dental exam; ocular pressure measurement; stool exam for occult blood; influenza, pneumococcal, and tetanus vaccinations; mammography; and Papanicolaou smears. Need for these services was determined by telephone interview and chart review. To determine whether services were obtained, charts were reviewed after four to eight months of follow-up. For overall compliance with preventive recommendations and for several individual services (stool exam for occult blood, tetanus vaccination, mammography), group 1 patients received significantly more preventive care than group 2. Likewise, group 2 patients received more preventive care than group 3. These data show that involving patients in reminder efforts is an effective means of raising the level of preventive services.     

The effect of a combined influenza/pneumococcal immunization reminder letter

BACKGROUND: The effect of a combined influenza and pneumococcal immunization reminder letter on increasing influenza and pneumococcal immunization rates, and the timeliness of receiving immunizations after receipt of a reminder letter, have not been examined. This study addresses these issues using a sample of new Medicare beneficiaries residing in Hawaii. METHODS: Newly enrolled Medicare beneficiaries in Hawaii from 25 September 1995 through 31 August 1996 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: Group 1, no letter (n=2144); Group 2, influenza immunization reminder letter only (n=2213); or Group 3, pneumococcal and influenza immunization reminder letter (n=2171). Health Care Financing Administration claims data were compared among groups. RESULTS: In Group 3, the influenza immunization rate increased 3.8 percentage points (n=87; p=0.017) compared with Group 1. The Group 3 pneumococcal immunization rate increased 3.5 percentage points (n=78; p<0.001) compared to Group 1 and 4.0 percentage points (n=86; p<0.001) compared to Group 2. Sixty-six beneficiaries in Group 3 received simultaneous pneumococcal and influenza immunizations, a significant difference compared to Group 1 or Group 2. Increases in immunizations were observed immediately following the reminder letters and the effect persisted for 5 to 7 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The combination letter increased both influenza and pneumococcal immunization rates and the simultaneous administration of immunizations without detrimental effect to influenza immunization rates. A combined reminder letter is inexpensive and recommended as part of a multicomponent campaign for adult immunization.     

Associations of influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations with burdens of older family caregivers: The Japan Gerontological Evaluation study (JAGES) cross-sectional study

BackgroundInfluenza and pneumonia tend to be severe in older adults; thus, vaccination is necessary to prevent these illnesses. Vaccination is especially important for older family caregivers (OFCs) not only to prevent them from becoming ill, but also to prevent secondary infections in the family care receivers (FCRs), who are mostly frail older adults and have a higher risk of severe illness. Thus, we investigated whether caregiving burdens were associated with the vaccinations among older adults.MethodsWe used cross-sectional data from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES), which was conducted in 64 Japanese municipalities from November 2019 to January 2020. The target population consisted of 26,177 individuals aged 65 years or older who were independent and did not need public long-term care. The primary outcome was the uptakes of either or both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations. Multinomial logistic regressions were performed, setting those who underwent neither vaccinations as the reference group.ResultsAmong the participants, 23.3 %, 25.8 %, 9.4 %, or 41.5 % underwent neither, only influenza, only pneumococcal, or the both vaccinations, respectively. The caregiving frequency, time length in a day, or dementia of FCR were negatively associated with influenza vaccination (caregiving almost every day: relative risk ratio {RRR}: 0.39, 95 % confident interval {95 % CI} [0.24–0.63]; caregiving almost all day: 0.44, 95 % CI: 0.23–0.85; caregiving for FCR: RRR:0.55, 95 % CI: 0.34–0.91). On the other hand, those caregiving burdens were not associated with pneumococcal only or the both vaccinations. Having a family physician mitigated all the negative effect of the caregiving burdens on the vaccinations.ConclusionOur results suggest that the caregiving burden is a barrier to influenza vaccination but not to pneumococcal vaccination and that having a physician mitigates the negative effect regardless of the burden kind.     

Barriers to adolescent immunization: a survey of family physicians and pediatricians

BACKGROUND: Although early childhood vaccination rates have increased, many adolescents are not up to date on recommended vaccinations. We assessed attitudes and practices of family physicians and pediatricians regarding adolescent vaccination to identify provider-level barriers that may contribute to low immunization rates. METHODS: A 94-item self-report questionnaire was mailed to 400 physicians contracted with a managed care organization. Physicians were queried about demographic characteristics, source of vaccine recommendations, adolescent immunization practices, barriers to immunizing adolescents, and use of reminder/recall systems. RESULTS: Response rate was 59%. Most respondents reported routinely recommending vaccines for tetanus and diphtheria toxoids (98%), Hepatitis B (90%), and measles, mumps, and rubella (84%), whereas 60% routinely recommended varicella vaccine. Physicians reported that they were more likely to assess immunization status, administer indicated immunizations, and schedule return immunization visits to younger adolescents (11 to 13 years old) than to older adolescents (14 to 18 and 19 to 21 years old). CONCLUSION: Most respondents reported recommending the appropriate vaccinations during preventive health visits; however, older adolescents were least likely to be targeted for immunization assessment and administration of all recommended vaccines.     

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in children with high-risk conditions—A systematic review

BackgroundInfluenza 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).ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review of studies that have examined interventions aimed at improving influenza vaccination in children with HRCs.MethodsTwo 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.ResultsMost 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.ConclusionThere 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.     

Vaccination of high-risk patients for influenza. A comparison of telephone and mail reminder methods

During the 1984-1985 influenza season two study groups were used to compare telephone and letter reminder methods with a control group that received no reminder to determine which was the most effective strategy to increase influenza vaccination rates among the high-risk patient population of a university-based family practice. Seven hundred eighty-seven high-risk patients were randomly assigned to one of the three study groups: a mailed-reminder group, a telephone-reminder group, and a control group. Vaccination rates for both reminder methods were significantly higher than for the control group (P less than .02), and if successfully contacted, the telephone-reminder group had a significantly better vaccination rate than the mailed-reminder group (P less than .05). If successful telephone contact can be made, this reminder method is more effective than a letter reminder to increase influenza vaccination rates among high-risk patients.     

Use of patient reminder letters to promote cancer screening services in women: A population-based study in Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: Patient reminder letters are an effective method of promoting cancer screening services in women; however, information on their actual use in a population setting is lacking. METHODS: Data were obtained from a population-based, random digit dial telephone survey of 896 adult women living in Wisconsin. Respondents were asked if they had received a reminder letter for Pap or mammography screening within the past year. RESULTS: Among women aged >/=18 years, 12.9% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 10.1-15. 6) received a Pap test reminder within the past year, while 13.0% (95% CI = 9.3-16.7) of women aged >/=40 years received a mammography reminder. Women without health care coverage were unlikely to receive either type of reminder. Current compliance with screening recommendations was greater among those women who received a reminder letter for Pap tests (94.3 versus 78.1%, P < 0.0001) and for mammography (81.7 versus 59.4%, P < 0.001). In contrast to the infrequent use of cancer screening reminders, 54.2% (95% CI = 50. 1-58.3) and 72.7% (95% CI = 67.6-77.8) of women reported receiving a reminder letter from their dentist or veterinarian, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reminder letters for cancer screening services were rarely utilized in this study population. Receipt of a reminder letter was associated with greater compliance with current screening recommendations.     

Receipt of preventive services by elders based on composite measures, 1997-2004

BACKGROUND: The receipt of routine vaccinations and cancer screening is typically tracked separately. Monitoring trends in this way does not measure the overall protection conferred by these services on a target population. DESIGN: Telephone surveys were conducted in 1997, 2002, and 2004 as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected adults aged 65 and older from 49 states and Washington DC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Statistically significant changes (p <0.05) in a composite measure of the prevalence of U.S. men aged 65 or older who were up to date with recommendations for colorectal cancer screening, influenza vaccination, pneumococcal vaccination; and for the prevalence of U.S. women aged 65 or older who were up to date for these measures as well as for Pap test and screening mammography. RESULTS: The percentage of men who reported being up to date on all tests increased from 24.4% (1997) to 39.6% (2002) to 41.0% (2004), and the percentage of women increased from 18.6% (1997) to 32.4% (2002) to 32.5% (2004). For both groups, results varied by education, race/ethnicity, marital status, insurance status, and state, as well as whether they had a personal doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increases between 1997 and 2004 in the reported receipt of individual cancer screenings and vaccinations among U.S. adults aged 65 or older, approximately seven of ten women and six of ten men were not up to date on these routine preventive services in 2004.     

Comparative effectiveness of mailed reminder letters on mammography screening compliance

Objective

Reminder letters are effective at prompting women to schedule mammograms. Less well studied are reminders addressing multiple preventive service recommendations. We compared the effectiveness of a mammogram-specific reminder sent when a woman was due for a mammogram to a reminder letter addressing multiple preventive services and sent on a woman's birthday on mammography receipt.

Methods

The study included 48,583 women 52-74 years enrolled in Group Health Cooperative, a health plan in Washington State. From 2005 to 2009, women were mailed 88,605 mammogram-specific or birthday letters. In this one group pretest-posttest study, we modeled the odds of obtaining a screening mammogram after receiving a letter by reminder type using logistic regression, controlling for demographic and healthcare use characteristics and stratifying by whether women were overdue or up-to-date with mammography at the mailing.

Results

Among women up-to-date with screening, birthday letters were negatively associated with mammography receipt compared to mammogram-specific letters (birthday letters with 1-2 recommendations: OR = 0.73; 95% CI:0.68-0.79; 3 recommendations: OR = 0.74; 95% CI:0.69-0.78; 4-8 recommendations: OR = 0.62 95% CI:0.55-0.68) after. Among overdue women, birthday letters with 4-8 recommendations were negatively associated with mammography receipt.

Conclusions

Transitioning from mammogram-specific reminder letters to multiple preventive service birthday letters was associated with decreased mammography receipt.     

Collection of vaccination data in the German National Cohort

Background

Data about the vaccination status of participants are required in epidemiological cohort studies whenever infection or immunity is considered as potential exposure or outcome. Within Pretest 2 of the German National Cohort (GNC) we therefore investigated the acceptance and feasibility of extracting vaccination status from vaccination certificates provided by the participants of the study.

Methods

This study was conducted in three study centers (Bremen, n?=?73; Hamburg, n?=?200; Hannover, n?=?193). In order to test if an additional reminder would prevent participants from forgetting their vaccination certificates at home persons willing to participate in Pretest 2 were randomly assigned to one of three invitation groups (IG). About one third of the participants received either no further reminder (IG1), a reminder card together with the appointment letter (IG2) or a separate reminder card 4 days before the appointment (IG3). At the study center, vaccination data were scanned or copied and entered into a database using a unique identification number. Participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire to assess the completeness of the provided vaccination data. Additionally, in one of the three participating study centers, general practitioners (GP) were asked to provide vaccination data from their records following respective participants’ consent. Finally, we compared the influenza data from the vaccination certificates with the influenza data obtained from participants in Pretest 2 by use of a self-administered questionnaire (ID-Screen).

Results

Due to different starting dates of the study the intended reminder procedure was implemented only in Hamburg and Hannover. In Hamburg, significantly more vaccination certificates were submitted by the group which received the reminder card separately 4 days before the examination (IG3) compared to IG1 and IG2 (p?=?0.04). In Hannover, in contrast, most vaccination certificates were brought by those who received the reminder card together with the appointment letter. Overall, the use of a reminder card had a positive but not significant effect as 89?% (185/209) of participants who received the reminder card submitted vaccination data versus 81?% (84/104) of participants who did not receive any reminder card (p?=?0.06). Of all Pretest 2 participants in Hannover, 62?% (120/193) gave written consent for data collection by the GPs. In total, 114 practices were contacted of which 49 (43?%) sent vaccination data. All in all, 360 vaccination certificates with 5065 documented vaccinations were entered into a database, of which 4830 (95?%) were valid for analysis covering a period from 1946 to 2012. The comparison of influenza vaccination data from vaccination certificates to the remembered data from a self-completed questionnaire showed an agreement of data in 46?% (84/184) of cases (Kappa?=?0.48). Influenza vaccinations were underreported in 4?% (7/170) of self-completed questionnaires.

Conclusion

The reliable documentation of vaccinations within the context of the GNC proved to be feasible and thus recommendable at a large scale within the GNC as participants showed high willingness and compliance in providing available vaccination documents. An additional validation by means of documents provided by physicians seems to be possible for more than a quarter of participants. In order to maximize the likelyhood of participants’ of bringing their vaccination certificates it would be sufficient to send a reminder card together with the appointment letter.     

Reasons for low influenza vaccination coverage among adults in Puerto Rico,influenza season 2013–2014

BackgroundInfluenza vaccination is recommended annually for all persons 6 months and older. Reports of increased influenza-related morbidity and mortality during the 2013–2014 influenza season raised concerns about low adult influenza immunization rates in Puerto Rico. In order to inform public health actions to increase vaccination rates, we surveyed adults in Puerto Rico regarding influenza vaccination-related attitudes and barriers.MethodsA random-digit-dialing telephone survey (50% landline: 50% cellphone) regarding influenza vaccination, attitudes, practices and barriers was conducted November 19–25, 2013 among adults in Puerto Rico. Survey results were weighted to reflect sampling design and adjustments for non-response.ResultsAmong 439 surveyed, 229 completed the survey with a 52% response rate. Respondents’ median age was 55 years; 18% reported receiving 2013–2014 influenza vaccination. Among 180 unvaccinated respondents, 38% reported barriers associated with limited access to vaccination, 24% reported they did not want or need influenza vaccination, and 20% reported safety concerns. Vaccinated respondents were more likely to know if they were recommended for influenza vaccination, to report greater perceived risk of influenza illness, and to report being less concerned about influenza vaccine safety (p-value < 0.05). Of the 175 respondents who saw a healthcare provider (HCP) since July 1, 2013, 38% reported their HCP recommended influenza vaccination and 17% were offered vaccination. Vaccination rates were higher among adults who received a recommendation and/or offer of influenza vaccination (43% vs. 14%; p-value < 0.01).ConclusionsFailure of HCP to recommend and/or offer influenza vaccination and patient attitudes (low perceived risk of influenza virus infection) may have contributed to low vaccination rates during the 2013–2014 season. HCP and public health practitioners should strongly recommend influenza vaccination and provide vaccinations during clinical encounters or refer patients for vaccination.     

Use of preventive care by the working poor in the United States

OBJECTIVE: Examine the association between poverty and preventive care use among older working adults. METHOD: Cross-sectional analysis of the pooled 1996, 1998 and 2000 waves of the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative sample of older community-dwelling adults, studying self-reported use of cervical, breast, and prostate cancer screening, as well as serum cholesterol screening and influenza vaccination. Adults with incomes within 200% of the federal poverty level were defined as poor. RESULTS: Among 10,088 older working adults, overall preventive care use ranged from 38% (influenza vaccination) to 76% (breast cancer screening). In unadjusted analyses, the working poor were significantly less likely to receive preventive care. After adjustment for insurance coverage, education, and other socio-demographic characteristics, the working poor remained significantly less likely to receive breast cancer (RR 0.92, 95% CI, 0.86-0.96), prostate cancer (RR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.81-0.97), and cholesterol screening (RR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) than the working non-poor, but were not significantly less likely to receive cervical cancer screening (RR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.90-1.01) or influenza vaccination (RR 0.92, 95% CI, 0.84-1.01). CONCLUSION: The older working poor are at modestly increased risk for not receiving preventive care.     

The use of patient and physician reminders for preventive services: results from a National Study of Physician Organizations

BACKGROUND: Clinical preventive services improve patient health, and reminder systems can increase the use of such services. However, physician organizations often underutilize clinical preventive service reminders. Little is known about the incentives, capabilities, and organizational characteristics associated with the use of reminders by physician organizations. METHODS: The predictors of patient and physician reminder system use were examined in a sample of 1,104 US physician organizations. The cross-sectional sample was obtained through a telephone survey with a 70% response rate. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of physician organizations used mammogram reminders, 41% used influenza immunization reminders, and 26% used eye exam reminders for patients. Eighteen percent of physician organizations used computer-generated reminders to physicians. Required reporting of data (P = 0.0006), public recognition for quality (P = 0.0002), and IT capabilities (P < 0.0001) were strongly associated with patient reminder use. Medical groups were more likely to use patient-level reminders than independent practice associations (IPAs) (P < 0.0001). Physician reminder use was related to required reporting of data (P < 0.0001) and IT capabilities (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Physician organizations have relatively low use of preventive service reminders to patients and physicians. Offering quality incentives to physician organizations and improving their IT capabilities may increase the use of preventive service reminders and improve the delivery of preventive care.     

Inattention or reluctance? Parental responses to vaccination reminder letters

This paper studies non-adherence in the Danish Childhood Vaccination Program using a nationwide introduction of a vaccination reminder letter policy and administrative data from 2011–2017. First, I provide causal estimates of how the reminder letter policy affects vaccination adherence using a Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD). Second, I link parental responses to the reminder letter to parents’ causes for being non-adherent. I find that the reminder letter policy positively affects adherence. However, 72% of non-adherent parents are non-responsive to the reminder letter indicating that reluctance and not inattention is the leading cause for non-adherence. Thus, other policies beyond reminder letters – such as mandatory vaccination laws – are necessary to substantially increase vaccination coverage.