A rapid global review of strategies to improve influenza vaccination uptake in Australia

Mohammed, Hassen; McMillan, Mark; Elliott, Salenna R.; Marshall, Helen

doi:10.1080/21645515.2021.1978797

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have higher confidence that postal reminders to attend or book appointments, and for providing information about vaccination are effective (six reviews). Postcards and letters were the most used; [ 13 , 16 , 18 , 26 , 28 , 30 ] postcards were identified as particularly effective [ 13 ]. Personalised letters may be more effective than generic ones [ 28 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some reviews information was extremely limited and we did not have capacity to directly check relevance of primary studies for study design, intervention, population and outcomes if this was not apparent. In one review, we were unsure how many relevant RCTs were included [ 30 ]. This may have led to exclusion of some relevant evidence.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations: Review Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interventions to increase vaccination in vulnerable groups: rapid overview of reviews

Norman,

Kletter,

Dumville

2024

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Groups which are marginalised, disadvantaged or otherwise vulnerable have lower uptake of vaccinations. This differential has been amplified in COVID-19 vaccination compared to (e.g.) influenza vaccination. This overview assessed the effectiveness of interventions to increase vaccination in underserved, minority or vulnerable groups. Methods In November 2022 we searched four databases for systematic reviews that included RCTs evaluating any intervention to increase vaccination in underserved, minority or vulnerable groups; our primary outcome was vaccination. We used rapid review methods to screen, extract data and assess risk of bias in identified reviews. We undertook narrative synthesis using an approach modified from SWiM guidance. We categorised interventions as being high, medium or low intensity, and as targeting vaccine demand, access, or providers. Results We included 23 systematic reviews, including studies in high and low or middle income countries, focused on children, adolescents and adults. Groups were vulnerable based on socioeconomic status, minority ethnicity, migrant/refugee status, age, location or LGBTQ identity. Pregnancy/maternity sometimes intersected with vulnerabilities. Evidence supported interventions including: home visits to communicate/educate and to vaccinate, and facilitator visits to practices (high intensity); telephone calls to communicate/educate, remind/book appointments (medium intensity); letters, postcards or text messages to communicate/educate, remind/book appointments and reminder/recall interventions for practices (low intensity). Many studies used multiple interventions or components. Conclusion There was considerable evidence supporting the effectiveness of communication in person, by phone or in writing to increase vaccination. Both high and low intensity interventions targeting providers showed effectiveness. Limited evidence assessed additional clinics or targeted services for increasing access; only home visits had higher confidence evidence showing effectiveness. There was no evidence for interventions for some communities, such as religious minorities which may intersect with gaps in evidence for additional services. None of the evidence related to COVID-19 vaccination where inequalities of outcome are exacerbated. Prospero registration CRD42021293355

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strengths and Limitations: Review Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to increase vaccination in vulnerable groups: rapid overview of reviews

Norman,

Kletter,

Dumville

2024

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our findings suggest that NUTS region of residence, degree of urbanization, and educational attainment, while significant, had a relatively lesser influence on the decision-making process. It is imperative to delve deeper into understanding these nuances to tailor strategies that resonate with various demographics [ 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influenza Vaccine Uptake in Italy—The 2022–2023 Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Campaign in Italy: An Update from the OBVIOUS Project

Capodici,

Salussolia,

La Fauci

et al. 2024

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Influenza is a significant public health concern, with Italy being profoundly impacted annually. Despite extensive vaccination campaigns and cooperative initiatives between the Public Health Departments of Local Healthcare Authorities and family physicians, low vaccine uptake rates persist. This study builds upon the OBVIOUS project, providing an updated picture of influenza vaccine uptake in Italy through a representative sample. A cross-sectional computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI) survey of 10,001 Italian citizens was conducted between 31 March and 5 June 2023. Our findings underscore the negative impact of a lack of awareness that a person is in a priority group for influenza vaccination (−26.1 percentage points in vaccine uptake) and the profound influence of social circles on vaccination decisions (−5 percentage points when unfavorable). Medical professionals played a pivotal role, with recommendations from family doctors significantly promoting vaccine uptake (+20.2 percentage points). Age, chronic conditions, and socio-demographic factors also influenced vaccination behaviors. For children, parental negative perceptions regarding the flu (−10.4 percentage points) and vaccine safety (−23.4 percentage points) were crucial determinants. The present study emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach addressing awareness, societal beliefs, and tailored medical advice to enhance vaccination rates and protect public health in Italy.

show abstract

“…In one review, we were unsure how many relevant RCTs were included. [30] This may have led to exclusion of some relevant evidence. Overlap between reviews means evidence missed in one review may be identi ed elsewhere.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations: Review Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to increase vaccination in vulnerable groups: rapid overview of reviews

Norman

Kletter

Dumville

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Groups which are marginalised, disadvantaged or otherwise vulnerable have lower uptake of vaccinations. This differential has been amplified in COVID-19 vaccination compared to (e.g.) influenza vaccination. This overview assessed the effectiveness of interventions to increase vaccination in underserved, minority or vulnerable groups. Methods In November 2022 we searched four databases for systematic reviews including RCTs of interventions to increase vaccination in underserved, minority or vulnerable groups. We used rapid review methods to screen, extract data and assess risk of bias in identified reviews. We undertook narrative synthesis using an approach modified from SWiM guidance. We categorised interventions as being high, medium or low intensity, and as targeting vaccine demand, access, or providers. Results We included 23 systematic reviews, including studies in high and low or middle income countries, focused on children, adolescents and adults. Groups were vulnerable based on socioeconomic status, minority ethnicity, migrant/refugee status, age, location or LGBTQ identity. Pregnancy/maternity sometimes intersected with vulnerabilities. Evidence supported interventions including: home visits to communicate/educate and to vaccinate, and facilitator visits to practices (high intensity); telephone calls to communicate/educate, remind/book appointments (medium intensity); letters, postcards or text messages to communicate/educate, remind/book appointments and reminder/recall interventions for practices (low intensity). Many studies used multiple interventions or components. Conclusion There was considerable evidence supporting the effectiveness of communication in person, by phone or in writing to increase vaccination. Both high and low intensity interventions targeting providers showed effectiveness. Limited evidence assessed additional clinics or targeted services for increasing access; only home visits had higher confidence evidence showing effectiveness. There was no evidence for interventions for some communities, such as religious minorities which may intersect with gaps in evidence for additional services. None of the evidence related to COVID-19 vaccination where inequalities of outcome are exacerbated. Prospero registration: CRD42021293355

show abstract

A rapid global review of strategies to improve influenza vaccination uptake in Australia

Cited by 7 publications

References 55 publications

Interventions to increase vaccination in vulnerable groups: rapid overview of reviews

Interventions to increase vaccination in vulnerable groups: rapid overview of reviews

Influenza Vaccine Uptake in Italy—The 2022–2023 Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Campaign in Italy: An Update from the OBVIOUS Project

Interventions to increase vaccination in vulnerable groups: rapid overview of reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About