Assessing the Relationship between Seasonal and H1N1 Influenza Vaccination Status in Michigan Children, 2009–2010

Abstract

We calculated descriptive statistics for dichotomous and categorical variables, including numbers of children vaccinated with either influenza (H1N1) monovalent vaccine and/or seasonal influenza vaccine, gender, race! / ethnicity, provider type, moved-or-gone-elsewhere (MOGE) status, and vaccin type. We used logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders and effect modifiers (age and MOGE status), to calculate odds ratios associate with H1N1 vaccine status (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated). RESULTS. Michigan children who were vaccinated for seasonal influenza from August 1, 2009, to February 27, 2010, were 6.26 (95% confidence interval 6.18, 6.34) times as likely as children who were unvaccinated for seasonal influenza to be vaccinated with H1N1 2009 monovalent vaccine. Private health-care providers administered 91% of the seasonal influenza vaccine and 59% of the H1N1 vaccine. CONCLUSIONS. Increasing seasonal influenza vaccination campaign efforts could also benefit pandemic influenza vaccination efforts. Special educational outreach to parents regarding the importance of influenza vaccination for all children, regardless of age, may be needed. Stocking and offering traditional seasonal vaccine with pandemic-specific vaccine may aid in increasing immunization uptake. Efforts should be made to ensure that private providers are supplied with adequate pandemic vaccine as part of preparedness planning.

2009 H1N1 and Seasonal Influenza Immunization Among Pregnant Women: A Comparison of Different Sources of Immunization Information

“…MRA, however, was the most sensitive method for identifying women who received the seasonal influenza vaccine, perhaps indicating that seasonal influenza vaccine was more likely to have been administered in the physician’s office when compared to the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, as found by others [7]. …”

Evaluation of the frequency of immunization information system use for public health research

“…These 44 manuscripts were produced through research at 18 IIS locations. The most number of manuscripts were affiliated with a university (n = 16), 12,16,17,19,20,24,25,27,[32][33][34]36,40,41,48,55 followed by affiliations with a health department (n = 9). 14,20,22,30,31,38,46,47,49 Other affiliations included the CDC (n = 8), 18 want to use the IIS data for research purposes could be advised to seek such a relationship.…”

“…While IIS have served many purposes to aid public health practice (e.g., reminder/recall systems, generation of immunization reports for school entry and surveillance for immunization coverage), it appears that we are not currently using IIS to their full potential. On the other hand only 2 manuscripts used data collected after 2009, 12,25 indicating that there is a lag between when data are collected and when research is published. Therefore, it is possible that now that IIS have matured this powerful tool is not being realized.…”

“…In addition, this review did not examine the use of IIS data specifically for research purposes. Therefore, though findings from this review are important for understanding the utility of IIS, it does not examine the use of individual IIS associated with the 64 immunization programs in the United States for research purposes, and it is possible that the full potential of hospital (n = 8), 12,15,26,35,41,53 an HMO (n = 1), 23 a consulting service (n = 1) 54 and an independent research group (n = 1). Data from the Michigan IIS (Michigan Care Improvement Registry) were used to generate 9 manuscripts 12,14,15,30,[39][40][41]43,48 the most from any IIS, followed by Philadelphia (8) 27,28,33,35,37,44,45,55 and New York City (6) 17,18,32,46,49,51 ( Table 1).…”

“…The largest group, was coverage associations and estimate evaluations (n = 22 papers), including 11 describing associations with coverage, 12 [25][26][27] and 4 describing the completeness of data in the IIS. 28,29,43,44 The Policy implementation/change category included 11 papers, including one that described the coverage of a new vaccine compared with an older vaccine, 30 one that examined recommended ages, 35 two that examined the impact of a policy change, 36,37 and 7 that evaluated an intervention.…”