Multicomponent Interventions to Enhance Influenza Vaccine Delivery to Adolescents

Gargano, Lisa M.; Pazol, Karen; Sales, Jessica M.; Painter, Julia E.; Morfaw, Christopher; Jones, Leonardo; Weiss, Paul S.; Buehler, James W.; Murray, Dennis L.; Wingood, Gina M.; Orenstein, Walter A.; DiClemente, Ralph J.; Hughes, James M.

doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0453

Cited by 28 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[37] Barriers to increased vaccination of school age children include, but are not limited to, vaccine supply limitations, need for extra office visits to get the yearly vaccine each season, and challenges of communication between primary care providers, subspecialists, schools, health departments, pharmacists and other influenza vaccine providers. [35;37;48]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative timing of influenza disease by age group

Peters

Snively

Suerken

et al. 2014

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A detailed understanding of influenza movement in communities during yearly epidemics is needed to inform improved influenza control programs. We sought to determine the relative timing of influenza presentation and symptom onset by age group and influenza strain. Prospective, laboratory-confirmed surveillance was performed over three moderate influenza seasons in emergency departments and inpatient settings of both medical centers in Winston-Salem, NC. Influenza disease presented first in school age children through community epidemics of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza B, and first in persons 5–49 years old for influenza A(H3N2). This finding indicates that influenza prevention in persons 5–49 years of age may be particularly important in influenza epidemic control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative timing of influenza disease by age group

Peters

Snively

Suerken

et al. 2014

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…56,57,62,[64][65][66]84 Of these studies, five specifically targeted only children and adolescents 56,57,[64][65][66] as this age group is considered not only vulnerable in contracting certain infections, but can also be important vectors of spreading infectious diseases, amongst their peers, families and communities. This is particularly relevant in densely populated urban areas of LMICs.…”

Section: Reaching Vulnerable Populations and Health Equityrelated Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Differences in the cost-effectiveness of specific venues were also noted by a few eligible studies. For example, Gargano et al 57 highlights that schoolbased vaccination clinics are potentially more costeffective than similar interventions within primary care physicians' offices or public clinics because of the ability to efficiently vaccinate large numbers of children. This study found that the efficacy of a multi-component school-based vaccination program on improving vaccination rates was greater than in the case of a similar program administered via local healthcare providers in clinical settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating risk and promoting disease mitigation measures in epidemics and emerging disease settings

Schiavo

Leung

Brown

2014

Pathogens and Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This review aims to identify and assess evidence on interventions to communicate risk and promote disease mitigation measures in epidemics and emerging disease outbreak settings. The study focuses on data that are relevant to low and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search using five major electronic databases (Pubmed Medline, Biomed Central, EMBASE, Science of Citation Index, and Cochrane Library) and other sources to identify relevant studies published from January 2002 to July 2013. The review was guided by the socioecological model/perspective of public health and the ideation theory and focused on interventions at the community, healthcare, and multi-sectoral settings, which also reflect key intervention levels of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Eligible quantitative studies were selected according to specific study criteria and assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) framework. Conversely, qualitative studies, reviews, case studies, and editorials were not included. Studies were selected by two independent reviewers. Results: Twenty-nine relevant studies from 16 countries were included. Most studies focused on a single intervention or intervention level, rather than multi-sectoral interventions. The majority of the evidence relates to programs aimed at behavioral and social results (or relevant intermediate steps) within a specific population group. Two studies included implications for improvements in health service delivery, two studies examined the intervention's impact on health systems-related outcomes, and three had also implications for environmental health outcomes. Cost-and health equity-related implications for select evidence were also discussed. Conclusions: The paucity of well-designed quantitative evaluations of interventions to communicate health risk and promote disease control measures in LMICs does not allow for any definitive conclusions. Yet, the review identified several promising interventions and areas for future investigation. Among them, community-based and participatory interventions seemed to be central within epidemic and emerging disease settings, particularly in low-resource settings. Yet, evidence on their effectiveness is not conclusive and needs to be explored by future studies. Other promising areas for future investigation include multicomponent and multi-sectoral approaches to intervention design. Major research gaps referred to any evaluation of the impact of these kinds of interventions on health policy adoption and/or implementation, and social determinants of health. Research on cost-effectiveness also needs to be strengthened. This review identified several research gaps and questions, and discusses potential future directions for increasing capacity for future and more rigorous assessments.

show abstract

“…In some areas, school located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs have demonstrated that seasonal influenza vaccination rates were higher (more than 4.4 times in elementary, 2 times -in middle, and 1.7 times -in high school students) than in non-SLIV locations [22]. Multiple SLIV programs have been very effective .at achieving high vaccination rates [22][23][24][25][26][27]. Also, SLIV programs demonstrated protection not only to the vaccinated children, but also to their parents [22] and other members in the community [28].…”

Section: -2008mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal influenza vaccination trends from 2007–2011 in privately insured children and adults in the United States

Antonova¹,

Ambrose

Kern

et al. 2014

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Annual influenza vaccination claims for privately-insured children and adults increased and shifted earlier from 2007 through 2009-2011. During the 2011-2012 influenza season, 25.4% of children aged 6 months-17 years and 12.3% of adults aged 18-64 years were vaccinated. Increasing influenza vaccination should remain a priority, and alternative venues for seasonal influenza vaccination should be considered in order to meet the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% to 90% coverage among children.

show abstract

Multicomponent Interventions to Enhance Influenza Vaccine Delivery to Adolescents

Cited by 28 publications

References 24 publications

Relative timing of influenza disease by age group

Relative timing of influenza disease by age group

Communicating risk and promoting disease mitigation measures in epidemics and emerging disease settings

Seasonal influenza vaccination trends from 2007–2011 in privately insured children and adults in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About