Pediatricians’ Attitudes About Collaborations With Other Community Vaccinators in the Delivery of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine

Kempe, Allison; Wortley, Pascale M.; O’Leary, Sean T.; Crane, Lori A.; Daley, Matthew F.; Stokley, Shannon; Babbel, Christine; Dong, Fran; Beaty, Brenda; Seewald, Laura; Suh, Christina; Dickinson, L. Miriam

doi:10.1016/j.acap.2011.07.004

Cited by 37 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We assessed whether SLIV substituted for practice-based vaccination 13 since primary care practitioners must preorder and purchase commercial vaccines at a substantial cost. We found that in suburban schools serving mostly commercially insured children, 32 SLIV did not substitute for practicebased vaccination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Family barriers include time, money, and need for an extra office visit. 8 -11 Experts have discussed schools as sites for influenza vaccination 12 ; most pediatricians [13][14][15] and parents 7, 16 -18 support schoollocated influenza vaccination (SLIV). Additionally, schools have a stake in influenza vaccination because immunization of school-children can reduce absenteeism throughout the community.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

School-Located Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: Assess impact of offering school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) clinics using both Web-based and paper consent upon overall influenza vaccination rates among elementary school children. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial (stratified by suburban/urban districts) in upstate New York in 2014–2015. We randomized 44 elementary schools, selected similar pairs of schools within districts, and allocated schools to SLIV versus usual care (control). Parents of children at SLIV schools were sent information and vaccination consent forms via e-mail, backpack fliers, or both (depending on school preferences) regarding school vaccine clinics. Health department nurses conducted vaccine clinics and billed insurers. For all children registered at SLIV/control schools, we compared receipt of influenza vaccination anywhere (primary outcome). RESULTS: The 44 schools served 19 776 eligible children in 2014–2015. Children in SLIV schools had higher influenza vaccination rates than children in control schools county-wide (54.1% vs 47.4%, P < .001) and in suburban (61.9% vs 53.6%, P < .001) and urban schools (43.9% vs 39.2%; P < .001). Multivariate analyses (controlling for age, grade, vaccination in previous season) confirmed bivariate findings. Among parents who consented for SLIV, nearly half of those notified by backpack fliers and four-fifths of those notified by e-mail consented online. In suburban districts, SLIV did not substitute for primary care influenza vaccination. In urban schools, some substitution occurred. CONCLUSIONS: SLIV raised seasonal influenza vaccination rates county-wide and in both suburban and urban settings. SLIV did not substitute for primary care vaccinations in suburban settings where pediatricians often preorder influenza vaccine but did substitute somewhat in urban settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

School-Located Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17 Moreover, few practices actually use reminder/recall for patients of any age [18][19][20] ; barriers include the added workload, costs, and complexities of conducting such a program. 21,22 Furthermore, some recent studies targeting low-income populations found little or no benefit to practice-based reminder/recall for young children because of difficulties in reaching families that often change addresses or telephone numbers. 18,[23][24][25][26] Although tiered interventions that combine reminder/recall with outreach have improved immunization rates among low-income populations, 16,[27][28][29][30] they are somewhat costly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Randomized Trial of the Effect of Centralized Reminder/Recall on Immunizations and Preventive Care Visits for Adolescents

Szilâgyi

Albertin

Humiston

et al. 2013

Academic Pediatrics

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-To assess the impact of a managed care-based patient reminder/recall system on immunization rates and preventive care visits among low-income adolescents.Methods-We conducted a randomized controlled trial between December 2009 and December 2010 that assigned adolescents aged 11-17 years to one of three groups: mailed letter, telephone reminders, or control. Publicly insured youths (n = 4, 115) were identified in 37 participating primary care practices. The main outcome measures were immunization rates for routine vaccines (meningococcus, pertussis, HPV) and preventive visit rates at study end.Results-Intervention and control groups were similar at baseline for demographics, immunization rates, and preventive visits. Among adolescents who were behind at the start, immunization rates at study end increased by 21% for mailed (P < .01 vs control), 17% for telephone (P < .05), and 13% for control groups. The proportion of adolescents with a preventive visit (within 12 months) was: mailed (65%; P <.01), telephone (63%; P <.05), and controls (59%). The number needed to treat for an additional fully vaccinated adolescent was 14 for mailed and 25 for telephone reminders; for an additional preventive visit, it was 17 and 29. The intervention cost $18.78 (mailed) or $16.68 (phone) per adolescent per year to deliver. The cost per additional adolescent fully vaccinated was $463.99 for mailed and $714.98 for telephone; the cost per additional adolescent receiving a preventive visit was $324.75 and $487.03.Conclusions-Managed care-based mail or telephone reminder/recall improved adolescent immunizations and preventive visits, with modest costs and modest impact.

show abstract

“…15 Yet studies to date have shown mixed results for provider and parent acceptance of pharmacies as immunization venues for children. [16][17][18][19] The lack of office visit fees and ease of access have the potential to make pharmacies more attractive to payers and parents. 20 In a time of chronic shortages of primary care providers for adolescents and younger children, encouraging other types of immunization providers and sites is needed from a public health perspective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of pharmacists providing immunizations on adolescent influenza immunization

Robison¹

2016

Journal of the American Pharmacists Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pediatricians’ Attitudes About Collaborations With Other Community Vaccinators in the Delivery of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine

Cited by 37 publications

References 45 publications

School-Located Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial

School-Located Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial

A Randomized Trial of the Effect of Centralized Reminder/Recall on Immunizations and Preventive Care Visits for Adolescents

Impact of pharmacists providing immunizations on adolescent influenza immunization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About