Does influenza vaccination exacerbate asthma? Analysis of a large cohort of children with asthma. Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.

CONTEXT: Although influenza vaccination is recommended for children with asthma, only a minority are vaccinated. One reason for low influenza vaccine coverage among children with asthma may be concern that influenza vaccination may induce an exacerbation of asthma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of influenza vaccination in children with asthma, we studied the incidence of hospitalizations and emergency department visits for asthma following influenza vaccination. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study-analysis of population-based computerized medical and vaccination records. SETTING: : Four large health maintenance organizations on the West Coast of the United States. SUBJECTS: Children with asthma 1 through 6 years of age, identified by search of computerized databases of medical encounters and pharmacy prescriptions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exacerbations of asthma. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses vaccination was associated with high rates of asthma exacerbations. However, after adjusting for asthma severity using a self-control method, the incidence rate ratios of asthma exacerbations after vaccination were 0.58 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.95), 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.47-1.17), and 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.27) during the 3 influenza seasons. CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for asthma severity, we found that influenza vaccination does not result in acute asthma exacerbations in children. Concern about possible exacerbation of asthma is not a valid reason to not vaccinate children with asthma against influenza.

Influenza vaccination in children with asthma in health maintenance organizations. Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.

We assessed vaccination coverage and predictors of influenza vaccination in asthmatic children in four large Health Maintenance Organizations. We studied 68,839 children with asthma at four Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in the 1995-1996 influenza season and 34,032 children at two HMOs in the 1996-1997 influenza season. In both seasons only 9-10% were vaccinated against influenza. Children who were hospitalized, had an emergency department visit for asthma or a prescription for a beta-agonist prior to the influenza season, were more likely to be vaccinated. Overall, 61% of the unvaccinated asthmatic children had made an outpatient clinic visit during months when influenza vaccination would have been appropriate. Vaccination coverage could be increased by taking advantage of all opportunities to vaccinate children with asthma whenever they make clinic visits in the fall and early winter.

Psychometric properties of a standardized-patient checklist and rating-scale form used to assess interpersonal and communication skills.

The results show that the SP checklist scores and the SP ratings of interpersonal and communication skills have comparable psychometric properties. The reliabilities of the five-item rating form (.76) and the single global rating of patient satisfaction (.70) were slightly higher than the reliability of the 17-item checklist (.65); this finding is of particular significance, given the greater length of the checklist. Also, the checklist scores and ratings appear to be measuring the same underlying dimension, with correlations of the checklist with the five ratings and with the single global rating being .82 and .81, respectively. Van der Vleuten and associates, in two excellent articles, noted a recent shift away from the use of subjective measures of clinical competence, such as rating scales, toward the use of presumably more objective measures, such as SP checklists. Their concern was that these objective measures may focus on somewhat trivial and easily measured aspects of the clinical encounter, and that more subtle but critical factors in clinical performance may be overlooked or ignored. They referred to such measurement as "objectified" rather than objective. The shift is based on the presumption that objective or objectified measurement is superior to subjective measurement, such as ratings, with respect to psychometric properties such as reliability. On the basis of a survey of several studies, though, the authors concluded that "objectified methods do not inherently provide more reliable scores" and "may even provide unwanted outcomes, such as negative effects on study behavior and triviality of the content being measured." The results of the present study support this conclusion, showing somewhat higher reliabilities for subjective ratings than for the objective (or perhaps objectified) checklist. Also, the high uncorrected correlations suggest that the more reliable ratings are measuring the same underlying dimension as are the checklist scores. The present study also illustrates the application of a recently proposed method for constructing a valid SP checklist, which would consist of items that best reflect global ratings of performance. In this study, the ratings were provided by the SPs themselves, but ratings could be obtained from faculty-physician experts who observe student performance on the SP case. Thus, performance on individual checklist items would be correlated with expert ratings, to identify the items that best predict the ratings. The checklist, then, would be constructed of just those items that best predict the ratings, and the checklist could be used for future testing without the need for further faculty ratings (yet the checklist scores would reflect the faculty ratings). With this approach, it would seem possible to construct checklists for history-taking and physical-examination skills, as well as for interpersonal and communication skills. Thus, the faculty ratings would provide a basis for case development and refinement, including scoring and standard setting, and scores on the checklist would serve as a proxy for the gold-standard faculty ratings. The study suggests that SP ratings may be more efficient and more reliable than SP checklists for assessing interpersonal and communication skills. The study also demonstrates that global ratings by SPs (or by expert physician observers) can provide a basis for SP-test construction.