Clinician Prompts for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of an online intervention using clinician prompts for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination with a cluster randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The randomized trial occurred July 2021-January 2022 in 48 primary care pediatric practices (24 intervention, 24 control) across the US. We trained clinicians via two online learning modules, plus weekly ''quick tips'' delivered via text or email. The training taught practices to implement a staff prompt to the clinician (e.g., printed reminders placed on the keyboard) plus electronic health record (EHR) prompts (if not already done) at well and acute/chronic visits for initial and subsequent HPV vaccination. We assessed missed opportunities for HPV vaccination using logistic regression models accounting for clustering by practice on an intent to treat basis. Surveys assessed facilitators and barriers to using prompts. RESULTS: During the 6-month intervention, missed opportunities for HPV vaccination increased (worsened) in both intervention and control groups. However, at well child care visits, missed opportunities for the initial HPV vaccine increased by 4.5 (95% CI: -9.0%, -0.1%) percentage points less in intervention versus control practices. Change in missed opportunities for subsequent doses at well child care and non-well child care visits did not differ between trial groups. An end-of trial survey found understaffing as a common challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician prompts reduced missed opportunities for HPV vaccination at well child care visits. Understaffing related to the COVID-19 pandemic may have led to worsening missed opportunities for both groups and likely impeded practices in fully implementing changes.

Missed Opportunities for Adolescent Immunizations at Well-Care Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic disrupted healthcare, but the impact on vaccination missed opportunities (MOs, vaccine-eligible visits without vaccination) is unknown. We evaluated pandemic-related trends in MOs at adolescent well-care visits for three vaccines: human papillomavirus; quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate; and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap). METHODS: We analyzed electronic health record data from 24 pediatric primary care practices in 13 states from 1/1/2018 to 12/31/2021. Segmented logistic regression estimated risk differences for MOs during the pandemic relative to prepandemic trends. RESULTS: Among 106,605 well-care visits, we observed decreases in MOs prepandemic followed by an increase in MOs during the pandemic for all three vaccines. Relative to prepandemic, MOs increased for human papillomavirus (+15.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.7%, 20.1%), meningococcal conjugate (+9.4%, 95% CI: 5.2%, 13.7%), and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) (+ 8.2%, 95% CI: 4.3%, 12.1%). DISCUSSION: Increases in vaccine MOs during the pandemic equaled or exceeded pre-pandemic decreases. Reducing MOs in adolescent well-care could raise vaccine coverage.

Maternal Vaccination and Vaccine Hesitancy.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends influenza vaccine annually, Tdap with each pregnancy, and COVID-19 vaccine for those not previously vaccinated or who are due for boosters. The influenza and COVID-19 vaccines are safe during pregnancy and are effective in reducing morbidity in both the pregnant person and infant. The Tdap vaccine is given primarily to protect the newborn from pertussis through transplacental antibody transfer. Methods to enhance vaccination rates include stocking and giving vaccines in the obstetric office, recommending eligible vaccines at each visit, and focusing on the health of the infant in conversations with patients.

Performance Feedback for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: A Randomized Trial From the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatric Research in Office Settings Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a feedback-based intervention would reduce human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine missed opportunities. METHODS: In a longitudinal cluster randomized controlled trial of 48 pediatric primary care practices, we allocated half the practices to receive a sequential, multicomponent intervention phased over consecutive periods. In a prior trial (period 1), communication skills training reduced missed opportunities for the initial HPV vaccine dose at well visits but not at acute/chronic visits. The current trial (period 2) evaluated the added value of performance feedback to clinicians after communication training. Performance feedback consisted of an introductory training module, weekly electronic "Quick Tips," and 3 individualized performance feedback reports to clinicians. We fit logistic regression models for the primary outcome of HPV vaccination missed opportunities using generalized estimating equations with independence working correlation, accounting for clustering at the practice level. RESULTS: Performance feedback resulted in a 3.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.8, 0.0) percentage point greater reduction in missed HPV vaccine opportunities for the intervention versus control group during acute/chronic visits for subsequent HPV vaccinations (dose 2 or 3). However, during well visits for HPV vaccination dose #1, intervention practices increased missed opportunities (worsened) by 4.2 (95% CI: 1.0, 7.4) percentage points more than control practices, reducing the prior period 1 improvements and blunting the overall effect of performance feedback. We did not observe differences for the other visit/dose categories. CONCLUSIONS: Performance feedback improved HPV vaccination for one subset of visits (acute/chronic, subsequent HPV vaccinations due), but not for well visits.

Perspectives on Maternal Vaccination from Obstetrical Clinicians: A Qualitative Multi-site Study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the seriousness of influenza and pertussis, availability of safe and effective vaccines against them, and long-standing maternal vaccination recommendations, US maternal influenza and Tdap vaccination rates have been low. To increase vaccination rates in obstetric offices, it is important to understand clinician perspectives and office processes. We conducted in-depth interviews with nurses and providers on these topics. METHODS: Interviewees worked in obstetric offices in one-of-four participating health systems in NY and CA. We audio-recorded and transcribed 20-30-min interviews. We used predetermined categories to code interviews with Dedoose, then iteratively refined codes and identified themes. RESULTS: We conducted 20 interviews between 4/2020 and 9/2020: 13 providers (physician or nurse midwife) (5 NY, 8 CA); 7 office nurses (6 NY, 1 CA). In almost all offices, patient refusal of influenza vaccine was considered the major vaccination barrier; Tdap was often deferred by patients until post-delivery. Nurse-only visits for either vaccine were rare. Vaccination outside the office was uncommon; few offices systematically documented vaccines given elsewhere in a retrievable manner. Participants emphasized patient education as key to prenatal care, but the number of topics left little time for immunizations. Few interviewees could identify an office "immunization champion," knew their office vaccination rates, or had participated in vaccination quality improvement. Several interviewees indicated that they or another provider were good at persuading hesitant patients, but their method had not been shared with other clinicians. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Multiple practical barriers and maternal vaccine hesitancy limit maternal vaccination. Quality improvement strategies are needed.

Obstetric Provider Attitudes and Office Practices for Maternal Influenza and Tdap Vaccination.

Background: Although maternal vaccination with influenza and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines improve health outcomes for pregnant individuals and infants, maternal vaccination rates are low. This study assessed obstetric providers' attitudes and practices related to influenza and Tdap vaccination in four large health systems in New York (NY) and California (CA). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of all obstetric providers within four health systems (two in NY, two in CA) to evaluate provider attitudes and office systems used for Tdap and influenza vaccination. The survey assessed perceptions of influenza and Tdap vaccination based on the Health Belief Model, and assessed office systems (reminders, prompts, standing orders, and patient education) and communication with pregnant patients related to influenza and Tdap vaccines. Results: We had 112 responses (52% response rate) for analyses. Respondents strongly supported vaccination during pregnancy but viewed influenza disease as less of a concern for newborns than for pregnant individuals (40% vs. 67% considered influenza disease to be very significant, p < 0.001). Only 84% agreed that giving influenza vaccine in the first trimester is very safe. Patient vaccine refusal was the most commonly named barrier for both influenza and Tdap vaccination. Providers frequently used office system prompts, but did not frequently use standing orders, patient educational materials, vaccine champions, and feedback on vaccination rates. Conclusions: While most providers consider influenza and Tdap vaccination important during pregnancy, there is room for improvement in focusing on the importance of maternal vaccination to the health of the infant, and increasing the use of office systems to improve vaccination during pregnancy.

Effect of Training Pediatric Clinicians in Human Papillomavirus Communication Strategies on Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Rates: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Missed opportunities for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination during pediatric health care visits are common. Objectives: To evaluate the effect of online communication training for clinicians on missed opportunities for HPV vaccination rates overall and at well-child care (WCC) visits and visits for acute or chronic illness (hereafter referred to as acute or chronic visits) and on adolescent HPV vaccination rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: From December 26, 2018, to July 30, 2019, a longitudinal cluster randomized clinical trial allocated practices to communication training vs standard of care in staggered 6-month periods. A total of 48 primary care pediatric practices in 19 states were recruited from the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatric Research in Office Settings network. Participants were clinicians in intervention practices. Outcomes were evaluated for all 11- to 17-year-old adolescents attending 24 intervention practices (188 clinicians) and 24 control practices (177 clinicians). Analyses were as randomized and performed on an intent-to-treat basis, accounting for clustering by practice. Interventions: Three sequential online educational modules were developed to help participating clinicians communicate with parents about the HPV vaccine. Weekly text messages were sent to participating clinicians to reinforce learning. Statisticians were blinded to group assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were missed opportunities for HPV vaccination overall and for HPV vaccine initiation and subsequent doses at WCC and acute or chronic visits (visit-level outcome). Secondary outcomes were HPV vaccination rates (person-level outcome). Outcomes were compared during the intervention vs baseline. Results: Altogether, 122 of 188 clinicians in intervention practices participated; of these, 120, 119, and 116 clinicians completed training modules 1, 2, and 3, respectively. During the intervention period, 29 206 adolescents (14 664 girls [50.2%]; mean [SD] age, 14.2 [2.0] years) made 15 888 WCC and 28 123 acute or chronic visits to intervention practices; 33 914 adolescents (17 069 girls [50.3%]; mean [SD] age, 14.2 [2.0] years) made 17 910 WCC and 35 281 acute or chronic visits to control practices. Intervention practices reduced missed opportunities overall by 2.4 percentage points (-2.4%; 95% CI, -3.5% to -1.2%) more than controls. Intervention practices reduced missed opportunities for vaccine initiation during WCC visits by 6.8 percentage points (-6.8%; 95% CI, -9.7% to -3.9%) more than controls. The intervention had no effect on missed opportunities for subsequent doses of the HPV vaccine or at acute or chronic visits. Adolescents in intervention practices had a 3.4-percentage point (95% CI, 0.6%-6.2%) greater improvement in HPV vaccine initiation compared with adolescents in control practices. Conclusions and Relevance: This scalable, online communication training increased HPV vaccination, particularly HPV vaccine initiation at WCC visits. Results support dissemination of this intervention. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03599557.

A Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Follow-Up Rates Using School-Based Telemedicine.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with a new diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who are prescribed stimulant medication need regular follow-up. Guidelines recommend follow-up within 30 days of stimulant initiation or change but this goal is seldom achieved. This quality improvement (QI) study in an urban academic outpatient practice aimed to: 1) assess whether use of school-based telemedicine increases rates of follow-up within 30 days and decreases the number of days to follow-up for ADHD, and 2) compare rates of 30-day follow-up via in-person vs telemedicine visits. METHODS: We performed three Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles over a 12-month period: QI interventions included clinic wide education, paper prompts for clinicians, and creation of a database to track ADHD patients. We measured days from the index visit to the follow-up visit, and the mode of both visits (in-person or telemedicine). Data were collected for 6 months pre-intervention and 12 months post-intervention. RESULTS: Follow-up within 30 days increased from 19% (of 191 visits) to 33% (of 661 visits) (P < .001). The time to follow-up decreased from 67 to 34 days (P < .001). Follow up visits by telemedicine were more also more likely to be within 30 days (62% vs. 32%, P < .001). DISCUSSION: A QI intervention for ADHD care increased rates of follow-up within 30 days, particularly when telemedicine was used, and decreased the number of days to follow-up. This intervention could serve as a model to improve follow-up for ADHD in other settings.

A quality improvement collaborative to increase human papillomavirus vaccination rates in local health department clinics.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates are well below the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%. Vaccinating in settings other than primary care, such as local health departments (LHDs), may help achieve higher HPV immunization rates. We tested the effect of a quality improvement (QI) collaborative to reduce missed opportunities (MOs) for HPV vaccine in LHDs. Between 2016 and 2019, we conducted four consecutive cohorts of a virtual QI collaborative at 24 LHDs across multiple states. Participants were trained on topics including how to provide an effective recommendation for HPV vaccine, strategies to reduce MOs, and motivational interviewing. Throughout the 6-month project implementation, LHDs tested strategies to reduce MOs through Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, performed chart reviews to identify and characterize MOs, and received feedback reports to assess progress on MOs. HPV vaccination rates were assessed pre- and post-intervention. LHDs reduced MOs for HPV vaccine in all four cohorts with aggregated data showing a 25.3 percentage point reduction in MOs. Modified Poisson regression analysis found a 44% reduction in the relative risk of missing the opportunity for an HPV vaccine at a visit (RR = 0.56, 0.46-0.68, p < .001). This project shows that strategies effective in reducing MO for HPV vaccine in primary care settings are also effective in LHD settings. Training LHD staff on these strategies may help the U.S. approach national goals for HPV vaccine coverage.

Prevalence and characteristics of HPV vaccine hesitancy among parents of adolescents across the US.

BACKGROUND: While many clinicians encounter parents or adolescents who refuse HPV vaccine, little is known about the prevalence of hesitancy for HPV vaccine nationally or its association with vaccination. METHODS: In April 2019, we surveyed families with adolescents 11-17 years using a national online panel (Knowledge Panel®) as the sampling frame. We assessed the prevalence of HPV vaccine hesitancy with the validated 9-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS). We used multivariate analyses to assess demographic factors associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy. We also assessed practical barriers to receipt of HPV vaccine and the relationship between barriers and hesitancy. Finally, we evaluated the association between both HPV vaccine hesitancy and practical barriers on HPV vaccine receipt or refusal. RESULTS: 2,177 parents out of 4,185 sampled (52%) completed the survey, 2,020 qualified (lived with adolescent). Using a VHS cut-off score > 3 out of 5 points, 23% of US parents were hesitant about HPV vaccine. Hesitancy was lower among those with Hispanic ethnicity. At least one out of five parents disagreed that the HPV vaccine is beneficial for their adolescent, that the vaccine is effective, protects against HPV-related cancers, or that they followed their adolescent's health-care provider's recommendation about the vaccine. Many were concerned about vaccine side effects and the novelty of the vaccine. Adolescents living with vaccine-hesitant parents were less than one-third as likely to have received the vaccine (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.24, 0.35) or completed the vaccine series (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.23, 0.36), and were 6-fold more likely to have refused the vaccine because of parental vaccine-related concerns (RR = 6.09, 95% CI = 5.26, 7.04). Most practical barriers were independently associated with vaccine receipt but not with vaccine refusal. CONCLUSIONS: HPV vaccine hesitancy is common nationally and strongly related to both under-vaccination and vaccine refusal.

Identifying Strategies to Reduce Missed Opportunities for HPV Vaccination in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study of Positive Deviants.

The objectives of this study were to assess the contextual factors, practice strategies, and sustainability of interventions implemented during a national quality improvement (QI) project to raise human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates. We conducted semistructured interviews with positive deviant practices that successfully reduced missed opportunities by ≥20% for HPV vaccination in the prior year. We assessed leadership support, motivators, interventions used, and sustainability. Key themes related to QI teams included strong leadership support, multidisciplinary teams, having a practice champion, and a collaborative environment. Themes related to the interventions included using a presumptive bundled recommendation for all appropriate vaccines at age 11, previsit planning, and reminders for preventive visits, which were sustainable for most practices 1-year postintervention. Both internal practice-level factors (multidisciplinary teams, collaboration, and previsit planning) and organizational factors (institutional support and health system-level reminders for preventive visits) were key to a successful QI intervention to improve HPV vaccination.

Effect of Patient Portal Reminders Sent by a Health Care System on Influenza Vaccination Rates: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Influenza vaccination rates across the US are low. Because few practices send patient reminders for influenza vaccination, a scalable patient reminder system is needed. Objective: To evaluate the effect of patient reminders sent via a health care system's electronic health record patient portal on influenza vaccination rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, 4-arm randomized clinical trial was performed from October 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, across the UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) health care system. A total of 164 205 patients in 52 primary care practices who had used the patient portal within 12 months were included. Interventions: Patients due for an influenza vaccine were sent a letter via the patient portal of the health care system reminding them about the importance of influenza vaccination, safety of the vaccine, and morbidity associated with influenza. Patients were randomized within primary care practices to 1 of 4 study groups (no reminder [n = 41 070] vs 1 reminder [n = 41 055], 2 reminders [n = 41 046], or 3 reminders [n = 41 034]). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was receipt of 1 or more influenza vaccines as documented in the electronic health record, which was supplemented with influenza vaccination data from external sources (eg, pharmacies). Secondary outcomes were influenza vaccination rates among subgroups and influenza vaccinations self-reported by patients in reply to the portal-based query as having been received elsewhere. Results: A total of 164 205 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.2 [19.6] years; 95 779 [58.3%] female) were randomly allocated to 1 of the 4 study arms. In the primary analysis across all ages and not including patient self-reported vaccinations in reply to portal reminders, influenza vaccination rates were 37.5% for those receiving no reminders, 38.0% for those receiving 1 reminder (P = .008 vs no reminder), 38.2% for those receiving 2 reminders (P = .03 vs no reminder), and 38.2% for those receiving 3 reminders (P = .02 vs no reminder). In the secondary analysis not including patient self-reported vaccinations, among adults aged 18 to 64 years (vaccination rates: 32.0% in the control group, 32.8% in the 1-reminder group, 32.8% in the 2-reminder group, and 32.8% in the 3-reminder group; P = .001), male patients (vaccination rates: 37.3% vs 38.3%, 38.6%, and 38.8%; P = .001), non-Hispanic patients (vaccination rates: 37.6% vs 38.2%, 38.3%, and 38.2%; P = .004), and those who were not vaccinated in the prior 2 years (vaccination rates: 15.3% vs 15.9%, 16.3%, and 16.1%; P < .001), vaccination rates were higher in the portal reminder groups than in the control group; the findings in these 3 subgroups mirrored the findings in the entire population. When self-reported vaccinations received elsewhere were included, influenza vaccination rates were 1.4 to 2.9 percentage points higher in the portal reminder groups, with a dose-response effect (0 reminders: 15 537 [37.8%]; 1 reminder: 16 097 [39.2%]; 2 reminders: 16 426 [40.0%]; and 3 reminders: 16 714 [40.7%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Generic patient portal reminders were effective in minimally increasing influenza vaccination rates, but more intensive or more targeted patient motivational strategies appear to be needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03666026.

Effect of State Immunization Information System Based Reminder/Recall for Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial of Autodialer, Text, and Mailed Messages.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: Two simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities-4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine. RESULTS: In New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and $16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03294473 and NCT03246100.

School-Located Influenza Vaccination: Do Vaccine Clinics at School Raise Vaccination Rates?

BACKGROUND: Only half of US schoolchildren receive influenza vaccine. School-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) might raise vaccination rates but conducting flu vaccine clinics at schools is challenging to implement. We compared 2 school-based programs designed to raise influenza vaccination rates: parent reminder/educational messages sent to parents from schools which is a low-intensity intervention vs the combination of reminder/educational messages plus SLIV clinics which is a high-intensity intervention. METHODS: We assigned 36 schools (6 school districts, 2 per group) to 3 groups: (1) control, ie, no SLIV and no parent reminder/education, (2) parent reminder/education emailed by schools, and (3) parent reminder/education plus SLIV clinics. Some schools had SLIV clinics in prior years. Health department nurses conducted SLIV clinics. RESULTS: Among 24,832 children at 36 schools, vaccination rates were control (51.3%), parent reminder/education-only (41.2%), and reminder/education + SLIV (58.7%). On multivariate analyses which controlled for vaccination in prior seasons, children in reminder/education + SLIV schools had higher vaccination rates (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10-1.47), but children in reminder/education-only schools had lower rates (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.00) than children in control schools. CONCLUSIONS: Parent reminder/education combined with SLIV clinics raise vaccination rates, but parent reminder/education alone does not.

Cost effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination programs for elementary and secondary school children.

BACKGROUND: Studies have noted variations in the cost-effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV), but little is known about how SLIV's cost-effectiveness may vary by targeted age group (e.g., elementary or secondary school students), or vaccine consent process (paper-based or web-based). Further, SLIV's cost-effectiveness may be impacted by its spillover effect on practice-based vaccination; prior studies have not addressed this issue. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on two SLIV programs in upstate New York in 2015-2016: (a) elementary school SLIV using a stepped wedge design with schools as clusters (24 suburban and 18 urban schools) and (b) secondary school SLIV using a cluster randomized trial (16 suburban and 4 urban schools). The cost-per-additionally-vaccinated child (i.e., incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)) was estimated by dividing the incremental SLIV intervention cost by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the additional number of vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). We performed deterministic analyses, one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic analyses. RESULTS: The overall effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 5.7 and 5.5 percentage points higher, respectively, in intervention elementary (52.8%) and secondary schools (48.2%) than grade-matched control schools. SLIV programs vaccinated a small proportion of children in intervention elementary (5.2%) and secondary schools (2.5%). In elementary and secondary schools, the ICER excluding vaccine purchase was $85.71 and $86.51 per-additionally-vaccinated-child, respectively. When additionally accounting for observed spillover impact on practice-based vaccination, the ICER decreased to $80.53 in elementary schools -- decreasing substantially in secondary schools. (to $53.40). These estimates were higher than the published practice-based vaccination cost (median = $25.50, mean = $45.48). Also, these estimates were higher than our 2009-2011 urban SLIV program mean costs ($65) due to additional costs for use of a new web-based consent system ($12.97 per-additionally-vaccinated-child) and higher project coordination costs in 2015-2016. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that ICER estimates were most sensitive to the SLIV effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: SLIV raises vaccination rates and may increase practice-based vaccination in primary care practices. While these SLIV programs are effective, to be as cost-effective as practice-based vaccination our SLIV programs would need to vaccinate more students and/or lower the costs for consent systems and project coordination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02227186 (August 25, 2014), updated NCT03137667 (May 2, 2017).

Text Message Reminders for Child Influenza Vaccination in the Setting of School-Located Influenza Vaccination: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Half of US school children receive influenza vaccine. In our previous trials, school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) raised vaccination rates by 5 to 8 percentage points. We assessed whether text message reminders to parents could raise vaccination rates above those observed with SLIV. Within urban elementary schools we randomized families into text message + SLIV (intervention) versus SLIV alone (comparison). All parents were sent 2 backpack notifications plus 2 autodialer phone reminders about SLIV at a single SLIV clinic. Intervention group parents also were sent 3 text messages from the school nurse encouraging flu vaccination via either primary care or SLIV. Among 15 768 children at 32 schools, vaccination rates were text + SLIV (40%) and SLIV control (40%); 4% of students per group received influenza vaccination at SLIV. Text message reminders did not raise influenza vaccination rates above those observed with SLIV alone. More intensive interventions are needed to raise influenza vaccination rates.

Impact of elementary school-located influenza vaccinations: A stepped wedge trial across a community.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination rates among children are low and novel strategies are needed to raise coverage. We measured the impact of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) on coverage, examined whether SLIV substitutes for practice-based influenza vaccination ("substitution"), and estimated whether a second year of experience with SLIV increases its impact. METHODS: We implemented a stepped wedge study design with schools as clusters. In Year 1, we randomly allocated schools to SLIV or control. In Year 2, all schools performed SLIV. We used emails (suburban schools) or backpack fliers (both urban and suburban schools) to notify parents, and offered web-based (suburban) or paper-based vaccination (urban) consent forms. Local health department nurses administered SLIV vaccinations and billed insurers. We analyzed state immunization registry data to measure influenza vaccination rates. RESULTS: 42 schools (38,078 children) participated over 2 years. Overall vaccination rates were 5 and 7 percentage points higher among SLIV- school children versus control-school children in suburban (aOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25-1.49 in Years 1-2 SLIV vs. Year 1 control schools) and urban schools (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.36), respectively, adjusting for prior year's vaccination and other covariates. While no substitution occurred among children attending suburban schools, some substitution occurred among children attending urban schools, although overall vaccination rates were still higher in urban schools due to SLIV. Compared to an initial year of SLIV, more children were vaccinated in a second year of SLIV at urban (8.3% vs. 6.8%, aOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04-1.47) but not suburban schools (3.5% vs. 2.7%, aOR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: In this stepped wedge trial, SLIV increased overall influenza vaccination rates in suburban and urban schools. Some substitution for primary care vaccination occurred in urban settings. A second year of SLIV expanded its reach slightly in urban schools.