Varying Vaccination Rates Among Patients Seeking Care for Acute Respiratory Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract Background Complications following influenza infection are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and the Centers for Disease Control Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends universal annual vaccination. However, vaccination rates have remained significantly lower than the Department of Health and Human Services goal. The aim of this work was to assess the vaccination rate among patients who present to health care providers with influenza-like illness and identify groups with lower vaccination rates. Methods We performed a systematic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases with a time frame of January 1, 2010, to March 1, 2019 and focused on the vaccination rate among patients seeking care for acute respiratory illness in the United States. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled seasonal influenza vaccination rate, and we used a time trend analysis to identify differences in annual vaccination over time. Results The overall pooled influenza vaccination rate was 48.61% (whites: 50.87%; blacks: 36.05%; Hispanics: 41.45%). There was no significant difference among gender groups (men: 46.43%; women: 50.11%). Interestingly, the vaccination rate varied by age group and was significantly higher among adults aged >65 (78.04%) and significantly lower among children 9–17 years old (36.45%). Finally, we found a significant upward time trend in the overall influenza vaccination rate among whites (coef. = .0107; P = .027). Conclusions In conclusion, because of the significantly lower influenza vaccination rates in black and Hispanic communities, societal initiatives and community outreach programs should focus on these populations and on children and adolescents aged 9–17 years.

Download Full-text

The influence of a community intervention on influenza vaccination knowledge and behavior among diabetic patients

BMC Public Health ◽

10.1186/s12889-019-8101-6 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Lili Tao ◽

Ming Lu ◽

Xiaoning Wang ◽

Xiaoyan Han ◽

Shuming Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Influenza Vaccine ◽

Influenza Vaccination ◽

Community Intervention ◽

Vaccination Rate ◽

Control Group ◽

Diabetic Patients ◽

Vaccination Rates ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Impact ◽

Experimental Group

Abstract Background This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of a comprehensive community intervention on cognition and inoculation behaviors of diabetic patients immunized with influenza vaccine. Methods A total of 1538 diabetic patients aged 35 years and above for outpatient visits and follow-up treatments were selected from six community health service centers (three for the experimental group, and the other three for the control group) in Chaoyang District, Beijing. Comprehensive interventions applied to the experimental group include patient intervention and community climate interventions. We compared the total awareness of influenza vaccine knowledge and influenza vaccination rates between the two groups before and after the intervention. Results Before the intervention, the total awareness rate of influenza vaccine in the experimental group and the control group was similar (50.6 and 50.2%, respectively. P = 0.171). After the intervention, the awareness rate of influenza vaccine in the experimental group and the control group increased. The amplitude of the increase was similar (70.3 and 70.1%, respectively. P = 0.822,). Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in the influenza vaccination rate between the experimental group and the control group (29.0 and 26.8%, respectively. P = 0.334). After the intervention, the vaccination rate of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group. The difference was statistically significant (The vaccination rate 45.8 and 27.4% for the experimental group and the control group, respectively. P < 0.001). Conclusion Comprehensive community interventions had a positive effect on vaccination in diabetic patients. Trial registration ChiCTR1900025194, registered in Aug,16th, 2019. Retrospectively registered.

Download Full-text

A Critical Review of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) during Pregnancy & Risk of Vertical Transmission in the United States

International Journal of TROPICAL DISEASE & Health ◽

10.9734/ijtdh/2020/v41i1830375 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Zebi Fatima

Keyword(s):

Pregnant Women ◽

Vertical Transmission ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Obstetric Care ◽

Respiratory Illness ◽

The United States ◽

Care Providers ◽

Pregnancy Risk ◽

Hygienic Measures ◽

Obstetric Management

Since December 2019, people around the world have been affected by a pandemic disease caused by a novel type of betacoronavirus. It can lead to severe contagious respiratory illness. The experts are concerned about the effects of this novel virus on both the mother and their fetuses. This review is to identify strategies for the obstetric management of women diagnosed with COVID-19 and the best neonatal care for their newborns. We conducted a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, ELSEVIER and CDC web page and included the articles published from December 2019 through July 2020. Inclusion criteria were original articles published between December 2019 and July 2020 and Meta-Analysis, Reviews and, Systematic Reviews. Regarding vertical transmission, several studies concluded that there is no evidence for intrauterine vertical transmission of COVID-19 from infected mothers to their babies. Pregnant women with COVID-19 might develop more severe respiratory complications. After delivery, women with COVID-19 can transmit the virus to their babies through respiratory droplets during breastfeeding or care, so experts recommend to adopt hygienic measures. The current information shows that COVID-19 infection apparently is not associated with greater severity of the disease in pregnant women than in the general population. However, the data is minimal, and that represents a challenge for the obstetric care providers.

Download Full-text

Influenza vaccination coverage among persons seeking outpatient medical care for acute respiratory illness in five states in the United States, 2011–2012 through 2018–2019

Vaccine ◽

10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.065 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Michael J. Wu ◽

Jessie R. Chung ◽

Sara S. Kim ◽

Michael L. Jackson ◽

Lisa A. Jackson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Influenza Vaccination ◽

Medical Care ◽

Vaccination Coverage ◽

Respiratory Illness ◽

The United States ◽

Acute Respiratory Illness

Download Full-text

Correlation Between Healthcare Workers' Knowledge of Influenza Vaccine and Vaccine Receipt

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1086/502147 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 24 (11) ◽

pp. 845-847 ◽

Cited By ~ 155

Author(s):

Richard A. Martinello ◽

Laura Jones ◽

Jeffrey E. Topal

Keyword(s):

Influenza Vaccine ◽

Influenza Vaccination ◽

Nursing Staff ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Vaccination Rate ◽

Basic Knowledge ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Vaccination Rates ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractObjective:Influenza vaccine receipt by healthcare workers (HCWs) is important because HCWs are at risk for occupational exposure to influenza and may act as vectors in the nosocomial transmission of influenza. HCWs were surveyed to determine whether belief in commonly held influenza vaccine misconceptions was associated with influenza vaccine acceptance.Design:Cross-sectional study.Setting:A large urban teaching hospital.Method:A self-administered survey was used to assess nursing and physician staff influenza vaccine knowledge, current vaccination status, and potential reasons for vaccine declination.Results:Two hundred twelve of 215 surveys were completed. The overall influenza vaccination rate was 73%. Physician staff were significantly more likely to have been vaccinated compared with nursing staff (82% vs 62%, respectively; P = .0009). HCWs answering the 5 influenza vaccine basic knowledge questions correctly were significantly more likely to have been vaccinated than those responding incorrectly to any question (84% vs 64%, respectively; P = .002). This association was present in the nursing group where 80% of those answering the knowledge questions correctly were vaccinated, but only 49% of those answering incorrectly were vaccinated (P = .000005). However, in the physician group, there was no significant difference in the influenza vaccination rates between those answering correctly and those answering incorrectly (P = .459).Conclusion:Belief in commonly held influenza vaccine misconceptions was significantly associated with influenza vaccine declination among nursing staff and may act as a barrier to greater rates of influenza vaccination. Reasons for influenza vaccine nonreceipt may differ between nursing and physician staff.

Download Full-text

COVID-19 and Historic Influenza Vaccinations in the United States: A Comparative Analysis

Vaccines ◽

10.3390/vaccines9111284 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (11) ◽

pp. 1284

Author(s):

Pranav Mirpuri ◽

Richard A. Rovin

Keyword(s):

Influenza Vaccination ◽

The United States ◽

Vaccination Rate ◽

Primary Objective ◽

Vaccine Uptake ◽

Vaccine Hesitancy ◽

County Level ◽

Vaccination Rates ◽

Global Challenge ◽

Us Counties

The COVID-19 vaccination effort is a monumental global challenge. Recognizing and addressing the causes of vaccine hesitancy will improve vaccine uptake. The primary objective of this study was to compare the COVID-19 vaccination rates in US counties to historical vaccination rates for influenza in persons aged 65 and older. The secondary objective was to identify county-level demographic, socioeconomic, and political factors that influence vaccination rates. County level data were obtained from publicly available databases for comparison and to create predictive models. Overall, in US counties the COVID-19 vaccination rate exceeded influenza vaccination rates amongst those aged 65 or older (69.4.0% vs. 44%, p < 0.0001). 2690 (83.4%) of 3224 counties had vaccinated 50% or more of their 65 and older residents in the first seven months of the COVID-19 vaccination roll out. There were 467 (14.5%) of 3223 counties in which the influenza vaccination rate exceeded the COVID-19 vaccination rate. Most of these counties were in the Southern region, were considered politically “red” and had a significantly higher non-Hispanic Black resident population (14.4% vs. 8.2%, p < 0.0001). Interventions intended to improve uptake should account for nuances in vaccine access, confidence, and consider factual social media messaging, especially in vulnerable counties.

Download Full-text

Impact of pharmacy intervention on influenza vaccination acceptance: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy ◽

10.1007/s11096-021-01250-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Erin Murray ◽

Karolina Bieniek ◽

Michael del Aguila ◽

Sonya Egodage ◽

Severine Litzinger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Literature Review ◽

Influenza Vaccination ◽

Standard Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Vaccination Rate ◽

Vaccination Rates ◽

Design And Implementation ◽

Pharmacy Intervention ◽

Vaccination Acceptance ◽

Influenza Vaccinations

AbstractBackground Vaccination plays an important role in the prevention of influenza. Channels that improve vaccination adherence can play a vital part in improving patient care. This study seeks to inform the design and implementation of pharmacy interventions at scale on improving influenza vaccination rates. Aim of the review The aim of this study was to identify key success factors for effective pharmacy intervention design and implementation to improve vaccination acceptance rates in influenza. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to find literature on influenza vaccinations delivered at pharmacies, pharmacist-delivered influenza vaccinations, or influenza vaccination campaigns originating in the pharmacy setting. A meta-analysis using a random effects model estimated the impact of pharmacy intervention on vaccination rates (assessed as relative risk [RR] and 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]). Results A total of 1221 studies were found that met the search criteria, of which 12 were selected for the literature review following eligibility screening. A meta-analysis of studies that contained binary total population and vaccination rate data was conducted on 6 studies, including 3182 participants, the vaccination rate was 24% higher in those who used the pharmacy-based intervention compared with those who used standard care [RR (95% CI) 1.24 (1.05, 1.47)]. Two separate sensitivity analyses were run for the vaccination rate. In participants aged ≥ 65 years, the vaccination rate was 3% higher in those who received the pharmacy-based intervention compared with those who received standard care; however, this change was not significant [RR (95% CI) 1.03 (0.86, 1.24)]. Additionally, a qualitative review showed that more successful pharmacy-based interventions were those with the more active involvement of pharmacists in routine care. This included regular checkup of vaccine status, proactive conversations and recommendations about vaccination, and pharmacy-based immunization programs, with specific vaccination days. In-pharmacy communication rather than passive information, such as through leaflets and posters was also more effective. Conclusion Pharmacists can play a significant role to improve patient treatment, adherence, and outcomes associated with influenza vaccines. Once pharmacy-based immunization is established, proactive involvement of is key to ensure successful program implementation and results. Expanding access for pharmacists and pharmacy intervention to provide vaccinations may increase vaccination acceptance and could be a valuable intervention in patient care. Additional studies should consider high-risk populations to inform optimal design and implementation strategies.

Download Full-text

Correlates of Improved Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel: A Survey of Hospitals in Louisiana

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1086/670992 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 34 (7) ◽

pp. 723-729 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Kayla L. Fricke ◽

Mariella M. Gastañaduy ◽

Renee Klos ◽

Rodolfo E. Bégué

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Influenza Vaccination ◽

Vaccination Campaign ◽

Vaccination Rate ◽

Healthcare Personnel ◽

Patient Contact ◽

Hospital Type ◽

Vaccination Rates ◽

Item Questionnaire

Objective.To describe practices for influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) with emphasis on correlates of increased vaccination rates.Design.Survey.Participants.Volunteer sample of hospitals in Louisiana.Methods.All hospitals in Louisiana were invited to participate. A 17-item questionnaire inquired about the hospital type, patients served, characteristics of the vaccination campaign, and the resulting vaccination rate.Results.Of 254 hospitals, 153 (60%) participated and were included in the 124 responses that were received. Most programs (64%) required that HCP either receive the vaccine or sign a declination form, and the rest were exclusively voluntary (36%); no program made vaccination a condition of employment. The median vaccination rate was 67%, and the vaccination rate was higher among hospitals that were accredited by the Joint Commission; provided acute care; served children, pregnant women, oncology patients, or intensive care unit patients; required a signed declination form; or imposed consequences for unvaccinated HCP (the most common of which was to require that a mask be worn on patient contact). Hospitals that provided free vaccine, made vaccine widely available, advertised the program extensively, required a declination form, and imposed consequences had the highest vaccination rates (median, 86%; range, 81%–91%).Conclusions.The rate of influenza vaccination of HCP remains low among the hospitals surveyed. Recommended practices may not be enough to reach 90% vaccination rates unless a signed declination requirement and consequences are implemented. Wearing a mask is a strong consequence. Demanding influenza vaccination as a condition of employment was not reported as a practice by the participating hospitals.

Download Full-text

The Effect of Vaccination Rates on the Infection of COVID-19 under the Vaccination Rate below the Herd Immunity Threshold

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph18147491 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (14) ◽

pp. 7491

Author(s):

Yi-Tui Chen

Keyword(s):

Infection Rate ◽

Herd Immunity ◽

The United States ◽

Vaccination Rate ◽

Infection Rates ◽

Vaccination Rates ◽

The United Kingdom ◽

The World ◽

Almost All ◽

The Impact

Although vaccination is carried out worldwide, the vaccination rate varies greatly. As of 24 May 2021, in some countries, the proportion of the population fully vaccinated against COVID-19 has exceeded 50%, but in many countries, this proportion is still very low, less than 1%. This article aims to explore the impact of vaccination on the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the herd immunity of almost all countries in the world has not been reached, several countries were selected as sample cases by employing the following criteria: more than 60 vaccine doses per 100 people and a population of more than one million people. In the end, a total of eight countries/regions were selected, including Israel, the UAE, Chile, the United Kingdom, the United States, Hungary, and Qatar. The results find that vaccination has a major impact on reducing infection rates in all countries. However, the infection rate after vaccination showed two trends. One is an inverted U-shaped trend, and the other is an L-shaped trend. For those countries with an inverted U-shaped trend, the infection rate begins to decline when the vaccination rate reaches 1.46–50.91 doses per 100 people.

Download Full-text

Influenza vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization in the United States, 2019-2020

The Journal of Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/infdis/jiaa800 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Mark W Tenforde ◽

H Keipp Talbot ◽

Christopher H Trabue ◽

Manjusha Gaglani ◽

Tresa M McNeal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Influenza Vaccine ◽

Influenza Vaccination ◽

Respiratory Illness ◽

The United States ◽

Vaccine Effectiveness ◽

Influenza Viruses ◽

Current Season ◽

Hospital Resources ◽

Negative Controls

Abstract Background Influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality and stresses hospital resources during periods of increased circulation. We evaluated the effectiveness of the 2019-2020 influenza vaccine against influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States. Methods We included adults hospitalized with acute respiratory illness at 14 hospitals and tested for influenza viruses by reserve transcription polymerase chain reaction. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in test-positive influenza cases versus test-negative controls, adjusting for confounders. VE was stratified by age and major circulating influenza types along with A(H1N1)pdm09 genetic subgroups. Results 3116 participants were included, including 18% (553) influenza-positive cases. Median age was 63 years. Sixty-seven percent (2079) received vaccination. Overall adjusted VE against influenza viruses was 41% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27-52). VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses was 40% (95% CI: 24-53) and 33% against B viruses (95% CI: 0-56). Of the two major A(H1N1)pdm09 subgroups (representing 90% of sequenced H1N1 viruses), VE against one group (5A+187A,189E) was 59% (95% CI: 34-75) whereas no significant VE was observed against the other group (5A+156K) [-1%, 95% CI: -61-37]. Conclusions In a primarily older population, influenza vaccination was associated with a 41% reduction in risk of hospitalized influenza illness.

Download Full-text