Cardiology patients are unaware of the benefits of seasonal influenza immunization.

Seasonal influenza immunization reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. Patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) derive a greater benefit than those without, yet up to 50 % do not take up the immunization. Patient perceptions and beliefs are known to inform immunization behaviors, yet the immunization related beliefs of patients with CVD have not been described. Objective: To describe beliefs, perceptions and behaviors regarding influenza immunization in patients with CVD. Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional, voluntary and anonymous survey of 181 cardiology inpatients and outpatients attending three large hospitals in Victoria. Results: Median age was 64, 35.0 % were female and 24.2 % spoke a language other than English at home. Over one-third-(34.5 %) of respondents did not receive the seasonal influenza immunization in the prior year. Only half (54.2 %) of patients agreed that their heart condition placed them at higher risk of complications and serious illness if they contracted influenza. Nearly a quarter of patients (24.0 %) were concerned about side effects while 1 in 10 patients raised cost as a barrier despite being free-of-charge in Australia. If asked to receive the seasonal influenza immunization, 86 % patients would agree if their cardiologist recommended it. Conclusion: Despite guideline recommendations, most cardiology patients are uninformed of the cardiovascular benefits of seasonal influenza immunization with many unaware they are at higher risk of influenza-related illness. The vast majority of patients would accept the immunization if recommended by their cardiologist highlighting their important role in improving uptake.

Cardiologists' knowledge and perceptions of the seasonal influenza immunisation.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza immunisation reduces cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, but 50% do not receive routine immunisation. The perceptions and current role of cardiologists in recommending and prescribing influenza immunisation has not been well described. METHODS: We used an exploratory sequential mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews of 10 cardiologists were performed to identify themes for quantitative evaluation. 63 cardiologists undertook quantitative evaluation in an online survey. The interviews and surveys addressed (a) attitudes and behaviours regarding influenza immunisation and (b) preventative care in cardiology. RESULTS: One quarter (25.4%, n = 16) of cardiologists recommended influenza immunisation to all patients. Less than half (49.2%, n = 31) recommended influenza immunisation to secondary prevention patients. Almost 1/3 of respondents (31.7%, n = 20) were uncertain or unaware of the guidelines regarding influenza immunisation and patients with cardiac disease. Most cardiologists believed that general practitioners were responsible for ensuring patients received influenza immunisation (76.2%, n = 48). CONCLUSIONS: Despite reducing cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, influenza immunisation is not widely recommended by cardiologists. Further clinician education is needed to address the knowledge gaps which prevent recommendation and uptake of this guideline directed treatment.

Use of a paediatric advice line for parents of infants recruited to a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to describe the use of a paediatric advice line (PAL) provided to parents whose infants were recruited to a large randomised controlled trial (RCT), including the number and types of medical concerns addressed, seasonal variability and call outcomes. Additionally, sociodemographic characteristics of the parents and children of those parents who used the PAL are compared with those who did not. METHODS: Prospective cohort of 1246 children nested in the Melbourne Infant Study: BCG for Allergy and Infection Reduction (MIS BAIR) RCT. All MIS BAIR participants were offered access to the PAL. Data were collected over the initial 2 years of a 5-year follow-up. Data were analysed using χ2 tests, and ORs were calculated using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The PAL was used by 230 (18.5%) participants, who made a total of 586 calls during the 2-year study period. The reasons for calling the PAL were dermatological (24%); gastrointestinal (18%); disturbances in feeding, sleeping and crying (14%); respiratory (7%); and developmental/neurological (6%). Analysis revealed that those who used the PAL were more likely to be first-time parents (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.9) and mothers who hold a university degree (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 8.4). PAL costs were minimal and comprised 15 clinicians with paediatric experience. CONCLUSIONS: A cost-effective PAL service for clinical trial participants was used appropriately by parents for relatively minor concerns and may have a role in trials to promote participant engagement and reduce demand for other health services.

An evaluation of strategies to achieve greater than 90% coverage of maternal influenza and pertussis vaccines including an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Maternal immunisation is an essential public health intervention aimed at improving the health outcomes for pregnant women and providing protection to the newborn. Despite international recommendations, safety and efficacy data for the intervention, and often a fully funded program, uptake of vaccines in pregnancy remain suboptimal. One possible explanation for this includes limited access to vaccination services at the point of antenatal care. The aim of this study is to evaluate the change in vaccine coverage among pregnant women following implementation of a modified model of delivery aimed at improving access at the point of antenatal care, including an economic evaluation. METHODS: This prospective multi-centre study, using action research design, across six maternity services in Victoria, Australia, evaluated the implementation of a co-designed vaccine delivery model (either a pharmacy led model, midwife led model or primary care led model) supported by provider education. The main outcome measure was influenza and pertussis vaccine uptake during pregnancy and the incremental cost of the new model (compared to existing models) and the cost-effectiveness of the new model at each participating health service. RESULTS: Influenza vaccine coverage in 2019 increased between 50 and 196% from baseline. All services reduced their average cost per immunisation under the new platforms due to efficiencies achieved in the delivery of maternal immunisations. This cost saving ranged from $9 to $71. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that there is no 'one size fits all' model of vaccine delivery. Future successful strategies to improve maternal vaccine coverage at other maternity services should be site specific, multifaceted, targeted at the existing barriers to maternal vaccine uptake, and heavily involve local stakeholders in the design and implementation of these strategies. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that an increase in maternal influenza immunisation uptake can be achieved at a relatively modest cost through amendment of maternal immunisation platforms.

Applicability of the GAIA Maternal and Neonatal Outcome Case Definitions for the Evaluation of Adverse Events Following Vaccination in Pregnancy in High-income Countries.

BACKGROUND: The Brighton Collaboration Global Alignment of Immunization Safety in Pregnancy (GAIA) project developed case definitions for the assessment of adverse events in mothers and infants following maternal immunization. This study evaluated the applicability of these definitions to data collected in routine clinical care and research trial records across 7 sites in high-resource settings. METHODS: Data collection forms were designed and used to retrospectively abstract the key elements of the GAIA definitions from records for 5 neonatal and 5 maternal outcomes, as well as gestational age. Level of diagnostic certainty was assessed by the data abstractor and an independent clinician, and then verified by Automated Brighton Case logic. The ability to assign a level of diagnostic certainty for each outcome and the positive predictive value (PPV) for their respective ICD-10 codes were evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 1248 case records were abstracted: 624 neonatal and 622 maternal. Neonatal outcomes were most likely to be assessable and assigned by the level of diagnostic certainty. PPV for preterm birth, low birth weight, small for gestational age and respiratory distress were all above 75%. Maternal outcomes for preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction showed PPV over 80%. However, microcephaly (neonatal outcome) and dysfunctional labor (maternal outcome) were often nonassessable, with low PPVs. CONCLUSIONS: The applicability of GAIA case definitions to retrospectively ascertain and classify maternal and neonatal outcomes was variable among sites in high-resource settings. The implementation of the case definitions is largely dependent on the type and quality of documentation in clinical and research records in both high- and low-resource settings. While designed for use in the prospective evaluation of maternal vaccine safety, the GAIA case definitions would likely need to be specifically adapted for observational studies using alternative sources of data, linking various data sources and allowing flexibility in the ascertainment of the elements and levels of certainty of the case definition.