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.

School-located Influenza Vaccinations for Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the effect of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) on adolescents' influenza vaccination rates. METHODS: In 2015-2016, we performed a cluster-randomized trial of adolescent SLIV in middle/high schools. We selected 10 pairs of schools (identical grades within pairs) and randomly allocated schools within pairs to SLIV or usual care control. At eight suburban SLIV schools, we sent parents e-mail notifications about upcoming SLIV clinics and promoted online immunization consent. At two urban SLIV schools, we sent parents (via student backpack fliers) paper immunization consent forms and information about SLIV. E-mails were unavailable at these schools. Local health department nurses administered nasal or injectable influenza vaccine at dedicated SLIV clinics and billed insurers. We compared influenza vaccination rates at SLIV versus control schools using school directories to identify the student sample in each school. We used the state immunization registry to determine receipt of influenza vaccination. RESULTS: The final sample comprised 17,650 students enrolled in the 20 schools. Adolescents at suburban SLIV schools had higher overall influenza vaccination rates than did adolescents at control schools (51% vs. 46%, p < .001; adjusted odds ratio = 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.38, controlling for vaccination during the prior two seasons). No effect of SLIV was noted among urbanschools on multivariate analysis. SLIV did not substitute for vaccinations in primary care or other settings; in suburban settings, SLIV was associated with increased vaccinations in primary care or other settings (adjusted odds ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: SLIV in this community increased influenza vaccination rates among adolescents attending suburban schools.

Effects of Phone and Text Message Reminders on Completion of the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Series.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of phone or text message reminders to parents of adolescents on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series completion in Rochester, NY. METHODS: We performed parallel randomized controlled trials of phone and text reminders for HPV vaccine for parents of 11- to 17-year olds in three urban primary care clinics. The main outcome measures were time to receipt of the third dose of HPV vaccine and HPV vaccination rates. RESULTS: We enrolled 178 phone intervention (180 control) and 191 text intervention (200 control) participants. In multivariate survival analysis controlling for gender, age, practice, insurance, race, and ethnicity, the time from enrollment to receipt of the third HPV dose for those receiving a phone reminder compared with controls was not significant overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30, p = .12) but was for those enrolling at dose 1 (HR = 1.91, p = .007). There was a significant difference in those receiving a text reminder compared with controls (HR = 2.34, p < .0001; an average of 71 days earlier). At the end of the study, 48% of phone intervention versus 40% of phone control (p = .34), and 49% of text intervention versus 30% of text control (p = .001) adolescents had received 3 HPV vaccine doses. CONCLUSIONS: In this urban population of parents of adolescents, text message reminders for HPV vaccine completion for those who had already started the series were effective, whereas phone message reminders were only effective for those enrolled at dose 1.

School-Located Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial.

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.

Parent Preferences for Communicating With Their Adolescent's Provider Using New Technologies.

PURPOSE: Because adolescents make few health care visits, we assessed the views of parents of adolescents on various means to communicate with their adolescents' physicians about vaccine reminders and appointments, medication refills and test results-including phone, mail, e-mail, text messages, and personal health records (PHRs). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of 400 parents of adolescents presenting to four pediatric offices (two urban, two suburban) in Rochester, NY in 2011 before vaccine reminders occurring in these practices. RESULTS: Roughly half of parents (60% urban, 52% suburban, p = .11) were accepting of teens receiving their own vaccine reminders. Urban parents preferred communicating with the provider via telephone, whereas suburban parents preferred e-mail for most issues and a PHR for receipt of test results. In adjusted analyses, being younger was associated with preferring text message vaccine reminders (41 to <51 years: adjusted relative risk [aRR] = .8, p = .02; ≥51 years, aRR = .5, p < .001), and being a suburban parent was associated with preferring e-mail reminders (aRR = 1.6, p < .001). Those who were younger (41 to <51 years: aRR = .6, p = .007; ≥51 years: aRR = .4, p < .001) and suburban (aRR = 2.4, p < .001) were most likely to be interested in general use of a PHR. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that some, but not all, parents are ready for electronic (text message, e-mail, PHR) communications for their adolescents' health care and that a parent age and socioeconomic divide exists. Providing options in the means in which parents communicate with an adolescent's provider is ideal.

Effect of provider prompts on adolescent immunization rates: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Adolescent immunization rates are suboptimal. Experts recommend provider prompts at health care visits to improve rates. We assessed the impact of either electronic health record (EHR) or nurse- or staff-initiated provider prompts on adolescent immunization rates. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial, allocating practices in 1 of 2 practice-based research networks (PBRN) to provider prompts or standard-of-care control. Ten primary care practices participated, 5 intervention and 5 controls, each matched in pairs on urban, suburban, or rural location and practice type (pediatric or family medicine), from a PBRN in Greater Rochester, New York (GR-PBRN); and 12 practices, 6 intervention, 6 controls, similarly matched, from a national pediatric continuity clinic PBRN (CORNET). The study period was 1 year per practice, ranging from June 2011 to January 2013. Study participants were adolescents 11 to 17 years attending these 22 practices; random sample of chart reviews per practice for baseline and postintervention year to assess immunization rates (n = 7,040 total chart reviews for adolescents with >1 visit in a period). The intervention was an EHR prompt (4 GR-PBRN and 5 CORNET practice pairs) (alert) that appeared on providers' computer screens at all office visits, indicating the specific immunizations that adolescents were recommended to receive. Staff prompts (1 GR-PBRN pair and 1 CORNET pair) in the form of a reminder sheet was placed on the provider's desk in the exam room indicating the vaccines due. We compared immunization rates, stratified by PBRN, for routine vaccines (meningococcus, pertussis, human papillomavirus, influenza) at study beginning and end. RESULTS: Intervention and control practices within each PBRN were similar at baseline for demographics and immunization rates. Immunization rates at the study end for adolescents who were behind on immunizations at study initiation were not significantly different for intervention versus control practices for any vaccine or combination of vaccines. Results were similar for each PBRN and also when only EHR-based prompts was assessed. For example, at study end, 3-dose human papillomavirus vaccination rates for GR-PBRN intervention versus control practices were 51% versus 53% (adjusted odds ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval 0.64-1.34); CORNET intervention versus control rates were 50% versus 42% (adjusted odds ratio 1.06; 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.88). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In both a local and national setting, provider prompts failed to improve adolescent immunization rates. More rigorous practice-based changes are needed.

Increasing adolescent immunization rates in primary care: strategies physicians use and would consider implementing.

Strategies to increase adolescent immunization rates have been suggested, but little is documented about which strategies clinicians actually use or would consider. In spring 2010, we surveyed primary care physicians from 2 practice-based research networks (PBRNs): Greater Rochester PBRN (GR-PBRN) and national pediatric COntinuity Research NETwork (CORNET). Network clinicians received mailed or online surveys (response rate 76%, n=148). The GR-PBRN patient population (51% suburban, 33% rural, and 16% urban) differed from that served by CORNET (85% urban). For nonseasonal vaccines recommended for adolescents, many GR-PBRN and CORNET practices reported using nurse prompts to providers at preventive visits (61% and 52%, respectively), physician education (53% and 53%), and scheduled vaccine-only visits (91% and 82%). Strategies not used that clinicians frequently indicated they would consider included patient reminder/recall and prompts to providers via nurses or electronic health records. As preventive visits and immunization recommendations grow more complex, using technology to support immunization delivery to adolescents might be effective.

Tracking the careers of academic general pediatric fellowship program graduates: academic productivity and leadership roles.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the careers of graduates of academic general pediatric (AGP) fellowship programs. We evaluated the careers of 2 cohorts of AGP fellowship graduates: an early cohort trained during 1978 to 1988, and a later cohort trained during 1989 to 1999. METHODS: We surveyed all known AGP fellowship graduates in both cohorts by using a confidential mailed survey. We assessed graduates' current professional work and analyzed curricula vitae for principal investigator (PI) grants; first-authored, peer-reviewed publications; and leadership positions. RESULTS: From the early cohort, 95 of 131 eligible graduates (73%) responded; from the later cohort, 93 of 133 (70%) responded. Two thirds of each cohort remain in academics; of these, nearly half are on tenure tracks and over half have major educational roles within their university. The percentage in the early cohort who have been PI on a research grant by 5, 10, and 15 years postfellowship was 44%, 53%, and 54%, respectively; in the later cohort, it was 62%, 75%, and 75%, respectively (P = .004 vs early cohort). During the 10 years postfellowship, the early and later cohorts averaged 5.5 and 7.4 first-authored, peer-reviewed papers, respectively (P = .4). By 10 years, a high proportion of both cohorts had become division chief (19% vs 16%), had other academic leadership positions (43% vs 59%), or were leaders in professional organizations (20% vs 30%; all P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Graduates of AGP fellowship programs have achieved considerable academic success. Recently trained fellows appear even more successful. The academic outcomes of these AGP fellows bode well for the future of AGP.

Cost of universal influenza vaccination of children in pediatric practices.

OBJECTIVES: The goals were to estimate nationally representative pediatric practices' costs of providing influenza vaccination during the 2006-2007 season and to simulate the costs pediatric practices might incur when implementing universal influenza vaccination for US children aged 6 months to 18 years. METHODS: We surveyed a stratified, random sample of New York State pediatric practices (N = 91) to obtain information from physicians and office managers about all practice resources associated with provision of influenza vaccination. We estimated vaccination costs for 2 practice sizes (small and large) and 3 geographic areas (urban, suburban, and rural). We adjusted these data to obtain national estimates of the total practice cost (in 2006 dollars) for providing 1 influenza vaccination to children aged 6 months to 18 years. RESULTS: Among all respondents, the median total cost per vaccination was $28.62 (interquartile range: $18.67-45.28). The median component costs were as follows: clinical personnel labor costs, $2.01; nonclinical personnel labor costs, $7.96; all other (overhead) costs, $10.43. Vaccine purchase costs averaged $8.22. Smaller practices and urban practices had higher costs than larger or suburban practices. With the assumption of vaccine administration reimbursement for all Vaccines for Children (VFC)-eligible children at the current Medicaid median of $8.40, the financial loss across all US pediatric practices through delivery of VFC vaccines would be $98 million if one third of children received influenza vaccine. CONCLUSION: The total cost for pediatric practices to provide influenza vaccination is high, varies according to practice characteristics, and exceeds the average VFC reimbursement.