Seasonal influenza vaccination at school: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination coverage for U.S. school-aged children is below the 80% national goal. Primary care practices may not have the capacity to vaccinate all children during influenza vaccination season. No real-world models of school-located seasonal influenza (SLV-I) programs have been tested. PURPOSE: Determine the feasibility, sustainability, and impact of an SLV-I program providing influenza vaccination to elementary school children during the school day. DESIGN: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial of SLV-I during two vaccination seasons, schools were randomly assigned to SLV-I versus standard of care. Seasonal influenza vaccine receipt, as recorded in the state immunization information system (IIS), was measured. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Intervention and control schools were located in a single western New York county. Participation (intervention or control) included the sole urban school district and suburban districts (five in Year 1, four in Year 2). INTERVENTION: After gathering parental consent and insurance information, live attenuated and inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines were offered in elementary schools during the school day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on receipt of ≥1 seasonal influenza vaccination in Year 1 (2009-2010) and Year 2 (2010-2011) were collected on all student grades K through 5 at intervention and control schools from the IIS in the Spring of 2010 and 2011, respectively. Additionally, coverage achieved through SLV-I was compared to coverage of children vaccinated elsewhere. Preliminary data analysis for Year 1 occurred in Spring 2010; final quantitative analysis for both years was completed in late Fall 2012. RESULTS: Results are shown for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, respectively: Children enrolled in suburban SLV-I versus control schools had vaccination coverage of 47% vs 36%, and 52% vs 36% (p<0.0001 both years). In urban areas, coverage was 36% vs 26%, and 31% vs 25% (p<0.001 both years). On multilevel logistic analysis with three nested levels (student, school, school district) during both vaccination seasons, children were more likely to be vaccinated in SLV-I versus control schools; ORs were 1.6 (95% CI=1.4, 1.9; p<0.001) and 1.5 (95% CI=1.3, 1.8; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delivering influenza vaccine during school is a promising approach to improving pediatric influenza vaccination coverage. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.govNCT01224301.

Assessing the acceptability and feasibility of a school-located influenza vaccination program with third-party billing in elementary schools.

This study qualitatively assesses the acceptability and feasibility of a school-located vaccination for influenza (SLIV) project that was conducted in New York State in 2009-2011, from the perspectives of project participants with different roles. Fourteen in-depth semistructured interviews with participating schools' personnel and the mass vaccinator were tape-recorded and transcribed. Interviewees were randomly selected from stratified lists and included five principals, five school nurses, two school administrators, and two lead personnel from the mass vaccinator. A content analysis of transcripts from the interviews was completed and several themes emerged. All participants generally found the SLIV project acceptable. School personnel and the vaccinator viewed the SLIV project process as feasible and beneficial. However, the vaccinator identified difficulties with third-party billing as a potential threat to sustainability.

Influenza testing and antiviral prescribing practices among emergency department clinicians in 9 states during the 2006 to 2007 influenza season.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Influenza causes significant widespread illness each year. Emergency department (ED) clinicians are often first-line providers to evaluate and make treatment decisions for patients presenting with influenza. We sought to better understand ED clinician testing and treatment practices in the Emerging Infections Program Network, a federal, state, and academic collaboration that conducts active surveillance for influenza-associated hospitalizations. METHODS: During 2007, a survey was administered to ED clinicians who worked in Emerging Infections Program catchment area hospitals' EDs. The survey encompassed the role of the clinician, years since completing clinical training, hospital type, influenza testing practices, and use of antiviral medications during the 2006 to 2007 influenza season. We examined factors associated with influenza testing and antiviral use. RESULTS: A total of 1,055 ED clinicians from 123 hospitals responded to the survey. A majority of respondents (85.3%; n=887) reported they had tested their patients for influenza during the 2006 to 2007 influenza season (Emerging Infections Program site range: 59.3 to 100%; P<.0001). When asked about antiviral medications, 55.7% (n=576) of respondents stated they had prescribed antiviral medications to some of their patients in 2006 to 2007 (Emerging Infections Program site range 32.9% to 80.3%; P<.0001). A positive association between influenza testing and prescribing antiviral medications was observed. Additionally, the type of hospital, location in which an ED clinician worked, and the number of years since medical training were associated with prescribing antiviral influenza medications. CONCLUSION: There is much heterogeneity in clinician-initiated influenza testing and treatment practices. Additional exploration of the role of hospital testing and treatment policies, clinicians' perception of influenza disease, and methods for educating clinicians about new recommendations is needed to better understand ED clinician testing and treatment decisions, especially in an environment of rapidly changing influenza clinical guidelines. Until influenza testing and treatment guidelines are better promulgated, clinicians may continue to test and treat influenza with inconsistency.