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.

Centralized Reminder/Recall for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Findings From Two States-A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) using Immunization Information Systems has been effective in increasing childhood immunization rates. Previously, C-R/R using autodialer for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine did not raise rates. We assessed C-R/R for HPV vaccine using other modalities and focused on younger adolescents. METHODS: We conducted a three-arm pragmatic RCT in randomly sampled primary care practices in Colorado (n = 88) and New York (n = 136), proportionate to where adolescents received care. We randomized, within practices, adolescents aged 11-14 years who had not completed the HPV vaccination series to receive C-R/R using different modalities (Colorado: autodialer, mail, or control; New York: autodialer, text, or control). Up to two reminders were sent in intervention arms for each dose needed between 2/2017 and 12/2018. RESULTS: In Colorado, no significant differences were found for series initiation (31.3% control, 31.1% autodial, 31.8% mail), with slight improvement for series completion in the autodialer arm (29.7% control, 31.1% autodialer, p = .04) but not the mail arm (30.9%, p = .06). No significant differences were found in New York for series initiation (24.1% for all arms) or completion (17.1% control, 16.9% autodial, 17.9% text). Adjusted analyses showed higher completion rates for the autodialer arm in Colorado but not for other arms. In Colorado, C-R/R reduced time to series completion by around 2 months. Cost per adolescent was $1.81 for mail; under $.40 for all other modalities. CONCLUSIONS: C-R/R has less benefit for raising HPV vaccination rates than other studies have noted for childhood immunizations, although it may quicken series completion at little cost.

Centralized Reminder/Recall to Increase Influenza Vaccination Rates: A Two-State Pragmatic Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) by health departments using immunization information systems is more effective and cost effective than practice-based approaches for increasing childhood vaccines but has not been studied for influenza vaccination. We assessed effectiveness and cost of C-R/R for increasing childhood influenza vaccination compared with usual care. METHODS: Within Colorado (CO) and New York (NY), random samples of primary care practices (pediatric, family medicine, and health center) were selected proportionate to where children are served-65 practices (N = 54,353 children) in CO; 101 practices (N = 65,777) in NY. We conducted 4-arm RCTs per state (1, 2, or 3 autodial reminders vs usual care), with randomization at the patient level within practices from 10/2016 to 1/2017. RESULTS: In CO, the maximum absolute difference in receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine was 1.7% between the 2 R/R group and control (adjusted risk ratio [ARR] of 1.06 [1.01, 1.10]); other R/R arms did not differ significantly. In NY, ARRs for the study arms versus control varied from 1.05 (1.01, 1.10) for 3 R/R to 1.06 (1.01, 1.11) for 1-2 R/R groups and maximum absolute increase in vaccination was 0.6%. In time-to-event analyses, study arm was a significant predictor of vaccination in CO (P = .001) but not in NY. Costs/child randomized to one message were $.17 in CO and $.23 in NY. CONCLUSIONS: C-R/R for influenza vaccine using autodial had low-level effects on increasing influenza rates in 2 states. Given the feasibility and low cost of C-R/R in previous trials, its utility for influenza should be re-examined using different modalities.

Effect of State Immunization Information System Centralized Reminder and Recall on HPV Vaccination Rates.

BACKGROUND: Although autodialer centralized reminder and recall (C-R/R) from state immunization information systems (IISs) has been shown to raise childhood vaccination rates, its impact on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates is unclear. METHODS: In a 4-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial across 2 states, we randomly selected practices representative of the specialty (pediatrics, family medicine, and health center) where children received care. Within each practice, patients 11 to 17.9 years old who had not completed their HPV vaccine series (NY: N = 30 616 in 123 practices; CO: N = 31 502 in 80 practices) were randomly assigned to receive 0, 1, 2, or 3 IIS C-R/R autodialer messages per vaccine dose. We assessed HPV vaccine receipt via the IIS, calculated intervention costs, and compared HPV vaccine series initiation and completion rates across study arms. RESULTS: In New York, HPV vaccine initiation rates ranged from 37.0% to 37.4%, and completion rates were between 29.1% and 30.1%, with no significant differences across study arms. In Colorado, HPV vaccine initiation rates ranged from 31.2% to 33.5% and were slightly higher for 1 reminder compared with none, but vaccine completion rates, ranging from 27.0% to 27.8%, were similar. On adjusted analyses in Colorado, vaccine initiation rates were slightly higher for 1 and 3 C-R/R messages (adjusted risk ratios 1.07 and 1.04, respectively); completion rates were slightly higher for 1 and 3 C-R/R messages (adjusted risk ratios 1.02 and 1.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: IIS-based C-R/R for HPV vaccination did not improve HPV vaccination rates in New York and increased vaccination rates slightly in Colorado.

Randomized controlled trial of centralized vaccine reminder/recall to improve adult vaccination rates in an accountable care organization setting.

Our objectives were to assess 1) effectiveness of using Colorado's Immunization Information System (CIIS) to send out vaccine reminder/recalls (R/Rs) centrally vs. usual care for adult vaccine delivery within an accountable care organization (ACO) and 2) practice staff's perception of centralized R/R. From 9/2016 to 4/2017, we conducted a randomized controlled trial among adults enrolled in a Medicaid ACO at six healthcare entities. Adults were divided into two strata: 15,153 age 19-64 and 616 age 65+. Adults age 19-64 who needed influenza and/or Tdap vaccine, and adults age 65+ who needed influenza, and/or Tdap, and/or a pneumococcal vaccine were randomized to receive up to 3 R/Rs by autodialed telephone and mail or usual care. Documentation of receipt of any needed vaccines in CIIS within six months was the primary outcome. We assessed intervention effectiveness using mixed effect logistic regression. Thirteen semi-structured exit interviews were conducted with staff from each healthcare entity. The intervention was not associated with the primary outcome for the age 19-64 population [OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.98-1.15)] or age 65+ population [(OR 0.96 (0.69-1.32)]. Practice staff perceived the intervention to be beneficial and not burdensome. Perceived barriers included lack of availability of appointments and adults receiving only influenza vaccine when other vaccines were needed. In conclusion, centralized R/R was not effective at improving adult vaccination rates in a Medicaid ACO. Future studies should consider better harmonizing vaccine centralized R/Rs with vaccine delivery efforts within the practice setting. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02133391.

Potential Strategies to Achieve Universal Influenza Vaccination for Children: Provider Attitudes in Two States.

OBJECTIVE: Childhood influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal. Provider perceptions on strategies to achieve universal vaccination are needed. We assessed the perceptions and attitudes of primary care providers across 2 states regarding 2 strategies to potentially bolster rates: centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R), such as reminder/recall (R/R) notices from state immunization registries, and influenza vaccination by complementary community vaccinators (CCVs), such as retail pharmacies, schools, and health departments. METHODS: We sent a mailed survey to a representative sample of providers across Colorado and New York. Questions addressed R/R activities for influenza vaccine, preferences and attitudes about the health department sending C-R/R notices for influenza vaccine, and attitudes about CCVs. Bivariate analyses assessed provider perceptions and compared perceptions by state. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 56% (n = 590/1052). Twenty-two percent of providers in Colorado and 33% in New York performed practice-based R/R for all patients during the 2015-16 influenza season. Eighty-one percent of providers in both states preferred the health department or had no preference for who sent C-R/R notices for influenza vaccine to their patients; most preferred to include their practice names on C-R/R messages. Many providers in both Colorado (75%) and New York (46%, P < .001) agreed that their patients like the option of having CCVs where children can receive influenza vaccine. Some providers expressed concerns regarding potential loss of income and/or difficulty documenting receipt of influenza vaccine at CCVs. CONCLUSIONS: Most providers support C-R/R, and many support CCVs to increase influenza vaccination rates. Collaborations between traditional primary care providers and CCVs might boost coverage.

RCT of Centralized Vaccine Reminder/Recall for Adults.

INTRODUCTION: A proven, but underutilized, method to increase current low vaccination rates is reminder/recall. Centralized reminder/recall using an Immunization Information System reduces the burden of an individual practice conducting reminder/recall. The objectives were to assess the effectiveness of centralized vaccine reminder/recall on improving adult vaccination rates using Colorado's Immunization Information System. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a pragmatic RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Denver Health patients were divided into three strata: 25,039 individuals aged 19-64 years without a high-risk condition for pneumococcal disease, 16,897 individuals aged 19-64 years with a high-risk condition, and 5,332 individuals aged ≥65 years. Data were collected from October 2015 to April 2016 and analyzed between September 2016 and June 2017. INTERVENTION: Adults aged 19-64 years without a high-risk condition who needed influenza or tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccine or both, and adults with a high-risk condition and adults aged ≥65 years who needed influenza, or tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis, or pneumococcal vaccine, or all three vaccines were randomized to receive up to three reminder/recalls or usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Documentation of receipt of any needed vaccine in Immunization Information System ≤6 months after the reminder/recall was the primary outcome. A secondary outcome included implementation costs of the reminder/recall effort. A mixed effects model assessed the association between the intervention and receipt of any needed vaccine while controlling for gender, age, race, ethnicity, insurance type, and history of vaccine refusal. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with receipt of any needed vaccine in the adults aged ≥65 years population (AOR=1.15, 95% CI=1.02, 1.30), but not the other two populations. Influenza vaccine was the source of this difference, with 32.0% receiving a vaccine in intervention versus 28.6% in usual-care groups (p≤0.01). Start-up and implementation costs per person were $0.86. In the population aged ≥65 years, 29.4 patients would need to be contacted to gain one additional vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized reminder/recall was effective at increasing influenza vaccination rates in adults aged ≥65 years over a short time period, without burdening the practices, and at a reasonable cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02133391.

Do self-monitoring interventions improve older adult learning?

We describe a self-monitoring approach for improving older adult learning that older adults can use in conjunction with more traditional mnemonic-based interventions. According to the self-monitoring approach, older adults can improve the effectiveness of learning by accurately monitoring their progress toward a learning goal and by using the output from such monitoring to allocate study time and to inform strategy selection. We review current evidence, which includes outcomes from two previously unpublished interventions, relevant to the efficacy of this approach. Both interventions demonstrated performance gains in memory performance after self-monitoring training, although these training gains did not exceed gains obtained through standard mnemonic training. Our discussion highlights both successes and failures of self-monitoring to enhance learning as well as challenges for future research.

Centralized Reminder/Recall to Increase Immunization Rates in Young Children: How Much Bang for the Buck?

OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of: 1) centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS) versus practice-based reminder/recall (PB-R/R) approaches to increase immunization rates; 2) different levels of C-R/R intensity; and 3) C-R/R with versus without the name of the child's provider. METHODS: We conducted 3 sequential cluster-randomized trials involving children aged 19 to 25 months in 15 Colorado counties in March 2013 (trial 1), October 2013 (trial 2), and May 2014 (trial 3). In C-R/R counties, the intensity of the intervention decreased sequentially in trials 1 through 3, from 3 to 1 recall messages. In PB-R/R counties, practices were offered training using CIIS and financial support. The percentage of children with up-to-date (UTD) vaccinations was compared 6 months after recall. A mixed-effects model assessed the association between C-R/R versus PB-R/R and UTD rates. RESULTS: C-R/R was more effective in trials 1 to 3 (relative risk = 1.11; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.20; P = .009). Effectiveness did not decrease with decreasing intervention intensity (P = .59). Costs decreased with decreasing intensity in the C-R/R arm, from $18.72 per child brought UTD in trial 1 to $10.11 in trial 3. Costs were higher and more variable in the PB-R/R arm, ranging from $20.63 to $237.81 per child brought UTD. C-R/R was significantly more effective if the child's practice name was included (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: C-R/R was more effective and cost-effective than PB-R/R for increasing UTD rates in young children and was most effective if messages included the child's provider name. Three reminders were not more effective than one, which may be explained by the increasing accuracy of contact information in CIIS over the course of the trials.