Influenza vaccine supply, 2005–2006: did we come up short?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although total influenza vaccine doses available in the 2005/2006 influenza season were over 80 million, CDC received many reports of delayed and diminished vaccine shipments in October to November of 2005. To better understand the supply problems, CDC and partners surveyed several health care professional groups.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Surveys were sent to representative samples of influenza vaccine providers including pediatricians, internists, federally qualified health centers, visiting nurse organizations, and all 64 state and other health departments receiving federal immunization funds directly. In November and December, 2005, providers were asked questions about their experience in ordering influenza vaccine, sources where orders were placed, proportion of orders received, and referral of patients to other vaccination sites.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The number of providers surveyed (median: 154; range: 64 – 308) and response rates (median: 62%; range: 51% – 77%) varied among groups. Less than half of the providers in most groups placed a single order that was accepted (median: 31%; range: 8% – 53%), and most placed multiple orders. Only 57% of federally qualified health centers and 60% of internists reported they received at least 40% of their orders by the middle of December; the other provider groups received a greater proportion of their orders. Most internists (80%) and federally qualified health centers (54%) reported that they had referred priority group patients to other locations to receive the influenza vaccine due to inadequate supplies. Vaccine providers who ordered only from Chiron received a lower proportion of their orders than providers that ordered from another source or ordered from multiple sources.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Most of the providers surveyed received only part of their orders by the middle of December. Disruptions in receipt of influenza vaccine during the fall of 2005 were due primarily to shortfalls in vaccine from Chiron and also due to delays and partial shipments from other distributors.</p

Implications for registry-based vaccine effectiveness studies from an evaluation of an immunization registry: A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Population-based electronic immunization registries create the possibility of using registry data to conduct vaccine effectiveness studies which could have methodological advantages over traditional observational studies. For study validity, the base population would have to be clearly defined and the immunization status of members of the population accurately recorded in the registry. We evaluated a city-wide immunization registry, focusing on its potential as a tool to study pertussis vaccine effectiveness, especially in adolescents.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted two evaluations – one in sites that were active registry participants and one in sites that had implemented an electronic medical record with plans for future direct data transfer to the registry – of the ability to match patients' medical records to registry records and the accuracy of immunization records in the registry. For each site, records from current pediatric patients were chosen randomly. Data regarding pertussis-related immunizations, clinic usage, and demographic and identifying information were recorded; for 11–17-year-old subjects, information on MMR, hepatitis B, and varicella immunizations was also collected. Records were then matched, when possible, to registry records. For records with a registry match, immunization data were compared.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among 350 subjects from sites that were current registry users, 307 (87.7%) matched a registry record. Discrepancies in pertussis-related data were common for up-to-date status (22.6%), number of immunizations (34.7%), dates (10.2%), and formulation (34.4%). Among 442 subjects from sites that planned direct electronic transfer of immunization data to the registry, 393 (88.9%) would have matched a registry record; discrepancies occurred frequently in number of immunizations (11.9%), formulation (29.1%), manufacturer (94.4%), and lot number (95.1%.) Inability to match and immunization discrepancies were both more common in subjects who were older at their first visit to the provider site. For 11–17-year-old subjects, discrepancies were also common for MMR, hepatitis B, and varicella vaccination data.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Provider records frequently could not be matched to registry records or had discrepancies in key immunization data. These issues were more common for older children and were present even with electronic data transfer. These results highlight general challenges that may face investigators wishing to use registry-based immunization data for vaccine effectiveness studies, especially in adolescents.</p

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians.

Physician questionnaires are commonly used in health services research; however, many survey studies are limited by low response rate. We describe the effectiveness of a method to maximize survey response without using incentives, the effectiveness of survey reminders over time, and differences in response rates based on survey mode and primary care specialty. As part of a study to assess vaccine policy issues, 13 separate surveys were conducted by internet and mail over the period of 2008 to 2013. Surveys were conducted among pre-recruited networks of pediatricians, family physicians and general internists. Each network was active for 2 years and responded to 3-6 surveys. Physicians who indicated preference to respond through an online survey received up to 9 e-mailed requests to complete the questionnaire and up to 2 mailed questionnaires. Physicians who chose to respond by mail received up to 3 mailed questionnaires and a reminder postcard. For 6 of the 13 surveys conducted over the 6 year period, an additional mailing using a hand-addressed envelope was mailed to non-responders at the end of the usual protocol. Effectiveness of survey methods was measured by response rates. The overall response rates varied from 66‒83%. Response rates declined 17 percentage-points on average between the first and last surveys administered within each physician network. The internet group consistently had higher response rates than the mail group (74% vs. 62% on average). An additional mailing in a hand-written envelope boosted the final response rate by 11 percentage-points. Self-selection of survey mode, multiple reminders, and hand-written envelopes are effective methods for maximizing response rates in physician surveys

Attitudes about Adult Vaccines and Reminder/recall in a Safety Net Population

Little is known about adult patients’ attitudes toward vaccination and preferences for reminder/recall. The objective of this study was to determine patient perspectives on adult vaccines generally; attitudes about Tdap, pneumococcal polysaccharide (PPSV-23), and seasonal influenza vaccines specifically; and preferences for adult reminder/recall delivery. Twelve focus groups were conducted with 68 patients in a safety net health system. The sample was stratified by preferred language (English or Spanish), age (18–64 or 65+), and health status (with or without chronic conditions). Participants expressed positive attitudes toward vaccines generally, but had little knowledge of specific vaccines other than influenza, about which they expressed concerns. Although none reported previous experience receiving reminder/recall notices for adult vaccines, all were in favor of receiving them. These results suggest potential patient interest in greater adoption of evidence-based methods to improve immunization rates, and highlight the need for improved communication between providers and patients about adult vaccines