Strong Public Health Recommendations from Weak Evidence? Lessons Learned in Developing Guidance on the Public Health Management of Meningococcal Disease.

The evidence underpinning public health policy is often of low quality, leading to inconsistencies in recommended interventions. One example is the divergence in national policies across Europe for managing contacts of invasive meningococcal disease. Aiming to develop consistent guidance at the European level, a group of experts reviewed the literature and formulated recommendations. The group defined eight priority research questions, searched the literature, and formulated recommendations using GRADE methodology. Five of the research questions are discussed in this paper. After taking into account quality of evidence, benefit, harm, value, preference, burden on patient of the intervention, and resource implications, we made four strong recommendations and five weak recommendations for intervention. Strong recommendations related not only to one question with very low quality of evidence as well as to two questions with moderate to high quality of evidence. The weak recommendations related to two questions with low and very low quality of evidence but also to one question with moderate quality of evidence. GRADE methodology ensures a transparent process and explicit recognition of additional factors that should be considered when making recommendations for policy. This approach can be usefully applied to many areas of public health policy where evidence quality is often low

Strong Public Health Recommendations from Weak Evidence? Lessons Learned in Developing Guidance on the Public Health Management of Meningococcal Disease

The evidence underpinning public health policy is often of low quality, leading to inconsistencies in recommended interventions. One example is the divergence in national policies across Europe for managing contacts of invasive meningococcal disease. Aiming to develop consistent guidance at the European level, a group of experts reviewed the literature and formulated recommendations. The group defined eight priority research questions, searched the literature, and formulated recommendations using GRADE methodology. Five of the research questions are discussed in this paper. After taking into account quality of evidence, benefit, harm, value, preference, burden on patient of the intervention, and resource implications, we made four strong recommendations and five weak recommendations for intervention. Strong recommendations related not only to one question with very low quality of evidence as well as to two questions with moderate to high quality of evidence. The weak recommendations related to two questions with low and very low quality of evidence but also to one question with moderate quality of evidence. GRADE methodology ensures a transparent process and explicit recognition of additional factors that should be considered when making recommendations for policy. This approach can be usefully applied to many areas of public health policy where evidence quality is often low

The current state of introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination into national immunisation schedules in Europe: first results of the VENICE2 2010 survey.

The Venice 2 human papillomavirus vaccination survey evaluates the state of introduction of the HPV vaccination into the national immunisation schedules in the 29 participating countries. As of July 2010, 18 countries have integrated this vaccination. The vaccination policy and achievements vary among those countries regarding target age groups, delivery infrastructures and vaccination coverage reached. Financial constraints remain the major obstacle for the 11 countries who have not yet introduced the vaccination

I-MOVE Multi-Centre Case Control Study 2010-11: Overall and Stratified Estimates of Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe

BACKGROUND: In the third season of I-MOVE (Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe), we undertook a multicentre case-control study based on sentinel practitioner surveillance networks in eight European Union (EU) member states to estimate 2010/11 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically-attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza. METHODS: Using systematic sampling, practitioners swabbed ILI/ARI patients within seven days of symptom onset. We compared influenza-positive to influenza laboratory-negative patients among those meeting the EU ILI case definition. A valid vaccination corresponded to > 14 days between receiving a dose of vaccine and symptom onset. We used multiple imputation with chained equations to estimate missing values. Using logistic regression with study as fixed effect we calculated influenza VE adjusting for potential confounders. We estimated influenza VE overall, by influenza type, age group and among the target group for vaccination. RESULTS: We included 2019 cases and 2391 controls in the analysis. Adjusted VE was 52% (95% CI 30-67) overall (N = 4410), 55% (95% CI 29-72) against A(H1N1) and 50% (95% CI 14-71) against influenza B. Adjusted VE against all influenza subtypes was 66% (95% CI 15-86), 41% (95% CI -3-66) and 60% (95% CI 17-81) among those aged 0-14, 15-59 and ≥60 respectively. Among target groups for vaccination (N = 1004), VE was 56% (95% CI 34-71) overall, 59% (95% CI 32-75) against A(H1N1) and 63% (95% CI 31-81) against influenza B. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest moderate protection from 2010-11 trivalent influenza vaccines against medically-attended ILI laboratory-confirmed as influenza across Europe. Adjusted and stratified influenza VE estimates are possible with the large sample size of this multi-centre case-control. I-MOVE shows how a network can provide precise summary VE measures across Europe

Cross-sectional study of Polish physicians on vaccine attitudes

Data collected in July 2017 on 500 primary health physicians on attitudes towards vaccination. The folder contains the dataset (DTA), Stata do-files and survey content

Sluttrapport fra ett-år med evaluering av overvåking av meldingspliktige sykdommer under covid-19 epidemien

Hovedbudskap: Evalueringen av Meldingssystemet for smittsomme sykdommer (MSIS), har pågått gjennom det siste året. Evalueringen har dokumentert at systemet var robust nok til å opprettholde sin funksjon under covid-19-epidemien. Dette ble muliggjort på grunn av et omfattende digitaliseringsarbeid med å oppgradere systemet som ble startet før epidemien og som ble ytterligere intensivert under covid-19-epidemien. Overvåkingssystemet var fleksibelt nok til at en ny sykdom, som krevde mer laboratorie- og menneskelige ressurser enn alle andre meldingspliktige sykdommer til sammen, kunne inkluderes på listen over meldingspliktige sykdommer. Overvåkingssystemet var mest ustabilt i april-mai 2020, etter utvidelse av meldingsplikten, oppskalering av laboratoriekapasitet for covid-19 testing og innføring av strenge smitteverntiltak. Etter denne første utfordrende perioden ble imidlertid systemets stabilitet gjenopprettet. Mindre oppmerksomhet mot tilfeller med milde symptomer har medført lavere sensitivitet og datakvalitet i rapportering fra primærhelsetjenesten. Det var også redusert representativitet for overvåking av smittsomme sykdommer i noen fylker og personer under 20 år. Komplettheten av innmeldinger til MSIS fra primærhelsetjenesten ble redusert under covid-19-epidemien, mens rapporteringsforsinkelser totalt sett var kortere, noe som kan tilskrives nye rapporteringsverktøy og forbedret brukerstøtte. Av 145 leger som deltok i MSIS-brukerundersøkelse, oppga 40 (28 %) at de ikke alltid melder meldingspliktige sykdommer. Det er behov for å inkludere legene i systemet slik at deres følelse av eierskap til MSIS øker. Dette kan gjøres ved å forbedre deres tilgang til MSIS-data og styrke tilbakemeldinger fra FHI

European public health policies for managing contacts of invasive meningococcal disease cases better harmonised in 2013 than in 2007

In 2007, a European survey identified variation in country policies on public health management of invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). In 2009–10, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) published evidence-based guidance on IMD. We therefore surveyed again European countries to describe policies for managing IMD cases and contacts in 2013. We asked national IMD public health experts from 32 European countries to complete a questionnaire focusing on post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for IMD contacts and meningococcal vaccination. Proportions in 2007 and 2013 were compared using the chi-squared test. All 32 countries responded, with responses from two regions for Belgium and Italy; half stated having used ECDC guidance to update national recommendations. PEP was recommended to close contacts in 33 of 34 countries/regions, mainly ciprofloxacin for adults (29/32 countries) and rifampicin for children (29/32 countries). ECDC guidance for managing IMD contacts in airplanes was strictly followed by five countries/regions. Twenty-three countries/regions participated in both surveys. Compared with 2007, in 2013, more countries/regions recommended i) ceftriaxone for children (15/23 vs 6/20; p = 0.03), ii) PEP for all children in the same preschool group (8/23 vs 17/23; p = 0.02). More countries/regions recommended evidence-based measures for IMD public health management in 2013 than 2007. However, some discrepancies remain and they call for further harmonisation

Exploring factors improving support for vaccinations among Polish primary care physicians.

In Poland, primary care physicians are the most used and most trusted source of information on immunisation. We aimed to explore factors influencing support for vaccinations among physicians employed in the childhood immunisation programme, in order to inform education of healthcare workers and programme organization. In June-July 2017, we carried out a national cross-sectional survey of physicians working in randomly selected primary healthcare practices, and interviewed them by telephone. We assessed support for vaccinations using an ordinal scale (0-6) comprised of three equally weighted questions on the respondent support of the programme and vaccination of self and family. We also created a scale (0-3) based on correct answers to vaccination myths. We used ordered logistic regression to investigate factors independently influencing support for vaccinations, reporting the proportional odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for one unit increase in the support score. Of 2,609 respondents contacted, we interviewed 500 (19%). The median vaccination support score (0-6) was 5 (IQR 2). After adjusting for other variables, we did not find significant effects of sex, medical specialty, adhering to recommendations, attending a conference in previous year, using non-scientific sources of information and self-assessed knowledge on vaccination support score. Age over 60 years, correctly addressing vaccination myths and use of one or more than one scientific sources of knowledge, significantly improved support for vaccinations (aOR = 1.97, 1.57, 3.09 and 2.68, respectively). We recommend to increase the amount, quality and accessibility of evidence-based educational materials for primary care physicians working with childhood immunisations

Exploring factors improving support for vaccinations among Polish primary care physicians

In Poland, primary care physicians are the most used and most trusted source of information on immunisation. We aimed to explore factors influencing support for vaccinations among physicians employed in the childhood immunisation programme, in order to inform education of healthcare workers and programme organization. In June-July 2017, we carried out a national cross-sectional survey of physicians working in randomly selected primary healthcare practices, and interviewed them by telephone. We assessed support for vaccinations using an ordinal scale (0-6) comprised of three equally weighted questions on the respondent support of the programme and vaccination of self and family. We also created a scale (0-3) based on correct answers to vaccination myths. We used ordered logistic regression to investigate factors independently influencing support for vaccinations, reporting the proportional odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for one unit increase in the support score. Of 2,609 respondents contacted, we interviewed 500 (19%). The median vaccination support score (0-6) was 5 (IQR 2). After adjusting for other variables, we did not find significant effects of sex, medical specialty, adhering to recommendations, attending a conference in previous year, using non-scientific sources of information and self-assessed knowledge on vaccination support score. Age over 60 years, correctly addressing vaccination myths and use of one or more than one scientific sources of knowledge, significantly improved support for vaccinations (aOR = 1.97, 1.57, 3.09 and 2.68, respectively). We recommend to increase the amount, quality and accessibility of evidence-based educational materials for primary care physicians working with childhood immunisations