Consumer Access to Immunization Information Systems: Evaluation of a 5-State Pilot Project

Background: Maintaining documentation of a family member’s vaccination history is one way to ensure that individuals are accurately informed of their vaccination status. To help increase patients’ access to health information in order to enable action, a 5-state pilot project was implemented to allow consumers access to their immunization information stored in their state Immunization Information System (IIS) via a consumer access portal. Purpose: To evaluate the implementation of the consumer access pilot project and identify the key factors for successful implementation. Methods: A mixed methods study design, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods, was used for this project. The study collected information from the three stakeholders engaged in the implementation of the consumer access portal: the state immunization program (via key informant interviews), the healthcare provider (via key informant interviews and an online survey), and the consumer (via an online survey). Results: Although stakeholders reported the consumer portal was easy to learn and use, completion of consumer registration was low. Organizational factors contributing to the low uptake was the lack of dedicated staff among the immunization programs to recruit and train providers as well as provide adequate follow-up. Human factors that contributed to low use included many providers forgetting to promote the portal to their patients along with many consumers forgetting to complete the final steps to activate their account. While the state immunization programs and providers saw the potential for the portal to empower consumers to make decisions about their health, many felt it was too early in the project to see real benefits. However, among consumers who learned that a vaccine was needed, half took action by calling their healthcare provider to learn more or schedule a visit. Conclusion: A consumer access portal linking consumers to their immunization information stored in their state IIS was moderately successful. As the project continues for another year, adjusting the registration process to allow the consumer to complete all the steps online in one session has the potential to increase the number of users, reduce the burden on the state immunization program and providers and allow for statewide promotion of the portal.Doctor of Public Healt

Impact of methodological "shortcuts" in conducting public health surveys: Results from a vaccination coverage survey

Abstract Background Lack of methodological rigor can cause survey error, leading to biased results and suboptimal public health response. This study focused on the potential impact of 3 methodological "shortcuts" pertaining to field surveys: relying on a single source for critical data, failing to repeatedly visit households to improve response rates, and excluding remote areas. Methods In a vaccination coverage survey of young children conducted in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in July 2005, 3 sources of vaccination information were used, multiple follow-up visits were made, and all inhabited areas were included in the sampling frame. Results are calculated with and without these strategies. Results Most children had at least 2 sources of data; vaccination coverage estimated from any single source was substantially lower than from all sources combined. Eligibility was ascertained for 79% of households after the initial visit and for 94% of households after follow-up visits; vaccination coverage rates were similar with and without follow-up. Coverage among children on remote islands differed substantially from that of their counterparts on the main island indicating a programmatic need for locality-specific information; excluding remote islands from the survey would have had little effect on overall estimates due to small populations and divergent results. Conclusion Strategies to reduce sources of survey error should be maximized in public health surveys. The impact of the 3 strategies illustrated here will vary depending on the primary outcomes of interest and local situations. Survey limitations such as potential for error should be well-documented, and the likely direction and magnitude of bias should be considered.</p

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

Minor Consent and Delivery of Adolescent Vaccines

To explore whether, and to what extent, minor consent influences adolescent vaccine delivery in the United States

Use of a choice survey to identify adult, adolescent and parent preferences for vaccination in the United States

Abstract Background Adult and adolescent vaccination rates are far below coverage targets in the United States. Our objective was to identify the most influential factors related to vaccine uptake among adults, adolescents, and parents of adolescents (parents) in the United States. Methods We used a fractional factorial design to create a binary choice survey to evaluate preferences for vaccination. The national survey was fielded to a sample of adults, adolescents ages 13–17 years, and parents, using a national probability-based online research panel in November 2015. Respondents were presented with 5 profiles of a hypothetical vaccine and asked in a series of questions whether they would accept each vaccine. We analyzed the binary choice data using logistic regression in STATA v13 (College Station, TX) to calculate the odds that a participant would choose to accept the vaccine. Results We received completed responses from 334 (51%) of 652 adults, 316 (21%) of 1516 adolescents, and 339 (33%) of 1030 parents. Respondents were generally representative of the U.S. population. Vaccine effectiveness was the most influential factor in the choice to vaccinate for all groups. Other most influential factors were primary care provider (PCP) recommendation and the out-of-pocket cost of the vaccine. Other factors such as risk of illness, risk of vaccine side effects, vaccination location, and time for vaccination were not important in the decision to get vaccinated. Conclusions Adults, adolescents, and parents are most sensitive to vaccine effectiveness, PCP recommendation, and out-of-pocket cost for vaccination in their decision to get vaccinated. Strong PCP recommendations that focus on vaccine effectiveness and health care policies that minimize out-of-pocket costs for vaccinations may increase vaccine uptake by adults and adolescents.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152264/1/41687_2019_Article_135.pd

Support for immunization registries among parents of vaccinated and unvaccinated school-aged children: a case control study

BACKGROUND: Immunizations have reduced childhood vaccine preventable disease incidence by 98–100%. Continued vaccine preventable disease control depends on high immunization coverage. Immunization registries help ensure high coverage by recording childhood immunizations administered, generating reminders when immunizations are due, calculating immunization coverage and identifying pockets needing immunization services, and improving vaccine safety by reducing over-immunization and providing data for post-licensure vaccine safety studies. Despite substantial resources directed towards registry development in the U.S., only 48% of children were enrolled in a registry in 2004. Parental attitudes likely impact child participation. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes of parents of vaccinated and unvaccinated school-aged children regarding: support for immunization registries; laws authorizing registries and mandating provider reporting; opt-in versus opt-out registry participation; and financial worth and responsibility of registry development and implementation. METHODS: A case control study of parents of 815 children exempt from school vaccination requirements and 1630 fully vaccinated children was conducted. Children were recruited from 112 elementary schools in Colorado, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Washington. Surveys administered to the parents, asked about views on registries and perceived utility and safety of vaccines. Parental views were summarized and logistic regression models compared differences between parents of exempt and vaccinated children. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 56.1% of respondents. Fewer than 10% of parents were aware of immunization registries in their communities. Among parents aware of registries, exempt children were more likely to be enrolled (65.0%) than vaccinated children (26.5%) (p value = 0.01). A substantial proportion of parents of exempt children support immunization registries, particularly if registries offer choice for participation. Few parents of vaccinated (6.8%) and exempt children (6.7%) were aware of laws authorizing immunization registries. Support for laws authorizing registries and requiring health care providers to report to registries was more common among parents of vaccinated than exempt children. Most parents believed that the government, vaccine companies or insurance companies should pay for registries. CONCLUSION: Parental support for registries was relatively high. Parental support for immunization registries may increase with greater parental awareness of the risks of vaccine preventable diseases and utility of vaccination

Adult vaccination coverage levels among users of complementary/alternative medicine – results from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)

Abstract Background While many Complementary/Alternative Medicine (CAM) practitioners do not object to immunization, some discourage or even actively oppose vaccination among their patients. However, previous studies in this area have focused on childhood immunizations, and it is unknown whether and to what extent CAM practitioners may influence the vaccination behavior of their adult patients. The purpose of this study was to describe vaccination coverage levels of adults aged ≥ 18 years according to their CAM use status and determine if there is an association between CAM use and adult vaccination coverage. Methods Data from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey, limited to 30,617 adults that provided at least one valid answer to the CAM supplement, were analyzed. Receipt of influenza vaccine during the past 12 months, pneumococcal vaccine (ever), and ≥ 1 dose of hepatitis B vaccine was self-reported. Coverage levels for each vaccine by CAM use status were determined for adults who were considered high priority for vaccination because of the presence of a high risk condition and for non-priority adults. Multivariable analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between CAM users and vaccination status, adjusting for demographic and healthcare utilization characteristics. Results Overall, 36% were recent CAM users. Among priority adults, adjusted vaccination coverage levels were significantly different between recent and non-CAM users for influenza (44% vs 38%; p-value Conclusion Vaccination coverage levels among recent CAM users were found to be higher than non-CAM users. Because CAM use has been increasing over time in the U.S., it is important to continue monitoring CAM use and its possible influence on receipt of immunizations among adults. Since adult vaccination coverage levels remain below Healthy People 2010 goals, it may be beneficial to work with CAM practitioners to promote adult vaccines as preventive services in keeping with their commitment to maintaining good health.</p

Impact of State Vaccine Financing Policy on Uptake of Heptavalent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine

Objective. We examined heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) uptake among children aged 19 to 35 months in the United States and determined how uptake rates differed by state vaccine financing policy. Methods. We analyzed data from the 2001–2003 National Immunization Survey. States that changed their vaccine financing policy between 2001 and 2003 (n=17) were excluded from analysis. Logistic regression was performed to identify the association between state vaccine financing policy and receipt of 3 or more doses of PCV7 after control for demographic characteristics. Results. The proportion of children receiving 3 or more doses increased from 6.7% in 2001 to 69.0% in 2003. After controlling for demographic characteristics, children residing in states that provided all vaccines except PCV7 to all children had lower odds of receiving 3 or more doses compared to children residing in states that provided PCV7 only to children eligible for the Vaccines for Children program (odds ratio=0.58; 95% confidence interval=0.51, 0.66). Conclusion. It is essential that we continue to monitor the effect that state vaccine financing policy has on the delivery of PCV7 and future vaccines, which are likely to be increasingly expensive