Dataset Information

School-located influenza vaccination decreases laboratory-confirmed influenza and improves school attendance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

School-located influenza vaccination (SLV) programs can efficiently immunize large numbers of school-aged children. We evaluated the impact of SLV on laboratory-confirmed influenza and absenteeism.

Methods

Active surveillance for influenza-like illness (ILI) was conducted on 4455 children in 4 SLV intervention and 4 control elementary schools (grades K-6) matched for sociodemographic characteristics during the 2010-2011 influenza season in Los Angeles County, California. Combined nose/throat swabs were collected from febrile children with ILI at presentation to the school nurse or during absenteeism.

Results

In SLV schools, 26.9%-46.6% of enrolled students received at least 1 dose of either inactivated or live attenuated influenza vaccine compared with 0.8%-4.3% in control schools. Polymerase chain reaction for respiratory viruses (PCR) was performed on 1021 specimens obtained from 898 children. Specimens were positive for influenza in 217 (21.3%), including 2009 H1N1 (30.9%), H3 (9.2%), and B (59.9%). Children attending SLV schools, regardless of vaccination status, were 30.8% (95% confidence interval, 10.1%-46.8%) less likely to acquire influenza compared with children at control schools. Unvaccinated children were indirectly protected in the school with nearly 50% vaccination coverage compared with control schools (influenza rate, 27.1 vs 60.0 per 1000 children; P = .023). Unvaccinated children missed more school days than vaccinated children (4.3 vs 2.8 days per 100 school days; P < .001).

Conclusions

Vaccination of at least a quarter of the school population resulted in decreased influenza rates and improved school attendance. Herd immunity for unvaccinated children may occur in schools with vaccination coverage approaching 50%.

SUBMITTER: Pannaraj PS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4155443 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStudies have noted variations in the cost-effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV), but little is known about how SLIV's cost-effectiveness may vary by targeted age group (e.g., elementary or secondary school students), or vaccine consent process (paper-based or web-based). Further, SLIV's cost-effectiveness may be impacted by its spillover effect on practice-based vaccination; prior studies have not addressed this issue.MethodsWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on two SLIV programs in upstate New York in 2015-2016: (a) elementary school SLIV using a stepped wedge design with schools as clusters (24 suburban and 18 urban schools) and (b) secondary school SLIV using a cluster randomized trial (16 suburban and 4 urban schools). The cost-per-additionally-vaccinated child (i.e., incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)) was estimated by dividing the incremental SLIV intervention cost by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the additional number of vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). We performed deterministic analyses, one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic analyses.ResultsThe overall effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 5.7 and 5.5 percentage points higher, respectively, in intervention elementary (52.8%) and secondary schools (48.2%) than grade-matched control schools. SLIV programs vaccinated a small proportion of children in intervention elementary (5.2%) and secondary schools (2.5%). In elementary and secondary schools, the ICER excluding vaccine purchase was $85.71 and $86.51 per-additionally-vaccinated-child, respectively. When additionally accounting for observed spillover impact on practice-based vaccination, the ICER decreased to $80.53 in elementary schools -- decreasing substantially in secondary schools. (to $53.40). These estimates were higher than the published practice-based vaccination cost (median = $25.50, mean = $45.48). Also, these estimates were higher than our 2009-2011 urban SLIV program mean costs ($65) due to additional costs for use of a new web-based consent system ($12.97 per-additionally-vaccinated-child) and higher project coordination costs in 2015-2016. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that ICER estimates were most sensitive to the SLIV effectiveness.ConclusionsSLIV raises vaccination rates and may increase practice-based vaccination in primary care practices. While these SLIV programs are effective, to be as cost-effective as practice-based vaccination our SLIV programs would need to vaccinate more students and/or lower the costs for consent systems and project coordination.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02227186 (August 25, 2014), updated NCT03137667 (May 2, 2017).

Project description:Few studies have evaluated the relationship between influenza vaccination and pneumonia, a serious complication of influenza infection.To assess the association between influenza vaccination status and hospitalization for community-acquired laboratory-confirmed influenza pneumonia.The Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community (EPIC) study was a prospective observational multicenter study of hospitalizations for community-acquired pneumonia conducted from January 2010 through June 2012 at 4 US sites. In this case-control study, we used EPIC data from patients 6 months or older with laboratory-confirmed influenza infection and verified vaccination status during the influenza seasons and excluded patients with recent hospitalization, from chronic care residential facilities, and with severe immunosuppression. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios, comparing the odds of vaccination between influenza-positive (case) and influenza-negative (control) patients with pneumonia, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, season, study site, and timing of disease onset. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as (1?-?adjusted odds ratio)?×?100%.Influenza vaccination, verified through record review.Influenza pneumonia, confirmed by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction performed on nasal/oropharyngeal swabs.Overall, 2767 patients hospitalized for pneumonia were eligible for the study; 162 (5.9%) had laboratory-confirmed influenza. Twenty-eight of 162 cases (17%) with influenza-associated pneumonia and 766 of 2605 controls (29%) with influenza-negative pneumonia had been vaccinated. The adjusted odds ratio of prior influenza vaccination between cases and controls was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28-0.68; estimated vaccine effectiveness, 56.7%; 95% CI, 31.9%-72.5%).Among children and adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia, those with laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated pneumonia, compared with those with pneumonia not associated with influenza, had lower odds of having received influenza vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundThe school-located influenza vaccinations (SLIV) can increase influenza vaccination and reduce influenza infections among school-aged children. However, the vaccination rate has remained low and varied widely among schools in Beijing, China. This study aimed to ascertain barriers and facilitators of implementing SLIV and to identify implementation strategies for SLIV quality improvement programs in this context.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with diverse stakeholders (i.e., representatives of both the Department of Health and the Department of Education, school physicians, class headteachers, and parents) involved in SLIV implementation. Participants were identified by purposive and snowball sampling. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was adopted to facilitate data collection and analysis. Themes and subthemes regarding barriers and facilitators were generated using deductive and inductive approaches. Based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR-ERIC) matching tool, practical implementation strategies were proposed to address the identified barriers of SLIV delivery.ResultsTwenty-four participants were interviewed. Facilitators included easy access to SLIV, clear responsibilities and close collaboration among government sectors, top-down authority, integrating SLIV into the routine of schools, and priority given to SLIV. The main barriers were parents' misconception, inefficient coordination for vaccine supply and vaccination dates, the lack of planning, and inadequate access to knowledge and information about the SLIV. CFIR-ERIC Matching tool suggested implementation strategies at the system (i.e., developing an implementation blueprint, and promoting network weaving), school (i.e., training and educating school implementers), and consumer (i.e., engaging students and parents) levels to improve SLIV implementation.ConclusionsThere were substantial barriers to the delivery of the SLIV program. Theory-driven implementation strategies developed in this pre-implementation study should be considered to address those identified determinants for successful SLIV implementation.