MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4407995476 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005187.pub6

Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 60 or older living in long-term care institutions

2025· review· en· W4407995476 sur OpenAlexaff
Roger E. Thomas, Tom Jefferson, Toby J Lasserson

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineVaccinationHealth careCochrane LibraryMEDLINEPopulationMeta-analysisRelative riskFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialInfluenza vaccineConfidence intervalEnvironmental healthInternal medicineImmunology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

RATIONALE: People who work in long-term care institutions (LTCIs), such as doctors, nurses, other health professionals, cleaners and porters (and also family visitors), may have substantial rates of influenza during influenza seasons. They often continue to work when infected with influenza, increasing the likelihood of transmitting influenza to those in their care. The immune systems of care home residents may be weaker than those of the general population; vaccinating care home workers could reduce transmission of influenza within LTCIs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of vaccinating healthcare workers in long-term care institutions against influenza on influenza-related outcomes in residents aged 60 years or older. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Elsevier), Web of Science (Science Citation Index-Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science), and two clinical trials registries up to 22 August 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: In this version of the review we restricted eligibility to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of influenza vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for residents aged 60 years or older in LTCIs. Previously we included cohort or case-control studies. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest were: influenza (confirmed by laboratory tests) and its complications (lower respiratory tract infection; hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract infection), all-cause mortality, and adverse events. RISK OF BIAS: We used version one of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise the effects of vaccination on our outcomes of interest. We accounted for clustering by dividing events and sample sizes for each study by an assumed design effect as part of a sensitivity analysis. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for our outcomes of interest. INCLUDED STUDIES: We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this update. Four cluster-RCTs from Europe (8468 residents) of interventions to offer influenza vaccination for HCWs caring for residents ≥ 60 years in LTCIs provided outcome data that addressed the objectives of our review. The average age of the residents was between 77 and 86 years, and most were female (70% to 77%). The studies were comparable in their intervention and outcome measures. The studies did not report adverse events. The principal sources of bias in the studies related to attrition, lack of blinding, contamination in the control groups, and low rates of vaccination coverage in the intervention arms, leading us to downgrade the certainty of evidence for all outcomes due to serious risk of bias. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Offering influenza vaccination to HCWs based in LTCIs may have little or no effect on the number of residents who develop influenza compared with those living in care homes where no vaccination is offered (from 5% to 4%) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.63; 2 studies, 752 participants; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence to be low from one study of 1059 residents showing a slight reduction in lower respiratory tract infection from HCW vaccination (6% versus 4%) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.2). The confidence interval is compatible with both a meaningful reduction and a slight increase in infections when illustrated as an absolute effect; 2% to 7%. Taking account of clustering for this outcome increased the confidence interval further, and we rated the evidence as very low-certainty accordingly (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.85). HCW vaccination programmes may have little or no effect on the number of residents admitted to hospital for respiratory illness (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; 1 study, 3400 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether HCW vaccination impacts on death due to lower respiratory tract infections in residents: 2% of residents in both groups died from lower respiratory tract infections based on the RR of 0.82 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.49; 2 studies, 4459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). HCW vaccination probably leads to a reduction in all-cause deaths from 9% to 6% (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80; 4 studies, 8468 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of HCW vaccination on influenza-specific outcomes in older residents of LTCIs are uncertain. The reduction in all-cause mortality in people observed could not be explained by changes in influenza-specific outcomes. This review did not find information on co-interventions with HCW vaccination: hand washing, face masks, early detection of laboratory-proven influenza, quarantine, avoiding admissions, antivirals and asking HCWs with influenza or influenza-like illness not to go to work. Better studies are needed to give greater certainty in the evidence for vaccinating HCWs to prevent influenza in residents aged 60 years or older in LTCIs. Additional studies are needed to further test these interventions in combination. FUNDING: This review update received no dedicated funding. Previous versions of this review were supported by grants from the National Institute of Health Research (UK), and the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). REGISTRATION: Protocol (2005): 10.1002/14651858.CD005187.pub Original review (2006): 10.1002/14651858.CD005187.pub2 Update (2010): 10.1002/14651858.CD005187.pub3 Update (2013): 10.1002/14651858.CD005187.pub4 Update (2016): 10.1002/14651858.CD005187.pub5.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,058

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,063
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,004
Bibliométrie0,0050,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,232
Tête enseignante GPT0,508
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetInfluenza Virus Research StudiesTravaux en français237 207