Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 and older is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess access, provider, system and societal interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years and older in the community. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1950 to May week 3 2014), EMBASE (1980 to June 2014), AgeLine (1978 to 4 June 2014), ERIC (1965 to June 2014) and CINAHL (1982 to June 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase influenza vaccination uptake in people aged 60 and older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted influenza vaccine uptake data. MAIN RESULTS: This update identified 13 new RCTs; the review now includes a total of 57 RCTs with 896,531 participants. The trials included community-dwelling seniors in high-income countries. Heterogeneity limited meta-analysis. The percentage of trials with low risk of bias for each domain was as follows: randomisation (33%); allocation concealment (11%); blinding (44%); missing data (49%) and selective reporting (100%). Increasing community demand (32 trials, 10 strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: three trials (n = 64,200) of letter plus leaflet/postcard compared to letter (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.15); two trials (n = 614) of nurses/pharmacists educating plus vaccinating patients (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.91 to 5.66); single trials of a phone call from a senior (n = 193) (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.79 to 6.22), a telephone invitation versus clinic drop-in (n = 243) (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76), a free groceries lottery (n = 291) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.76) and nurses educating and vaccinating patients (n = 485) (OR 152.95, 95% CI 9.39 to 2490.67).We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: postcard/letter/pamphlets (16 trials, n = 592,165); tailored communications (16 trials, n = 388,164); customised letter/phone-call (four trials, n = 82,465) and client-based appraisals (three trials, n = 4016), although several trials showed the interventions were effective. Enhancing vaccination access (10 trials, six strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: two trials (n = 2112) of home visits compared to clinic invitation (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61); two trials (n = 2251) of free vaccine (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82) and one trial (n = 321) of patient group visits (OR 24.85, 95% CI 1.45 to 425.32). One trial (n = 350) of a home visit plus vaccine encouragement compared to a home visit plus safety advice was non-significant.We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: nurse home visits (two trials, n = 2069) and free vaccine compared to no intervention (two trials, n = 2250). Provider- or system-based interventions (17 trials, 11 strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: two trials (n = 2815) of paying physicians (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.77); one trial (n = 316) of reminding physicians about all their patients (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.99); one trial (n = 8376) of posters plus postcards (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.22); one trial (n = 1360) of chart review/feedback (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.37 to 4.97) and one trial (n = 27,580) of educational outreach/feedback (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.81).Trials of posters plus postcards versus posters (n = 5753), academic detailing (n = 1400) and increasing staff vaccination rates (n = 26,432) were non-significant.We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: reminding physicians (four trials, n = 202,264) and practice facilitators (three trials, n = 2183), although several trials showed the interventions were effective. Interventions at the societal level We identified no RCTs of interventions at the societal level. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are interventions that are effective for increasing community demand for vaccination, enhancing access and improving provider/system response. Heterogeneity limited pooling of trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".