MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128231506 · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmaa149

Interventions on health care providers to improve seasonal influenza vaccination rates among patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence since 2000

2020· review· en· W3128231506 on OpenAlexaff
George N. Okoli, Viraj K. Reddy, Olt Lam, Tiba Abdulwahid, Nicole Askin, Edward W. Thommes, Ayman Chit, Ahmed M Abou-Setta, Salaheddin M. Mahmud

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Practice · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation
FundersSanofi Pasteur
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialVaccinationIntervention (counseling)Meta-analysisMEDLINEHealth careSeasonal influenzaFamily medicinePediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicineNursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Immunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) rates remain suboptimal in many populations, even in those with universal SIV. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence on interventions on health care providers (physicians/nurses/pharmacists) to increase SIV rates. METHODS: We systematically searched/selected full-text English publications from January 2000 to July 2019 (PROSPERO-CRD42019147199). Our outcome was the difference in SIV rates between patients in intervention and non-intervention groups. We calculated pooled difference using an inverse variance, random-effects model. RESULTS: We included 39 studies from 8370 retrieved citations. Compared with no intervention, team-based training/education of physicians significantly increased SIV rates in adult patients: 20.1% [7.5-32.7%; I2 = 0%; two randomized controlled trials (RCTs)] and 13.4% [8.6-18.1%; I2 = 0%; two non-randomized intervention studies (NRS)]. A smaller increase was observed in paediatric patients: 7% (0.1-14%; I2 = 0%; two NRS), and in adult patients with team-based training/education of physicians and nurses together: 0.9% (0.2-1.5%; I2 = 30.6%; four NRS). One-off provision of guidelines/information to physicians, and to both physicians and nurses, increased SIV rates in adult patients: 23.8% (15.7-31.8%; I2 = 45.8%; three NRS) and paediatric patients: 24% (8.1-39.9%; I2 = 0%; two NRS), respectively. Use of reminders (prompts) by physicians and nurses slightly increased SIV rates in paediatric patients: 2.3% (0.5-4.2%; I2 = 0%; two RCTs). A larger increase was observed in adult patients: 18.5% (14.8-22.1%; I2 = 0%; two NRS). Evidence from both RCTs and NRS showed significant increases in SIV rates with varied combinations of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence suggests various forms of physicians' and nurses' education and use of reminders may be effective for increasing SIV rates among patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.028
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.270
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily PracticeSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207