Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers

Discover Pediatric Collections on COVID-19 and Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health

American Academy of Pediatrics
Review Article

Improving Influenza Vaccination in Children With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review

Daniel A. Norman, Rosanne Barnes, Rebecca Pavlos, Mejbah Bhuiyan, Kefyalew Addis Alene, Margie Danchin, Holly Seale, Hannah C. Moore and Christopher C. Blyth
Pediatrics March 2021, 147 (3) e20201433; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-1433
Daniel A. Norman
aWesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Western Australia, Australia;
bSchool of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Western Australia, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rosanne Barnes
aWesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Western Australia, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca Pavlos
aWesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Western Australia, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mejbah Bhuiyan
aWesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Western Australia, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kefyalew Addis Alene
aWesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Western Australia, Australia;
cFaculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Western Australia, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Margie Danchin
dDepartment of General Medicine, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Victoria, Australia;
eDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;
fVaccine Hesitancy, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Victoria, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Holly Seale
gSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hannah C. Moore
aWesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Western Australia, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher C. Blyth
aWesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Western Australia, Australia;
bSchool of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Western Australia, Australia;
hDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Perth Children’s Hospital, Western Australia, Australia; and
iDepartment of Microbiology, PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Western Australia, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
Loading
Download PDF

Abstract

Video Abstract

CONTEXT: Children with medical comorbidities are at greater risk for severe influenza and poorer clinical outcomes. Despite recommendations and funding, influenza vaccine coverage remains inadequate in these children.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review literature assessing interventions targeting influenza vaccine coverage in children with comorbidities and assess the impact on influenza vaccine coverage.

DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and Web of Science databases were searched.

STUDY SELECTION: Interventions targeting influenza vaccine coverage in children with medical comorbidities.

DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracting studies’ methods, interventions, settings, populations, and results. Four reviewers independently assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS: From 961 screened articles, 35 met inclusion criteria. Published studies revealed that influenza vaccine coverage was significantly improved through vaccination reminders and education directed at either patients’ parents or providers, as well as by vaccination-related clinic process changes. Interventions improved influenza vaccine coverage by an average 60%, but no significant differences between intervention types were detected. Significant bias and study heterogeneity were also identified, limiting confidence in this effect estimate.

LIMITATIONS: A high risk of bias and overall low quality of evidence limited our capacity to assess intervention types and methods.

CONCLUSIONS: Interventions were shown to consistently improve influenza vaccine coverage; however, no significant differences in coverage between different intervention types were observed. Future well-designed studies evaluating the effectiveness of different intervention are required to inform future optimal interventions.

  • Abbreviations:
    CI —
    confidence interval
    GRADE —
    Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
    M-H —
    Mantel-Haenszel method
    PRISMA —
    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    QI —
    quality improvement
    RCT —
    randomized control trial
  • Influenza remains a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality in children despite the widespread availability of seasonal vaccines.1 Children with medical comorbidities, including asthma, immunodeficiency, and epilepsy, are at increased risk of severe influenza infections and more adverse clinical outcomes.2 As a result, national immunization programs3–5 recommend and fund annual influenza vaccination for those with medical comorbidities.3,6 Despite these efforts, influenza vaccine coverage in children with comorbidities remains inadequate.7,8 The reasons for noncompliance with recommendations are complex and multifactorial,9 yet interventions targeting improvement in influenza coverage in children with medical comorbidities have been shown to be efficacious.10

    A previous review of interventions targeting influenza vaccine coverage in children aged 6 months to 19 years with comorbidities, published in 2015, concluded that there was strong evidence for parental letter-based vaccination appointment reminders.11 Pooled estimates of the overall and relative impact of interventions were not assessed and the numerous biases of the included studies were not formally reported. The review was also limited by the search strategy restricted to “influenza AND vaccination OR immunization OR children AND asthma OR malignancy OR high risk AND reminder,” potentially missing nonreminder type interventions and other comorbidities.

    To design and evaluate effective and sustainable interventions to improve influenza vaccine coverage in children with comorbidities requires an understanding of the overall and relative effectiveness of these interventions and any associated biases. To this end, we conducted a systematic review of published interventions targeting influenza vaccine coverage in children with medical comorbidities to evaluate the overall effectiveness and effectiveness of different intervention types.

    Methods

    The study was designed with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist12 with registration through PROSPERO: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42019090623). We conducted a narrative review describing studies’ characteristics, results, and biases. Where possible, absolute results of influenza vaccine coverage were extracted to determine pooled effect estimates for each intervention type and study method.

    Search Strategy and Data Sources

    PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published in English from January 1976 to March 2019. The search strategy was "Influenza vaccination or influenza immunization or influenza immunisation) and (reminder or interventions or best practices or strategies) and (children or pediatric or paediatric) and (high-risk or asthma or neurological or malignancy or cardiac or hematological or oncology or comorbidity or chronic diseases or medical conditions." This strategy was designed with free-text search terms encompassing influenza vaccination and comorbidities defined by the Australian,3 US,4 and UK5 national guidelines with appropriate terms for intervention types and methods. Hand searching of retrieved articles’ bibliographies was undertaken to identify any additionally relevant publications. Ongoing trials were searched through the National Institutes of Health’s clinicaltrials.gov Web site. Two authors (D.A.N. and R.B.) were responsible for screening of extracted articles and identification of potentially eligible studies.

    Study Selection

    Randomized control trials (RCTs), cohort, and quasi-experimental studies undertaken in community, primary care, and/or hospital settings were reviewed if they (1) included children (aged 6 months to 21 years old) who met medical comorbidity criteria as per national immunization guidelines3–5 and (2) evaluated at least 1 clinical, behavioral, or structural intervention designed to improve influenza vaccine coverage in children with 1 or more comorbidities. Exclusion criteria of studies included non–peer reviewed results, studies from which changes in influenza vaccination could not be extracted or separated from non-influenza vaccination, studies with influenza vaccination results of children with comorbidities which could not be separated from other populations, and other systematic reviews of eligible studies (Supplemental Information). Raw numbers were extracted, where possible. When required, the number of vaccinated patients were calculated from percentages included in study reports.

    Data Extraction

    A data form based on Cochrane’s “Data Collection Form: Intervention Review – RCTs and Non-RCTS”13 was used to ensure standardized extraction of articles. Data were extracted by a primary author (D.A.N.) and independently confirmed by supplementary authors (R.P., M.B., and K.A.A.). When discrepancies were identified, results were resolved by the senior author (C.C.B.). The extraction form included publishing journal, study methodology, intervention type, clinical setting, geographical location, participant comorbidity type(s), participant age group, study years, and vaccination status ascertainment method (ie, parental report, clinic vaccination records, and immunization registry records). Absolute vaccination numbers, rates, and relevant statistical testing results (ie, P value and risk ratios) were extracted from applicable studies. Studies were grouped by methodology: (1) RCT (clustered or individually randomized), (2) cohort studies (prospective and retrospective), or (3) a quasi-experimental study type including quality improvement (QI)14 or before and after studies.15 QI studies were classified as such if the study’s authors identified them as QI and were approved by a relevant ethics group or review board as a QI study. Before and after studies were defined by their observations of the study population’s influenza vaccine coverage taken before an intervention(s)’ introduction and after introduction without identifying as a QI study. Final observations of vaccine coverage in before and after studies were used as the postintervention vaccine coverage values for quantitative analysis. Before and after studies did not use negative control groups but may have randomly assigned individuals to different interventions.

    Qualitative Data Analysis

    Study characteristics and individual results as well as trends across studies were assessed. There were 5 intervention categories: (1) parental reminders (physical or electronic reminders directed to parents or guardians about their child(s)’ vaccination status and eligibility), (2) parental education (information for parents about influenza infection risks and vaccination benefits through counseling by a provider or written material), (3) provider reminders (physical or electronic reminders directed to clinicians managing children with medical comorbidities), (4) provider education (information for clinicians about influenza infection risks and vaccination benefits), and (5) clinic process changes. Clinic process changes were defined as interventions that impacted how patients received influenza vaccinations in a clinical environment, the flow of vaccination resources, vaccination status recording, and/or reporting within the study’s setting(s). Such interventions included introduction of electronic vaccination records, interclinic collaboration, and resource sharing. Studies in which researchers examined multiple interventions trialed in the same group(s) were identified as a multicomponent intervention, whereas those using the same intervention in single or multiple study groups were defined as single interventions.

    Quantitative Data Analysis

    Quantitative changes in influenza vaccination coverage either between allocated intervention and control groups (ie, RCTs) or across influenza seasons (ie, quasi-experimental and cohort studies) were extracted when applicable. Where applicable, absolute and relative changes in vaccine coverage were directly extracted from publication or back calculated when necessary. Subanalyses were performed to assess different interventions types, study designs, and single versus multicomponent interventions. Studies in which researchers evaluated the same intervention(s) in different populations or different interventions within same populations across different time points were treated as separate data sets. Changes in influenza vaccine coverage in an intervention group(s) compared with a control group or before and after introduction of an intervention were estimated by using risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random effect models16 using the Mantel-Haenszel method (M-H)17 were used for pooling of vaccination coverage changes. Random effect models were used because of the high level of methodologic and clinical diversity between studies and the assumption of different effects across studies.18 Heterogeneity of quantitative results was evaluated by using the standardized τ2 and I2 statistics describing the proportion of dispersion across studies due to true heterogeneity.19

    Risk of Bias Analysis

    Individual studies’ risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane’s Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool.20 One primary reviewer (D.A.N.) examined risk of bias in all studies, and 3 secondary reviewers (R.P., K.A.A., and M.B.) independently reviewed an equal proportion of the studies. A senior reviewer (C.C.B.) acted to resolve any discordant assessments between the primary and the secondary reviewers. Studies were assigned to be low risk if all domains were identified as low risk, unclear risk if 1 or more domains were of unclear risk (with no high-risk scored domains), and high risk if at least 1 domain was identified as high risk.

    Results

    Study Search and Selection

    Our initial search identified 961 primary articles, with 6 additional articles identified by searching references. No ongoing trials or intervention studies meeting our inclusion criteria were identified through the National Institutes of Health clinicaltrials.gov Web site. Once duplicates were removed, 611 unique articles remained. Title and abstract review excluded a further 442 and 108 articles, respectively. From the 61 articles remaining for full-text review, 35 articles met our inclusion criteria. Sufficient data were present in 26 of these articles for quantitative analysis. The reasons for exclusion after full article review are listed in Fig 1.

    FIGURE 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1

    Article extraction flowchart.

    Of the 35 included articles, 33 examined seasonal influenza vaccination exclusively, 1 evaluated pandemic H1N1/09 influenza vaccination21 and 1 examined both seasonal and pandemic H1N1/09 vaccination.22 There were 5 RCTs23–27 and 4 cohort studies.10,22,28,29 The remainder, defined as quasi-experimental studies, included 20 before and after intervention studies21,28,30–47 and 6 QI studies.48–54 One article included both a quasi-experimental study and a cohort study.28

    RCTs

    All RCTs were singular type intervention of parental influenza vaccination reminders: researchers in 4 studies used postal letter reminders23,24,26,27 and those in 1 evaluated mobile phone text message reminders (Table 1).25 All studies were conducted within the United States between 1992 and 2017. Four were conducted at pediatric clinics, of which 3 only targeted asthmatic patients,23,26,27 and the fourth included patients with a range of comorbidity types.25 Dombkowski et al24 targeted children with different comorbidity types with reminders through a statewide immunization registry. Changes in vaccination coverage were recorded sufficiently for each RCT to be included within the quantitative analysis. All postal letter interventions revealed significant improvements in influenza vaccine coverage for those receiving reminders compared with their respective control groups. Statistically significant low to moderate absolute increases in influenza vaccine coverage of 6.5%, 18%, 23%, and 25% were present for their respective intervention groups of Dombkowski et al,24 Daley et al,23 Szilagyi et al,27 and Kemper et al26 compared with their control groups. Conversely, the intervention group in Hofstetter et al25 had a lower but not statistically significant absolute coverage decline of 7% compared with their control group.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Characteristics and Results of RCTs

    Cohort Studies

    Four cohort studies met the review’s inclusion criteria, with 2 prospective10,22 and 2 retrospective evaluations (Table 2).28,29 All had sufficient results to be included within the quantitative analysis and pooled effect estimate. Moore and Parker29 evaluated the use of a postal letter for an intervention group versus verbal reminders in the control group. Fiks et al28 compared use of electronic provider reminders with a provider educational session in an intervention group versus a control group who received the educational session alone. Bay and Crawford10 tested electronic reminders delivered through an online patient portal system with educational material links, compared with a standard of care in a single cohort. Dombkowski et al22 examined postal letter reminders for a seasonal and pandemic influenza A/H1N109 vaccine compared with standard of care.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Characteristics and Results of Cohort Studies

    All cohort studies were conducted within the United States and were published after 2005. Collectively, cohort studies revealed low to moderate improvements in influenza vaccination coverage. Coverage improvements were significant for all interventions except that of Fiks et al,28 who used a provider electronic reminder revealing only a nonsignificant increase of 3.4% in coverage for their intervention group versus their control group. The greatest improvement was shown by Bay and Crawford,10 with a 20.8% increase in coverage for children whose families reported receiving a reminder through reminder messages and education via an online patient portal.

    Quasi-Experimental Studies

    Quasi-experimental studies were the most varied, with researchers examining different interventions for both respiratory and nonrespiratory comorbidities (Supplemental Table 4). Multicomponent interventions were only evaluated by using quasi-experimental studies. QI studies were only conducted post-2006 and in the United States, with 60% targeting patients of pediatric oncology clinics with multicomponent interventions. Before and after studies took place across a longer time frame, in Europe, Australia, and North America, and examined both singular and multicomponent for a range of respiratory and nonrespiratory comorbidities. Appropriate quantitative results were present in 18 of the included quasi-experimental studies for inclusion in the pooled effect estimate. Quasi-experimental studies had the greatest range of influenza vaccination coverage impacts, with increases from 3.4%28 to 45.5%53 postintervention. Additionally, a minority of quasi-experimental studies had nonsignificant changes in vaccination coverage38,41,45,46 or reported results in which absolute coverage changes could not be ascertained.42,48,49,51

    Pooled Estimates

    From 5 RCTs, 4 cohort studies, and 18 quasi-experimental studies included within the quantitative analyses, 33 separate intervention results had sufficient data for pool effect estimates (Fig 2). Researchers in 2 studies examined 3 different telephone-based parental reminders from different types of clinicians (ie, pediatric oncologist and public health physicians) using before and after intervention designs in separate populations; these were considered as 6 distinct data sets for quantitative analysis.32,34 Dombkowski et al22 evaluated the impact of the same reminder system for both seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccinations programs in 2009. Fiks et al28 conducted both a before and after study and a prospective cohort study examining the introduction of an electronic health record alert. Rao et al52 evaluated separate provider reminder and parental education intervention groups to a control group within their QI study.

    FIGURE 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2

    Pooled effect estimates and forest plots. a Dombkowski et al22 evaluated both seasonal and pandemic A/H1N109 vaccines for the 2009–2010 northern hemisphere influenza season. b Fiks et al28 conducted both a before and after evaluation and a prospective cohort study within their population for the 2006–2007 northern hemisphere influenza season. c Cecinati et al32 trialed 3 different variations of parental reminders in 3 distinct populations of pediatric oncology patients and therefore results were treated as 3 different before and after studies. d Esposito et al34 trialed 3 different variations of parental reminders in 3 distinct populations of pediatric asthmatic patients and therefore results were treated as 3 different before and after studies. e Rao et al52 evaluated both a provider reminder intervention and parental educational tool in distinct populations; as such, they were treated as 2 separate data sets. df, degrees of freedom.

    The effect estimate following pooling of interventions’ quantitative results revealed an average increase in influenza vaccine coverage of 60% (risk ratio: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.47–1.74) across 368 574 participants. Point estimates varied between intervention types, singular-component versus multicomponent intervention, and study methods; however, the relative risks of specific intervention types were not significantly different (Supplemental Table 5). Likewise, the effect estimates of different study methodologies were not significantly different (Supplemental Table 6).

    Risk of Bias

    Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies, with the overall and subgroup analyses all having I2 scores >75% (Fig 2).55 Overall, a high level of bias was observed, with all but 1 study having a high risk of bias in at least 1 of GRADE’s domains (Table 3). RCTs had a lower average number of high-risk bias domains per study of 1.8 compared with quasi-cohort and experimental studies with average scores of 3.25 and 4.03, respectively.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    GRADE Risk of Bias Domain Scores

    Discussion

    Interventions of vaccination reminders and influenza vaccination education targeting either parents or providers as well as clinic process changes were all shown to have effectiveness for improving influenza vaccine coverage in children with comorbidities. Numerous biases and high heterogeneity were observed across all study types because of study designs, vaccination status ascertainment methods, and outcomes reported. These biases limited our capacity to determine if significant differences existed between intervention types, and the high level of heterogeneity reduced confidence in the meta-analysis results.

    RCTs revealed how simple vaccination reminders targeting patients’ parents or guardian could moderately improve influenza vaccine coverage. Cohort studies had similarly low to moderate improvements for influenza vaccination coverage with parental reminders. Conversely, researchers in quasi-experimental studies examined a variety of intervention types and moderate-to-high impact on increasing influenza vaccine coverage for a diversity of patients. Unsurprisingly, RCTs had a lower average number of high risk of bias domains compared with cohort and quasi-experimental studies. Future intervention designers will need to balance the low bias risk and rigorous design requirements of an RCT with the capacity and flexibility for intervention design and evaluation provided by cohort and quasi-experimental designs. Moreover, researchers in future intervention evaluations should implement standards of control groups because of the ethical concerns of not recommending influenza vaccination to vulnerable patients.

    The high heterogeneity of studies made identifying discernible trends across studies methods and results through meta-analysis difficult. A narrative synthesis identified a shift toward multicomponent interventions, targeting of children with nonrespiratory comorbidities, and greater use of information technologies (ie, electronic medical records and e-mail or text message reminders), particularly with more recent publications (since 2010). This was likely due to greater use of multicomponent interventions across public health, clinical integration of information technologies, and recognition of the severe influenza infection impacts in children with nonrespiratory comorbidities.

    Using quantitative analysis, we found an average improvement in coverage by 60% (RR: 1.60 [95% CI: 1.47–1.75]). The high heterogeneity of studies and strong risk of bias limited our confidence in this effect estimate and further subanalyses of quantitative results. Furthermore, we could not establish if any single intervention type or a multicomponent intervention showed greater efficacy. Moreover, differences in point estimates between different intervention types should be interpreted with caution given overlapping CIs and biases observed.

    As reported in a previous systematic review,11 parental letter-based reminders improve influenza vaccine coverage. We additionally identified evidence revealing that provider reminders, educational interventions, and clinic process changes can also improve vaccine coverage. We identified a further 17 articles* not captured by the previous review11 and excluded 2 that were previously included (a conference abstract56 and a systematic review of already included articles57). In the previous review, authors claimed that meta-analysis was inappropriate because of high heterogeneity between studies. Although high heterogeneity was observed, we believe pooled analyses are important to identify potential effect sizes. These pooled estimates are required to inform development and design appropriately conducted clinical trials and evaluations assessing the relative benefit of different interventions.

    This is the first attempt to quantify the overall impact on interventions designed to improve influenza vaccine coverage for children with comorbidities. Optimizing interventions to improve influenza vaccine use in high-risk pediatric populations is clinically relevant because of the increased severity of influenza infections in these children and potential negative impacts of unnecessary interventions in families with high-care needs. Superiority of multicomponent interventions compared with single interventions has been shown in similar contexts for improving vaccine coverage in high-risk adults58 and human papillomavirus vaccine use,59 but we were not able to demonstrate superiority in this context.

    Further evaluation of interventions’ costs, feasibility, and acceptance by clinical staff, patients, and families are necessary for future optimal intervention design. Use of negative control groups within such studies, particularly populations at high risk of influenza, needs careful consideration. Assessing pre-established “standard of care models” concurrently with additional interventions enables researchers to assess impacts, maintain high methodology quality and ensure appropriate patient care.

    Our results were primarily limited by the quality of studies available for analysis. The relatively high number of quasi-experimental studies published compared with RCTs and well-constructed cohort studies is reflective of their convenience, relatively low cost, and ease of implementation within diverse populations and settings. The ability to disaggregate and assess the relative impact of multicomponent interventions remains challenging given the diversity of interventions and study design. Use of the GRADE risk of bias evaluation tool was chosen a priori.20 We were limited in our capacity to compare the relative quality of less rigorous study designs, particularly the quasi-experimental studies.

    Conclusions

    Interventions targeting influenza vaccination in children with medical comorbidities through vaccination reminders, education targeting parents or providers, and clinical process changes improved coverage. No intervention type was clearly superior. Multicomponent interventions have been used for children with respiratory and nonrespiratory comorbidities, whereas single component interventions have been used predominately to target children with respiratory comorbidities. However, superiority of single or multicomponent interventions for improving influenza vaccination was not established. High level of methodologic bias, poor quality of evidence, and small study size limit conclusions that can be drawn from the literature. Future design and evaluation of interventions to improve influenza vaccine coverage should directly compare intervention types using rigorous study methodologies to optimize effectiveness and reduce the influenza disease burden in children with medical comorbidities.

    Acknowledgments

    This project constitutes part of Daniel Norman’s doctor of philosophy candidature and, as such, was not directly sponsored or funded. Mr Norman’s PhD is funded by the Commonwealth of Australian’ research training program PhD scholarship and the Wesfarmers Centre for Vaccines and Infectious Diseases PhD top-up scholarship. Prof Blyth is supported by a fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr Moore is supported by a Telethon Kids Institute Emerging Research Leader Fellowship. Prof Danchin is Melbourne University’s David Bickart Clinician Scientist fellowship recipient.

    Footnotes

      • Accepted December 1, 2020.
    • Address correspondence to Daniel A. Norman, MPH, MInfectDis, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth Children’s Hospital, 15 Hospital Ave, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia. E-mail: daniel.norman{at}telethonkids.org.au
    • This trial has been registered with the National Institute for Health Research (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) (identifier PROSPERO CRD42019090623).

    • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

    • FUNDING: No external funding was secured for this study. Prof Blyth is supported by a fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr Moore is supported by a Telethon Kids Institute Emerging Research Leader Fellowship. The other authors received no additional funding.

    • POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Prof Seale has previously received funding from vaccine manufactures for investigator driven research and for presenting at workshops. This funding was not associated with this research; the other authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

    • ↵* Refs 10, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 33, 36–39, 41, 42, 45, 51–54.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Ruf BR,
      2. Knuf M
      . The burden of seasonal and pandemic influenza in infants and children. Eur J Pediatr. 2014;173(3):265–276
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Gill PJ,
      2. Ashdown HF,
      3. Wang K, et al
      . Identification of children at risk of influenza-related complications in primary and ambulatory care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(2):139–149
      OpenUrl
    3. ↵
      1. Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI)
      . The Australian Immunisation Handbook, 11th ed. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Health; 2018
    4. ↵
      1. Grohskopf LA,
      2. Sokolow LZ,
      3. Fry AM,
      4. Walter EB,
      5. Jernigan DB
      . Update: ACIP recommendations for the use of quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) - United States, 2018-19 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(22):643–645
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      Department of Health; Salisbury D, Ramsay M, Noakes K, eds. Immunisation against Infectious Diseases, Influenza: the Green Book. London, United Kingdom: The Stationery Office; 2013
    6. ↵
      1. Costantino C,
      2. Vitale F
      . Influenza vaccination in high-risk groups: a revision of existing guidelines and rationale for an evidence-based preventive strategy. J Prev Med Hyg. 2016;57(1):E13–E18
      OpenUrl
    7. ↵
      1. Blyth CC,
      2. Macartney KK,
      3. McRae J, et al.; Paediatric Active Enhanced Disease Surveillance (PAEDS); Influenza Complications Alert Network (FluCAN) Collaboration
      . Influenza epidemiology, vaccine coverage and vaccine effectiveness in children admitted to sentinel Australian hospitals in 2017: results from the PAEDS-FluCAN collaboration. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(6):940–948
      OpenUrl
    8. ↵
      1. Rajaram S,
      2. Steffey A,
      3. Blak B,
      4. Hickman M,
      5. Christensen H,
      6. Caspard H
      . Uptake of childhood influenza vaccine from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 in the UK and the implications for high-risk children: a retrospective observational cohort study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(8):e010625
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      1. Schmid P,
      2. Rauber D,
      3. Betsch C,
      4. Lidolt G,
      5. Denker M-L
      . Barriers of influenza vaccination intention and behavior - a systematic review of influenza vaccine hesitancy, 2005 - 2016. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170550
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Bay SL,
      2. Crawford DJ
      . Using technology to affect influenza vaccine coverage among children with chronic respiratory conditions. J Pediatr Health Care. 2017;31(2):155–160
      OpenUrl
    11. ↵
      1. Aigbogun NW,
      2. Hawker JI,
      3. Stewart A
      . Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in children with high-risk conditions–a systematic review. Vaccine. 2015;33(6):759–770
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Moher D,
      2. Liberati A,
      3. Tetzlaff J,
      4. Altman DG; PRISMA Group
      . Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–341
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Cochrane Collaboration
      . Data collection form: Intervention review RCTs and non-RCTs. 2014. Available at: https://dplp.cochrane.org/data-extraction-forms. Accessed December 1, 2018
    14. ↵
      1. Grol RP,
      2. Bosch MC,
      3. Hulscher ME,
      4. Eccles MP,
      5. Wensing M
      . Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007;85(1):93–138
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Eccles M,
      2. Grimshaw J,
      3. Campbell M,
      4. Ramsay C
      . Research designs for studies evaluating the effectiveness of change and improvement strategies. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(1):47–52
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. Hedges LV,
      2. Vevea JL
      . Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(4):486
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    17. ↵
      Cochrane Collaboration. 9.4.4 Meta-analysis of dichotomous outcomes. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0. Chichester, UK: Cochrane; 2020
    18. ↵
      Cochrane Collaboration. 9.5.4 Incorporating heterogeneity into random-effects models. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0. Chichester, UK: Cochrane; 2020
    19. ↵
      1. Higgins JP,
      2. Thompson SG
      . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–1558
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Atkins D,
      2. Best D,
      3. Briss PA, et al.; GRADE Working Group
      . Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Gregori G,
      2. Faccini F,
      3. Bongiorni E,
      4. Maffini I,
      5. Sacchetti R
      . Immunization against A/H1N1 pandemic flu (2009-2010) in pediatric patients at risk. What might be the most effective strategy? The experience of an health district of Northern Italy. Ital J Pediatr. 2012;38(1):18
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Dombkowski KJ,
      2. Cowan AE,
      3. Potter RC,
      4. Dong S,
      5. Kolasa M,
      6. Clark SJ
      . Statewide pandemic influenza vaccination reminders for children with chronic conditions. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(1):e39–e44
      OpenUrl
    23. ↵
      1. Daley MF,
      2. Barrow J,
      3. Pearson K, et al
      . Identification and recall of children with chronic medical conditions for influenza vaccination. Pediatrics. 2004;113(1, pt 1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/113/1/e26
    24. ↵
      1. Dombkowski KJ,
      2. Harrington LB,
      3. Dong S,
      4. Clark SJ
      . Seasonal influenza vaccination reminders for children with high-risk conditions: a registry-based randomized trial. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(1):71–75
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      1. Hofstetter AM,
      2. Barrett A,
      3. Camargo S,
      4. Rosenthal SL,
      5. Stockwell MS
      . Text message reminders for vaccination of adolescents with chronic medical conditions: a randomized clinical trial. Vaccine. 2017;35(35 pt B):4554–4560
      OpenUrl
    26. ↵
      1. Kemper KJ,
      2. Goldberg H
      . Do computer-generated reminder letters improve the rate of influenza immunization in an urban pediatric clinic? Am J Dis Child. 1993;147(7):717–718
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Szilagyi PG,
      2. Rodewald LE,
      3. Savageau J,
      4. Yoos L,
      5. Doane C
      . Improving influenza vaccination rates in children with asthma: a test of a computerized reminder system and an analysis of factors predicting vaccination compliance. Pediatrics. 1992;90(6):871–875
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      1. Fiks AG,
      2. Hunter KF,
      3. Localio AR, et al
      . Impact of electronic health record-based alerts on influenza vaccination for children with asthma. Pediatrics. 2009;124(1):159–169
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Moore ML,
      2. Parker AL
      . Influenza vaccine compliance among pediatric asthma patients: what is the better method of notification? Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol. 2006;19(4):200–204
      OpenUrl
    30. ↵
      1. Bjornson G,
      2. Scheifele D,
      3. Metzger D,
      4. Ferguson A,
      5. Wensley D,
      6. Whitfield M
      . Promoting the use of influenza vaccine for children at risk of complications. B C Med J. 2000;42(2):89–90
      OpenUrl
    31. ↵
      1. Camurdan AD,
      2. Camurdan MO,
      3. Beyazova U,
      4. Dalgic B,
      5. Bideci A,
      6. Karakus R
      . The effect of intervention on vaccination rates in children with diabetes: a controlled interventional study. Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries. 2015;35(2):76–83
      OpenUrl
    32. ↵
      1. Cecinati V,
      2. Esposito S,
      3. Scicchitano B, et al
      . Effectiveness of recall systems for improving influenza vaccination coverage in children with oncohematological malignancies. Hum Vaccin. 2010;6(2):194–197
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Crawford NW,
      2. Barfield C,
      3. Hunt RW,
      4. Pitcher H,
      5. Buttery JP
      . Improving preterm infants’ immunisation status: a follow-up audit. J Paediatr Child Health. 2014;50(4):314–318
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. Esposito S,
      2. Pelucchi C,
      3. Tel F, et al
      . Factors conditioning effectiveness of a reminder/recall system to improve influenza vaccination in asthmatic children. Vaccine. 2009;27(5):633–635
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Gaglani M,
      2. Riggs M,
      3. Kamenicky C,
      4. Glezen WP
      . A computerized reminder strategy is effective for annual influenza immunization of children with asthma or reactive airway disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001;20(12):1155–1160
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Gattis S,
      2. Yildirim I,
      3. Shane AL,
      4. Serluco S,
      5. McCracken C,
      6. Liverman R
      . Impact of pharmacy-initiated interventions on influenza vaccination rates in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2019;8(6):525–530
      OpenUrl
      1. Huth K,
      2. Benchimol EI,
      3. Aglipay M,
      4. Mack DR
      . Strategies to improve influenza vaccination in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease through education and access. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21(8):1761–1768
      OpenUrl
    36. ↵
      1. Kempe A,
      2. Albright K,
      3. O’Leary S, et al
      . Effectiveness of primary care-public health collaborations in the delivery of influenza vaccine: a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial. Prev Med. 2014;69:110–116
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Lin CJ,
      2. Nowalk MP,
      3. Zimmerman RK, et al
      . Reducing racial disparities in influenza vaccination among children with asthma. J Pediatr Health Care. 2016;30(3):208–215
      OpenUrl
      1. Martin E
      . Improving influenza vaccination rates for pediatric asthmatics by use of an asthma educational tool and a patient electronic care system. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2008;47(6):588–592
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. McCreary L
      . Increasing the rate of influenza vaccination in children with asthma using a clinic staff and provider educational intervention. J Asthma Allergy Educ. 2013;4(6):277–281
      OpenUrl
    39. ↵
      1. Merckx J,
      2. McCormack D,
      3. Quach C
      . Improving influenza vaccination in chronically ill children using a tertiary-care based vaccination clinic: is there a role for the live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV)? Vaccine. 2016;34(6):750–756
      OpenUrl
      1. Patwardhan A,
      2. Kelleher K,
      3. Cunningham D,
      4. Menke J,
      5. Spencer C
      . The use of a mandatory best practice reminder in the electronic record improves influenza vaccination rate in a pediatric rheumatology clinic. Clin Govern Int J. 2011;16(4):308–319
      OpenUrl
      1. Paul IM,
      2. Eleoff SB,
      3. Shaffer ML,
      4. Bucher RM,
      5. Moyer KM,
      6. Gusic ME
      . Improving influenza vaccination rates for children through year-round scheduling. Ambul Pediatr. 2006;6(4):230–234
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Urkin J,
      2. Skalirsky I,
      3. Karbi S,
      4. Peled R
      . Parental opinions and level of knowledge regarding influenza immunization for high risk children: follow-up on two reminder methods. Minerva Pediatr. 2016;68(6):404–411
      OpenUrl
    41. ↵
      1. Walter E,
      2. Sung J,
      3. Kahn Meine E,
      4. Drucker RP,
      5. Clements DA
      . Lack of effectiveness of a letter reminder for annual influenza immunization of asthmatic children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1997;16(12):1187–1188
      OpenUrlPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Zimmerman RK,
      2. Hoberman A,
      3. Nowalk MP, et al
      . Improving influenza vaccination rates of high-risk inner-city children over 2 intervention years. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(6):534–540
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    43. ↵
      1. Britto MT,
      2. Pandzik GM,
      3. Meeks CS,
      4. Kotagal UR
      . Combining evidence and diffusion of innovation theory to enhance influenza immunization. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006;32(8):426–432
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Britto MT,
      2. Schoettker PJ,
      3. Pandzik GM,
      4. Weiland J,
      5. Mandel KE
      . Improving influenza immunisation for high-risk children and adolescents. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16(5):363–368
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Freedman JL,
      2. Reilly AF,
      3. Powell SC,
      4. Bailey LC
      . Quality improvement initiative to increase influenza vaccination in pediatric cancer patients. Pediatrics. 2015;135(2). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/135/2/e540
    45. ↵
      1. Olshefski RS,
      2. Bibart M,
      3. Frost R, et al
      . A multiyear quality improvement project to increase influenza vaccination in a pediatric oncology population undergoing active therapy. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65(9):e27268
      OpenUrl
    46. ↵
      1. Rao S,
      2. Fischman V,
      3. Kaplan DW,
      4. Wilson KM,
      5. Hyman D
      . Evaluating interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates among pediatric inpatients. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2018;3(5):e102
      OpenUrl
    47. ↵
      1. Sobota AE,
      2. Kavanagh PL,
      3. Adams WG,
      4. McClure E,
      5. Farrell D,
      6. Sprinz PG
      . Improvement in influenza vaccination rates in a pediatric sickle cell disease clinic. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62(4):654–657
      OpenUrl
    48. ↵
      1. Wong CI,
      2. Billett AL,
      3. Weng S,
      4. Eng K,
      5. Thakrar U,
      6. Davies KJ
      . A quality improvement initiative to increase and sustain influenza vaccination rates in pediatric oncology and stem cell transplant patients. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2018;3(1):e052
      OpenUrl
    49. ↵
      1. Huedo-Medina TB,
      2. Sánchez-Meca J,
      3. Marín-Martínez F,
      4. Botella J
      . Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11(2):193–206
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Martin E
      . Improving influenza vaccination rates in a pediatric asthma management program by utilization of an electronic medical record. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2006;45(3):221–227
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Jones Cooper SN,
      2. Walton-Moss B
      . Using reminder/recall systems to improve influenza immunization rates in children with asthma. J Pediatr Health Care. 2013;27(5):327–333
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Ndiaye SM,
      2. Hopkins DP,
      3. Shefer AM, et al
      . Interventions to Improve Influenza, Pneumococcal Polysaccharide, and Hepatitis B Vaccination Coverage Among High-Risk Adults: A Systematic Review. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-Assessed Reviews. York, United Kingdom: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2005
    53. ↵
      1. Smulian EA,
      2. Mitchell KR,
      3. Stokley S
      . Interventions to increase HPV vaccination coverage: a systematic review. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2016;12(6):1566–1588
      OpenUrlPubMed
    • Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
    PreviousNext
    Back to top

    Advertising Disclaimer »

    In this issue

    Pediatrics
    Vol. 147, Issue 3
    1 Mar 2021
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    View this article with LENS
    PreviousNext
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Improving Influenza Vaccination in Children With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Request Permissions
    Article Alerts
    Log in
    You will be redirected to aap.org to login or to create your account.
    Or Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Citation Tools
    Improving Influenza Vaccination in Children With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review
    Daniel A. Norman, Rosanne Barnes, Rebecca Pavlos, Mejbah Bhuiyan, Kefyalew Addis Alene, Margie Danchin, Holly Seale, Hannah C. Moore, Christopher C. Blyth
    Pediatrics Mar 2021, 147 (3) e20201433; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-1433

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Share
    Improving Influenza Vaccination in Children With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review
    Daniel A. Norman, Rosanne Barnes, Rebecca Pavlos, Mejbah Bhuiyan, Kefyalew Addis Alene, Margie Danchin, Holly Seale, Hannah C. Moore, Christopher C. Blyth
    Pediatrics Mar 2021, 147 (3) e20201433; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-1433
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Print
    Download PDF
    Insight Alerts
    • Table of Contents

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Abstract
      • Methods
      • Results
      • Discussion
      • Conclusions
      • Acknowledgments
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Figures & Data
    • Supplemental
    • Info & Metrics
    • Comments

    Related Articles

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

    Cited By...

    • No citing articles found.
    • Google Scholar

    More in this TOC Section

    • Umbilical Cord Management for Newborns <34 Weeks' Gestation: A Meta-analysis
    • Childhood and Adolescent Bullying Perpetration and Later Substance Use: A Meta-analysis
    Show more Review Articles

    Similar Articles

    Subjects

    • Infectious Disease
      • Infectious Disease
      • Influenza
      • Vaccine/Immunization
    • Journal Info
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Policies
    • Overview
    • Licensing Information
    • Authors/Reviewers
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit My Manuscript
    • Open Access
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Librarians
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Usage Stats
    • Support
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Resources
    • Media Kit
    • About
    • International Access
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Statement
    • FAQ
    • AAP.org
    • shopAAP
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Instagram
    • Visit American Academy of Pediatrics on Facebook
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Twitter
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Youtube
    • RSS
    American Academy of Pediatrics

    © 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics