Effectiveness of Catch-Up Vaccination Interventions Versus Standard or Usual Care Procedures in Increasing Adherence to Recommended Vaccinations Among Different Age Groups: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Before-After Studies.
PRISMA
adherence
catch-up interventions
education
education based
health care based
immunization
meta-analysis
multicomponent
multidimensional intervention
recall intervention
remind
reward
systematic review
vaccination
vaccination coverage
vaccine
vaccine literacy
vaccine strategies
Journal
JMIR public health and surveillance
ISSN: 2369-2960
Titre abrégé: JMIR Public Health Surveill
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101669345
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jul 2024
23 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
19
09
2023
accepted:
30
04
2024
revised:
16
04
2024
medline:
23
7
2024
pubmed:
23
7
2024
entrez:
23
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To address the global challenge of vaccine hesitancy, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization strongly promotes vaccination reminder and recall interventions. Coupled with the new opportunities presented by scientific advancements, these measures are crucial for successfully immunizing target population groups. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness of various interventions in increasing vaccination coverage compared with standard or usual care. The review will cover all vaccinations recommended for different age groups. In February 2022, 2 databases were consulted, retrieving 1850 studies. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, 79 manuscripts were included after the assessment phase. These comprised 46 trials/randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 33 before-after studies. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed with STATA software (version 14.1.2). The selected outcome was the risk ratio (RR) of vaccination coverage improvement effectiveness. Additionally, meta-regression analyses were conducted for the included manuscripts. The analyses showed an overall efficacy of RR 1.22 (95% CI 1.19-1.26) for RCTs and RR 1.70 (95% CI 1.54-1.87) for before-after studies when considering all interventions cumulatively. Subgroup analyses identified multicomponent interventions (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.36-1.85) and recall clinical interventions (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17-1.32) as the most effective in increasing vaccination coverage for RCTs. By contrast, educational interventions (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.60-2.83) and multicomponent interventions (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.43-1.82) achieved the highest increases for before-after studies. Meta-regression analyses indicated that the middle-aged adult population was associated with a higher increase in vaccination coverage (RCT: coefficient 0.54, 95% CI 0.12-0.95; before-after: coefficient 1.27, 95% CI 0.70-1.84). Community, family, and health care-based multidimensional interventions, as well as education-based catch-up strategies, effectively improve vaccination coverage. Therefore, their systematic implementation is highly relevant for targeting undervaccinated population groups. This approach aligns with national vaccination schedules and aims to eliminate or eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To address the global challenge of vaccine hesitancy, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization strongly promotes vaccination reminder and recall interventions. Coupled with the new opportunities presented by scientific advancements, these measures are crucial for successfully immunizing target population groups.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness of various interventions in increasing vaccination coverage compared with standard or usual care. The review will cover all vaccinations recommended for different age groups.
METHODS
METHODS
In February 2022, 2 databases were consulted, retrieving 1850 studies. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, 79 manuscripts were included after the assessment phase. These comprised 46 trials/randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 33 before-after studies. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed with STATA software (version 14.1.2). The selected outcome was the risk ratio (RR) of vaccination coverage improvement effectiveness. Additionally, meta-regression analyses were conducted for the included manuscripts.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The analyses showed an overall efficacy of RR 1.22 (95% CI 1.19-1.26) for RCTs and RR 1.70 (95% CI 1.54-1.87) for before-after studies when considering all interventions cumulatively. Subgroup analyses identified multicomponent interventions (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.36-1.85) and recall clinical interventions (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17-1.32) as the most effective in increasing vaccination coverage for RCTs. By contrast, educational interventions (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.60-2.83) and multicomponent interventions (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.43-1.82) achieved the highest increases for before-after studies. Meta-regression analyses indicated that the middle-aged adult population was associated with a higher increase in vaccination coverage (RCT: coefficient 0.54, 95% CI 0.12-0.95; before-after: coefficient 1.27, 95% CI 0.70-1.84).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Community, family, and health care-based multidimensional interventions, as well as education-based catch-up strategies, effectively improve vaccination coverage. Therefore, their systematic implementation is highly relevant for targeting undervaccinated population groups. This approach aligns with national vaccination schedules and aims to eliminate or eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39042433
pii: v10i1e52926
doi: 10.2196/52926
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Meta-Analysis
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e52926Informations de copyright
©Alessandra Fallucca, Walter Priano, Alessandro Carubia, Patrizia Ferro, Vincenzo Pisciotta, Alessandra Casuccio, Vincenzo Restivo. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 23.07.2024.