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
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

e52926

Informations 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.

Auteurs

Alessandra Fallucca (A)

Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialities, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Walter Priano (W)

Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialities, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Alessandro Carubia (A)

Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialities, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Patrizia Ferro (P)

Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialities, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Vincenzo Pisciotta (V)

Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialities, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Alessandra Casuccio (A)

Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialities, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Vincenzo Restivo (V)

School of Medicine, University Kore of Enna, Enna, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH