School-located Influenza Vaccination Research Articles

Estimating community-wide indirect effects of influenza vaccination: triangulation using mathematical models and bias analysis.

Understanding whether influenza vaccine promotion strategies produce community-wide indirect effects is important for establishing vaccine coverage targets and optimizing vaccine delivery. Empirical epidemiologic studies and mathematical models have been used to estimate indirect effects of vaccines but rarely for the same estimand in the same dataset. Using these approaches together could be a powerful tool for triangulation in infectious disease epidemiology because each approach is subject to distinct sources of bias. We triangulated evidence about indirect effects from a school-located influenza vaccination program using two approaches: a difference-in-difference (DID) analysis, and an age-structured, deterministic, compartmental model. The estimated indirect effect was substantially lower in the mathematical model than in the DID analysis (2.1% (95% Bayesian credible intervals 0.4 - 4.4%) vs. 22.3% (95% CI 7.6% - 37.1%)). To explore reasons for differing estimates, we used sensitivity analyses and probabilistic bias analyses. When we constrained model parameters such that projections matched the DID analysis, results only aligned with the DID analysis with substantially lower pre-existing immunity among school-age children and older adults. Conversely, DID estimates corrected for potential bias only aligned with mathematical model estimates under differential outcome misclassification. We discuss how triangulation using empirical and mathematical modelling approaches could strengthen future studies.

Parents and teachers’ perspectives on a school-located influenza vaccination program: A pilot study in the Region of Murcia, Spain

ABSTRACT During the 2022–2023 season, the Region of Murcia (an autonomous community of Spain) introduced the influenza vaccination campaign in children aged 24–59 months with the live-attenuated influenza nasal spray vaccine. To expand coverage, a pilot study was conducted to include the 3- to 4-year population in 24 public schools. The aim of the study was to assess the experiences of parents and teachers involved in the project. This was a psychosocial qualitative study in which information was collected from a cohort of 23 parents and 17 teachers who attended three and two focus group sessions, respectively. A high degree of satisfaction with the school-located influenza vaccination program was consistently reported. The teachers reported creating a friendly environment and acting as companions to support children in the absence of their parents. They also considered the intranasal route, which avoids intramuscular puncture, as a facilitating element that turned the vaccination process into a kind of game. Parents emphasized the importance of vaccination to protect their children, and secondarily, to ensure protection of the family nucleus. Some parents who had their children already vaccinated in the health care center reported preference for the school setting, probably selecting this option in the future. The availability of school-based influenza vaccination promoted greater equity in accessing the vaccine and facilitated family reconciliation. To optimize coverage and minimize potential reluctance, providing the necessary information to parents both before and after vaccination was considered. School-located influenza vaccination was feasible and is a valuable strategy to be implemented in future campaigns.

Identifying implementation strategies to address barriers of implementing a school-located influenza vaccination program in Beijing

BackgroundThe school-located influenza vaccinations (SLIV) can increase influenza vaccination and reduce influenza infections among school-aged children. However, the vaccination rate has remained low and varied widely among schools in Beijing, China. This study aimed to ascertain barriers and facilitators of implementing SLIV and to identify implementation strategies for SLIV quality improvement programs in this context.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with diverse stakeholders (i.e., representatives of both the Department of Health and the Department of Education, school physicians, class headteachers, and parents) involved in SLIV implementation. Participants were identified by purposive and snowball sampling. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was adopted to facilitate data collection and analysis. Themes and subthemes regarding barriers and facilitators were generated using deductive and inductive approaches. Based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research—Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR-ERIC) matching tool, practical implementation strategies were proposed to address the identified barriers of SLIV delivery.ResultsTwenty-four participants were interviewed. Facilitators included easy access to SLIV, clear responsibilities and close collaboration among government sectors, top-down authority, integrating SLIV into the routine of schools, and priority given to SLIV. The main barriers were parents’ misconception, inefficient coordination for vaccine supply and vaccination dates, the lack of planning, and inadequate access to knowledge and information about the SLIV. CFIR-ERIC Matching tool suggested implementation strategies at the system (i.e., developing an implementation blueprint, and promoting network weaving), school (i.e., training and educating school implementers), and consumer (i.e., engaging students and parents) levels to improve SLIV implementation.ConclusionsThere were substantial barriers to the delivery of the SLIV program. Theory-driven implementation strategies developed in this pre-implementation study should be considered to address those identified determinants for successful SLIV implementation.

Preschool-located influenza vaccination and influenza-like illness surveillance: an Italian pilot experience

BackgroundWe describe the first school-located influenza vaccination campaign with quadrivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) among pre-school children in Italy, coupled with an innovative school-centred influenza-like illnesses (ILIs) surveillance using a self-sampling non-invasive saliva collection method.MethodsThe pilot study was proposed during the 2021/2022 influenza season to fifteen pre-schools in the Milan municipality. LAIV was offered directly in school to all healthy children without contraindications. ILI differential diagnosis was conducted by real-time RT-PCR for influenza A/B and SARS-CoV-2.ResultsFive pre-schools were involved in the pilot project and overall, 135 families (31.2%) participated in the study, adhering to both surveillance and vaccination; 59% of families had an immigrant background. No pupil experienced adverse reactions after vaccination. Nineteen saliva samples were collected from sixteen children (11.8%). Six samples (31.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; none was positive for influenza A/B.ConclusionsThe participation in the immunisation campaign was good, considering possible absences due to COVID-19 pandemic, and the intranasal administration was well tolerated and helped to overcome parental hesitancy. Saliva sampling represented a useful tool to reduce children’s stress and increase parents’ compliance. The high participation of families with an immigrant background suggests that school-based interventions can represent an effective strategy to overcome socioeconomic and cultural barriers.

Assessing the longitudinal effects of the continuation and discontinuation of the school-located influenza vaccination programme on parental vaccine hesitancy in Hong Kong.

School-located influenza vaccination programme (SIVP) can effectively promote childhood seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV). However, the longitudinal effects of continuation and discontinuation of the SIVP on parents' vaccine hesitancy remained unknown. A two-wave longitudinal study recruited adult parents who had at least one child attending a kindergarten or primary school using random-digital-dialled telephone interviews. Generalized estimating equation and structural equation modelling were used to examine the impact of changes in schools' SIVP participation status on parents' vaccine-related attitudes, and childhood SIV acceptance over 2years in Hong Kong. Children's SIV uptake varied by the schools' SIVP participation status. The highest SIV uptake was found in schools that consistently participated in SIVP (Consistent participation group) (2018/2019: 85.0%; 2019/2020: 83.0%) but lowest in the Consistent non-Participation group (2018/2019: 45.0%; 2019/2020: 39.0%). SIV uptake increased in the Late Initiation group but declined in the Discontinuation group. An increasing trend of parental vaccine-hesitant attitudes was observed in the Consistent non-Participation group. Initiation and continuation of the SIVP can reduce parental vaccine hesitancy to achieve a high childhood SIV uptake. Conversely, discontinuation of the SIVP or persistent resistance to the implementation of SIVP can increase parental vaccine hesitancy and reduce childhood SIV uptake.

Evaluation of a city-wide school-located influenza vaccination program in Oakland, California with respect to race and ethnicity: A matched cohort study

BackgroundIncreasing influenza vaccination coverage in school-aged children may substantially reduce community transmission. School-located influenza vaccinations (SLIV) aim to promote vaccinations by increasing accessibility, which may be especially beneficial to race/ethnicity groups that face high barriers to preventative care. Here, we evaluate the effectiveness of a city-wide SLIV program by race/ethnicity from 2014 to 2018. MethodsWe used multivariate matching to pair schools in the intervention district in Oakland, CA with schools in a comparison district in West Contra Costa County, CA. We distributed cross-sectional surveys to measure caregiver-reported student vaccination status and estimated differences in vaccination coverage levels and reasons for non-vaccination between districts stratifying by race/ethnicity. We estimated difference-in-differences (DID) of laboratory confirmed influenza hospitalization incidence between districts stratified by race/ethnicity using surveillance data. ResultsDifferences in influenza vaccination coverage in the intervention vs. comparison district were larger among White (2017–18: 21.0% difference [95% CI: 9.7%, 32.3%]) and Hispanic/Latino (13.4% [8.8%, 18.0%]) students than Asian/Pacific Islander (API) (8.9% [1.3%, 16.5%]), Black (5.9% [−2.2%, 14.0%]), and multiracial (6.3% [−1.8%, 14.3%)) students. Concerns about vaccine effectiveness or safety were more common among Black and multiracial caregivers. Logistical barriers were less common in the intervention vs. comparison district, with the largest difference among White students. In both districts, hospitalizations in 2017–18 were higher in Blacks (Intervention: 111.5 hospitalizations per 100,00; Comparison: 134.1 per 100,000) vs. other races/ethnicities. All-age influenza hospitalization incidence was lower in the intervention site vs. comparison site among White/API individuals in 2016–17 (DID −25.14 per 100,000 [95% CI: −40.14, −10.14]) and 2017–18 (−36.6 per 100,000 [−52.7, −20.5]) and Black older adults in 2017–18 (−282.2 per 100,000 (−508.4, −56.1]), but not in other groups. ConclusionsSLIV was associated with higher vaccination coverage and lower influenza hospitalization, but associations varied by race/ethnicity. SLIV alone may be insufficient to ensure equitable influenza outcomes.

A Mixed-Methods Study to Evaluate Elementary School Staff's Acceptability, Delivery Challenges, and Communication Regarding the Implementation of School-Located Influenza Vaccination Program in Hong Kong.

This was a mixed-methods study comprising a questionnaire-based survey, a qualitative study, and analysis of school newsletters to evaluate elementary school staff’s acceptability, delivery challenges and communication about school-located influenza vaccination program (SIVP) in Hong Kong. We found that school staff with lower intention to implement SIVP perceived greater logistical difficulties in arranging SIVP. Challenges regarding program delivery included schools’ limited infrastructure, the burden of paperwork, the fear of being overwhelmed by multiple school-based vaccination schedules, lacking confidence in communicating with parents about influenza vaccines, and the difficulties in managing vaccination-related anxiety among children with intellectual disability. School staff were generally passive in communicating with parents and students about influenza vaccines. We also found that schools may use the school newsletters as a substitute of the formal informed consent forms. Good partnerships among government, service providers and schools should be established to minimize the burden of paperwork for school staff, facilitate early planning of SIVP, and support schools with limited infrastructure and the vaccination of children with intellectual disabilities. Training is needed to enhance school staff’s confidence in communicating with parents and students about influenza vaccines and improve information delivery to support parents’ informed decisions for children’s vaccination.

City-wide school-located influenza vaccination: A retrospective cohort study

BackgroundWe measured the effectiveness of a city-wide school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) program implemented in over 102 elementary schools in Oakland, California. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study among Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) members of all ages residing in either the intervention or a multivariate-matched comparison site from September 2011 - August 2017. Outcomes included medically attended acute respiratory illness (MAARI), influenza hospitalization, and Oseltamivir prescriptions. We estimated difference-in-differences (DIDs) in 2014–15, 2015–16, and 2016–17 using generalized linear models and adjusted for race, ethnicity, age, sex, health plan, and language. ResultsPre-intervention member characteristics were similar between sites. The proportion of KPNC members vaccinated for influenza by KPNC or the SLIV program was 8–11% higher in the intervention site than the comparison site during the intervention period. Among school-aged children, SLIV was associated with lower Oseltamivir prescriptions per 1,000 (DIDs: −3.5 (95% CI −5.5, −1.5) in 2015–16; −4.0 (95% CI −6.5, −1.6) in 2016–17) but not with other outcomes. SLIV was associated with lower MAARI per 1,000 in adults 65 + years (2014–15: −13.2, 95% CI –23.2, −3.2; 2015–16: −21.5, 95% CI −31.1, −11.9; 2016–17: −13.0, 95% CI –23.2, −2.9). There were few significant associations with other outcomes among adults. ConclusionsA city-wide SLIV intervention was associated with higher influenza vaccination coverage, lower Oseltamivir prescriptions in school-aged children, and lower MAARI among people over 65 years, suggesting possible indirect effects of SLIV among older adults.

Evaluation of a city-wide school-located influenza vaccination program in Oakland, California, with respect to vaccination coverage, school absences, and laboratory-confirmed influenza: A matched cohort study.

It is estimated that vaccinating 50%-70% of school-aged children for influenza can produce population-wide indirect effects. We evaluated a city-wide school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) intervention that aimed to increase influenza vaccination coverage. The intervention was implemented in ≥95 preschools and elementary schools in northern California from 2014 to 2018. Using a matched cohort design, we estimated intervention impacts on student influenza vaccination coverage, school absenteeism, and community-wide indirect effects on laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations. We used a multivariate matching algorithm to identify a nearby comparison school district with pre-intervention characteristics similar to those of the intervention school district and matched schools in each district. To measure student influenza vaccination, we conducted cross-sectional surveys of student caregivers in 22 school pairs (2017 survey, N = 6,070; 2018 survey, N = 6,507). We estimated the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization from 2011 to 2018 using surveillance data from school district zip codes. We analyzed student absenteeism data from 2011 to 2018 from each district (N = 42,487,816 student-days). To account for pre-intervention differences between districts, we estimated difference-in-differences (DID) in influenza hospitalization incidence and absenteeism rates using generalized linear and log-linear models with a population offset for incidence outcomes. Prior to the SLIV intervention, the median household income was $51,849 in the intervention site and $61,596 in the comparison site. The population in each site was predominately white (41% in the intervention site, 48% in the comparison site) and/or of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (26% in the intervention site, 33% in the comparison site). The number of students vaccinated by the SLIV intervention ranged from 7,502 to 10,106 (22%-28% of eligible students) each year. During the intervention, influenza vaccination coverage among elementary students was 53%-66% in the comparison district. Coverage was similar between the intervention and comparison districts in influenza seasons 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and was significantly higher in the intervention site in seasons 2016-2017 (7%; 95% CI 4, 11; p < 0.001) and 2017-2018 (11%; 95% CI 7, 15; p < 0.001). During seasons when vaccination coverage was higher among intervention schools and the vaccine was moderately effective, there was evidence of statistically significant indirect effects: The DID in the incidence of influenza hospitalization per 100,000 in the intervention versus comparison site was -17 (95% CI -30, -4; p = 0.008) in 2016-2017 and -37 (95% CI -54, -19; p < 0.001) in 2017-2018 among non-elementary-school-aged individuals and -73 (95% CI -147, 1; p = 0.054) in 2016-2017 and -160 (95% CI -267, -53; p = 0.004) in 2017-2018 among adults 65 years or older. The DID in illness-related school absences per 100 school days during the influenza season was -0.63 (95% CI -1.14, -0.13; p = 0.014) in 2016-2017 and -0.80 (95% CI -1.28, -0.31; p = 0.001) in 2017-2018. Limitations of this study include the use of an observational design, which may be subject to unmeasured confounding, and caregiver-reported vaccination status, which is subject to poor recall and low response rates. A city-wide SLIV intervention in a large, diverse urban population was associated with a decrease in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization in all age groups and a decrease in illness-specific school absence rate among students in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, seasons when the vaccine was moderately effective, suggesting that the intervention produced indirect effects. Our findings suggest that in populations with moderately high background levels of influenza vaccination coverage, SLIV programs are associated with further increases in coverage and reduced influenza across the community.

Nontraditional Uses of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine: School-Located Influenza Vaccination.

Immunization against influenza continues to be the best method of preventing influenza infection in children, and additionally, indirectly helping to lower disease in adults, given the role of children as "spreaders" of influenza to the community at large. An increasing evidence base exists for the use of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs to increase the influenza vaccination rates among children. Live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has unique characteristics that make it useful for SLIV programs, including ease of immunization without needles, faster delivery, and in many (but not all) years, good vaccine effectiveness. Reviewed herein are results of selected published trials as well as guidance on planning a successful SLIV program.

Cost effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination programs for elementary and secondary school children

BackgroundStudies have noted variations in the cost-effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV), but little is known about how SLIV’s cost-effectiveness may vary by targeted age group (e.g., elementary or secondary school students), or vaccine consent process (paper-based or web-based). Further, SLIV’s cost-effectiveness may be impacted by its spillover effect on practice-based vaccination; prior studies have not addressed this issue.MethodsWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on two SLIV programs in upstate New York in 2015–2016: (a) elementary school SLIV using a stepped wedge design with schools as clusters (24 suburban and 18 urban schools) and (b) secondary school SLIV using a cluster randomized trial (16 suburban and 4 urban schools). The cost-per-additionally-vaccinated child (i.e., incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)) was estimated by dividing the incremental SLIV intervention cost by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the additional number of vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). We performed deterministic analyses, one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic analyses.ResultsThe overall effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 5.7 and 5.5 percentage points higher, respectively, in intervention elementary (52.8%) and secondary schools (48.2%) than grade-matched control schools. SLIV programs vaccinated a small proportion of children in intervention elementary (5.2%) and secondary schools (2.5%). In elementary and secondary schools, the ICER excluding vaccine purchase was $85.71 and $86.51 per-additionally-vaccinated-child, respectively. When additionally accounting for observed spillover impact on practice-based vaccination, the ICER decreased to $80.53 in elementary schools -- decreasing substantially in secondary schools. (to $53.40). These estimates were higher than the published practice-based vaccination cost (median = $25.50, mean = $45.48). Also, these estimates were higher than our 2009–2011 urban SLIV program mean costs ($65) due to additional costs for use of a new web-based consent system ($12.97 per-additionally-vaccinated-child) and higher project coordination costs in 2015–2016. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that ICER estimates were most sensitive to the SLIV effectiveness.ConclusionsSLIV raises vaccination rates and may increase practice-based vaccination in primary care practices. While these SLIV programs are effective, to be as cost-effective as practice-based vaccination our SLIV programs would need to vaccinate more students and/or lower the costs for consent systems and project coordination.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.govNCT02227186 (August 25, 2014), updated NCT03137667 (May 2, 2017).

Practical considerations in developing a successful school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) program

Practical considerations in developing a successful school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) program

Text Message Reminders for Child Influenza Vaccination in the Setting of School-Located Influenza Vaccination: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Half of US school children receive influenza vaccine. In our previous trials, school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) raised vaccination rates by 5 to 8 percentage points. We assessed whether text message reminders to parents could raise vaccination rates above those observed with SLIV. Within urban elementary schools we randomized families into text message + SLIV (intervention) versus SLIV alone (comparison). All parents were sent 2 backpack notifications plus 2 autodialer phone reminders about SLIV at a single SLIV clinic. Intervention group parents also were sent 3 text messages from the school nurse encouraging flu vaccination via either primary care or SLIV. Among 15 768 children at 32 schools, vaccination rates were text + SLIV (40%) and SLIV control (40%); 4% of students per group received influenza vaccination at SLIV. Text message reminders did not raise influenza vaccination rates above those observed with SLIV alone. More intensive interventions are needed to raise influenza vaccination rates.

LB20. Impact of School-Located Influenza Vaccination on Vaccination Coverage, School Absenteeism, and Influenza Hospitalization

BackgroundSchool-located influenza vaccination programs aim to increase influenza vaccination coverage and produce indirect effects by interrupting influenza transmission. We evaluated the impact of a program that delivered the inactivated influenza vaccine in 2016–2017 to elementary schools in a large, diverse urban school district in Oakland, California on vaccination coverage, school absenteeism, and influenza hospitalization.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study and used pre-program data from the California Department of Education on school characteristics to identify a control school district with similar characteristics to the program district. We measured parent recall of student influenza vaccination in surveys in 2017 in 44 schools per district (N = 6,070). We obtained absence data from school districts and influenza hospitalization data for district catchment areas prior to and during the program. We used generalized linear models to estimate difference-in-differences (DIDs) in absence rates during influenza season adjusting for month, race, and grade to account for differences in pre-program rates. Standard errors accounted for school clusters. For influenza hospitalization, we estimated cumulative incidence rates using census data to obtain the population size and risk ratios (RR) using modified Poisson regression.ResultsVaccination coverage was 56.7% in control schools and 63.9% in program schools (difference = 7.2%; 95% CI 3.6%, 10.8%). 24% of students in program schools were vaccinated at school. Absences per 100 days were 5.40 vs. 6.68 in program vs. control sites for all absences and 3.01 vs. 3.60 for illness-related absences; DIDs were statistically significant for illness absences. Among all ages, the risk ratio for influenza hospitalization in program vs. control districts was 0.65 (95% CI 0.55, 0.78) among all ages and 0.71 for adults 65 or older (95% CI 0.57, 0.89). Hospitalization was too rare among elementary aged students to estimate RRs in that group.ConclusionElementary school-located influenza vaccination increased influenza vaccination and decreased school absence and influenza hospitalization. There was an indirect effect on hospitalization in the elderly and nonelementary aged groups. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Billing and Volunteers Substantially Reduced School-Located Influenza Vaccination Costs, 2 Oregon Counties, 2010-2011.

After the 2009 pandemic influenza seasons, the financial sustainability of school-located vaccination (SLV) clinics drew much attention. This study estimated and compared the labor costs of SLV clinics and reimbursements for influenza vaccinations for students attending 5 schools in 2 Oregon counties during 2010-2011. Using a biweekly, Web-based survey, staff and volunteers prospectively tracked the time they spent on SLV clinic planning, implementation, and billing. They also tracked claims submitted and reimbursements by payment source. We report labor hours and associated costs for implementing school-based vaccination clinics; number of claims submitted and the reimbursement rate; and total and net costs. In county A, 260 doses were administered at a total cost of $5009 and received $3620 in payment. For county B, 165 doses were administered at a cost of $5598 and received $3807 in payments. With billing, the net cost per dose decreased from $19.74 to $8.57 and $38.08 to $16.17, for county A and county B, respectively. Reimbursements reduced cost per dose by 48% across SLV clinics across both Oregon counties. Local health departments can bill local health insurers to offset costs for implementing school-based vaccination clinics. Efforts to set up billing processes require dedicated billing staff who can effectively manage claims submission processes with multiple health insurers.

Impact of elementary school-located influenza vaccinations: A stepped wedge trial across a community

BackgroundInfluenza vaccination rates among children are low and novel strategies are needed to raise coverage. We measured the impact of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) on coverage, examined whether SLIV substitutes for practice-based influenza vaccination (“substitution”), and estimated whether a second year of experience with SLIV increases its impact. MethodsWe implemented a stepped wedge study design with schools as clusters. In Year 1, we randomly allocated schools to SLIV or control. In Year 2, all schools performed SLIV. We used emails (suburban schools) or backpack fliers (both urban and suburban schools) to notify parents, and offered web-based (suburban) or paper-based vaccination (urban) consent forms. Local health department nurses administered SLIV vaccinations and billed insurers. We analyzed state immunization registry data to measure influenza vaccination rates. Results42 schools (38,078 children) participated over 2 years. Overall vaccination rates were 5 and 7 percentage points higher among SLIV- school children versus control-school children in suburban (aOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25–1.49 in Years 1–2 SLIV vs. Year 1 control schools) and urban schools (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10–1.36), respectively, adjusting for prior year’s vaccination and other covariates. While no substitution occurred among children attending suburban schools, some substitution occurred among children attending urban schools, although overall vaccination rates were still higher in urban schools due to SLIV. Compared to an initial year of SLIV, more children were vaccinated in a second year of SLIV at urban (8.3% vs. 6.8%, aOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04–1.47) but not suburban schools (3.5% vs. 2.7%, aOR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98–1.57). ConclusionsIn this stepped wedge trial, SLIV increased overall influenza vaccination rates in suburban and urban schools. Some substitution for primary care vaccination occurred in urban settings. A second year of SLIV expanded its reach slightly in urban schools.

School-located Influenza Vaccinations for Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PurposeWe aimed to evaluate the effect of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) on adolescents' influenza vaccination rates. MethodsIn 2015–2016, we performed a cluster-randomized trial of adolescent SLIV in middle/high schools. We selected 10 pairs of schools (identical grades within pairs) and randomly allocated schools within pairs to SLIV or usual care control. At eight suburban SLIV schools, we sent parents e-mail notifications about upcoming SLIV clinics and promoted online immunization consent. At two urban SLIV schools, we sent parents (via student backpack fliers) paper immunization consent forms and information about SLIV. E-mails were unavailable at these schools. Local health department nurses administered nasal or injectable influenza vaccine at dedicated SLIV clinics and billed insurers. We compared influenza vaccination rates at SLIV versus control schools using school directories to identify the student sample in each school. We used the state immunization registry to determine receipt of influenza vaccination. ResultsThe final sample comprised 17,650 students enrolled in the 20 schools. Adolescents at suburban SLIV schools had higher overall influenza vaccination rates than did adolescents at control schools (51% vs. 46%, p < .001; adjusted odds ratio = 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.18–1.38, controlling for vaccination during the prior two seasons). No effect of SLIV was noted among urbanschools on multivariate analysis. SLIV did not substitute for vaccinations in primary care or other settings; in suburban settings, SLIV was associated with increased vaccinations in primary care or other settings (adjusted odds ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.19). ConclusionsSLIV in this community increased influenza vaccination rates among adolescents attending suburban schools.

Sustainability of school-located influenza vaccination programs in Florida

BackgroundSchool-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs are a promising strategy for increasing vaccination coverage among schoolchildren. However, questions of economic sustainability have dampened enthusiasm for this approach in the United States. We evaluated SLIV sustainability of a health department led, county-wide SLIV program in Alachua County, Florida. Based on Alachua's outcome data, we modeled the sustainability of SLIV programs statewide using two different implementation costs and at different vaccination rates, reimbursement amount, and Vaccines for Children (VFC) coverage. MethodsMass vaccination clinics were conducted at 69 Alachua County schools in 2013 using VFC (for Medicaid and uninsured children) and non-VFC vaccines. Claims were processed after each clinic and submitted to insurance providers for reimbursement ($5 Medicaid and $47.04 from private insurers). We collected programmatic expenditures and volunteer hours to calculate fixed and variable costs for two different implementation costs (with or without in-kind costs included). We project program sustainability for Florida using publicly available county-specific student populations and health insurance enrollment data. ResultsApproximately 42% (n=12,853) of pre-kindergarten – 12th grade students participated in the SLIV program in Alachua. Of the 13,815 doses provided, 58% (8042) were non-VFC vaccine. Total implementation cost was $14.95/dose or $7.93/dose if “in-kind” costs were not included. The program generated a net surplus of $24,221, despite losing $4.68 on every VFC dose provided to Medicaid and uninsured children. With volunteers, 99% of Florida counties would be sustainable at a 50% vaccination rate and average reimbursement amount of $3.25 VFC and $37 non-VFC. Without volunteers, 69% of counties would be sustainable at 50% vaccination rate if all VFC recipients were on Medicaid and its reimbursement increased from $5 to $10 (amount private practices receive). Conclusions and relevanceKey factors that contributed to the sustainability and success of an SLIV program are: targeting privately insured children and reducing administration cost through volunteers. Counties with a high proportion of VFC eligible children may not be sustainable without subsidies at $5 Medicaid reimbursement.

Parental perceptions and predictors of consent for school-located influenza vaccination in urban elementary school children in the United States.

BackgroundSchool-located influenza vaccination (SLV) programs have the potential to mass-vaccinate all enrolled children, but parental consent is required.ObjectiveTo examine parental attitudes and determine predictors of parental consent for vaccination of schoolchildren through SLV programs.Patients/MethodsSurveys were distributed to parents of 4517 children during 2009–2010 (year 1) and 4414 children during 2010–2011 (year 2) in eight elementary schools in conjunction with a SLV program.ResultsParticipants included 1259 (27·9%) parents in year 1 and 1496 (33·9%) in year 2. Parental consent for 2009 H1N1, 2009 seasonal, and 2010 seasonal influenza vaccines was obtained from 738 (70·8%), 673 (64·5%), and 1151 (77·2%) respondents, respectively. During the 2009 pandemic, respondents concerned about influenza severity were twice as likely to consent for the 2009 H1N1 vaccination compared to unconcerned respondents (OR 2·04, 95% CI:1·19–3·51). During year 2, factors that predicted parental consent were the perception of high susceptibility to influenza infection (OR 2·19, 95% CI:1·50–3·19) and high benefit of vaccine (OR 2·23, 95% CI:1·47–3·40). In both years, college-educated parents were more likely to perceive vaccine risks (year 1: 83·6 versus 61·5%, P < 0·001 and year 2: 81·1% versus 60·6%, P < 0·001) and less likely to consent for seasonal influenza vaccine (year 1: OR 0·69, 95% CI:0·53–0·89 and year 2: OR 0·61, 95% CI:0·47–0·78) compared to non-college-educated parents.ConclusionsParents who appreciate the risks of influenza and benefits of vaccination are more likely to consent for SLV. More research is needed to determine how to address heightened safety concerns among college-educated parents.

Cost effectiveness analysis of Year 2 of an elementary school-located influenza vaccination program-Results from a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundSchool-located vaccination against influenza (SLV-I) has the potential to improve current suboptimal influenza immunization coverage for U.S. school-aged children. However, little is known about SLV-I’s cost-effectiveness. The objective of this study is to establish the cost-effectiveness of SLV-I based on a two-year community-based randomized controlled trial (Year 1: 2009–2010 vaccination season, an unusual H1N1 pandemic influenza season, and Year 2: 2010–2011, a more typical influenza season).MethodsWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on a two-year randomized controlled trial of a Western New York SLV-I program. SLV-I clinics were offered in 21 intervention elementary schools (Year 1 n = 9,027; Year 2 n = 9,145 children) with standard-of-care (no SLV-I) in control schools (Year 1 n = 4,534 (10 schools); Year 2 n = 4,796 children (11 schools)). We estimated the cost-per-vaccinated child, by dividing the incremental cost of the intervention by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the number of additionally vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools).ResultsIn Years 1 and 2, respectively, the effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 11.2 and 12.0 percentage points higher in intervention (40.7 % and 40.4 %) than control schools. In year 2, the cost-per-vaccinated child excluding vaccine purchase ($59.88 in 2010 US $) consisted of three component costs: (A) the school costs ($8.25); (B) the project coordination costs ($32.33); and (C) the vendor costs excluding vaccine purchase ($16.68), summed through Monte Carlo simulation. Compared to Year 1, the two component costs (A) and (C) decreased, while the component cost (B) increased in Year 2. The cost-per-vaccinated child, excluding vaccine purchase, was $59.73 (Year 1) and $59.88 (Year 2, statistically indistinguishable from Year 1), higher than the published cost of providing influenza vaccination in medical practices ($39.54). However, taking indirect costs (e.g., averted parental costs to visit medical practices) into account, vaccination was less costly in SLV-I ($23.96 in Year 1, $24.07 in Year 2) than in medical practices.ConclusionsOur two-year trial’s findings reinforced the evidence to support SLV-I as a potentially favorable system to increase childhood influenza vaccination rates in a cost-efficient way. Increased efficiencies in SLV-I are needed for a sustainable and scalable SLV-I program.