From: Effects of vaccine registration on disease prophylaxis: a systematic review
Study | Population | Intervention | Outcomes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study, year, country | Sample | Pathology | Instruments | Methodology | Prophylaxis | Technological progress in the health system |
[32] 2017, Nigeria | Babies aged 0 to 3 months, in paired setting with their mothers. N = 595 infants. Intervention group (IG)= 295; control group (CG) = 300 | Not stated | Questionnaires were used that addressed children’s immunizations and documented reminder activities for each participant. A weekly checklist was used to catch up and reschedule missed immunizations | The child’s primary caregiver received a reminder via cell phone call 2 days before the immunization and the day before. Children who were no-shows were automatically rescheduled for the next day | Increase in rate of compliance with immunization schedule by 79.2% and 46.6% in the control group (p < 0.001) | The use of electronic communication technology in public health interventions can improve immunization program adherence, promote health, and prevent disease |
[19] 2017, Michigan | Adolescents aged 10–18 whose parents were recruited via promotional emails Season 1 sample GI = 888; GC = 101 Season 2 sample GI = 1.088; GC = 167 | Influenza | Michigan Influenza Care Improvement Registry (MCR) is an app for tracking immunizations in children and adolescents < 20 years. The MCR was used to compare post-intervention data. Parents’ business email was used as a reminder to get vaccinated | Emails were sent in two flu seasons. During each season, 2 to 3 reminders were sent to patients, with an interval of 30 to 60 days between notifications. The child’s vaccination status was queried in the MCR before the reminder letters were sent out | Reminder in consecutive seasons was associated with a lower likelihood of influenza vaccination than those who received a reminder in only one season (aOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.55, 0.84). Adolescents eligible for influenza reminders in both seasons (n = 983 subjects; 548 in the notification group) were a subgroup that rarely received influenza vaccinations. Few (22%) were vaccinated in season 1 and 30% in season 2; only 14% of this subgroup received influenza vaccination in both seasons (p < 0.0001) | The use of technological tools to monitor and manage influenza vaccination could increase adherence. The ability to tailor reminders to patient preferences could increase responsiveness and have a greater impact on vaccination rates |
[20] 2018, Denver | Adults aged 19–64 years who were not vaccinated with the vaccines studied. They were divided into group 1 = no risk and group 2 = high risk | Influenza, Tdap, and PPSV23 | CIIS was the application used for vaccine monitoring. Reminders were sent by phone call or voice message | The IG, which consisted of patients classified as low risk, was contacted by reminders for approximately 3–4 months. Those who were not fully immunized against the vaccines analyzed were included | Although the results show that the CG had a higher probability of missing vaccination days compared to the low-risk population (2111/3301 68.1% intervention vs. 5510/8042 68.5% control, p = 0.65), (2928/4926 59.4% of intervention vs. 3022/4926 61.4% of control, p 0.05), no statistical differences were found between the two groups | No difference was observed after the intervention |
[21] 2020, Louisville | Adults between 18 and 65 years. n= 50.286 | Influenza | Participants were required to have the Humana Network Health Plan and the Human Wellbeing app installed. Reminders were sent via the app | Users registered vaccinations and received messages about vaccination reminders. Each time there was a user interaction in the immunization record, a scoring system was activated in the app. The messages sent were divided into 2 groups. In G1 = reward messages; G2 = vaccination reminders only; and G3 = no messages received | Of those who were to receive a message (G1 + G2, total N = 33.524), 7.764 (23.2%) received an influenza vaccination, compared with 3.696 (22.0%) individuals who were vaccinated in the control group. no message (G3). This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences when comparing reward and no-reward messages | A mobile vaccination reminder platform may increase influenza vaccination rates by more than 1%. However, the effectiveness of the reminder decreased with each message sent, suggesting that participants who respond to reminders may be activated by receiving a single message |
[22] 2015, New York | Adolescents aged 11–16 years who have not received HPV vaccination and whose parents have used public health services. n = 3.812 | HPV | Reminders via text messages by managed care organization (primary care). Registration and immunization data were recorded in MCO software | 39 primary care clinics were recruited, each enrolling more than 175 adolescents. After screening adolescents’ immunization data, the MCO programmer sent up to 04 text messages to remind them to bring their children for immunization. The GC consisted of messages that included general health guidelines but did not indicate the need for immunizations | In a post hoc analysis for all participants (i.e., all ages and both sexes) with valid phone numbers who did not opt out of receiving the introductory message, there was a 30% increase in HPV vaccination dose 1 (13% of the control group and 16% of the intervention group received a dose), controlling for age and sex (Table 3) (p = 0.04). There were no significant differences for doses 2 and 3 (p = 0.27 and p = 0.43, respectively) | The reminder system increased the vaccination rate of the intervention and control groups by more than 10% |
[23] 2020, New York and Colorado | Adolescents aged 11–19 years New York n = 30.616 Colorado n = 31.502. | HPV | CIIS, NYSIIS. CIIS, NYSIIS. Message reminder system | A 4-arm, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial conducted in 2 states. Patients aged 11 to 17.9 years who had not completed their HPV vaccination series were randomly assigned to receive 0, 1, 2, or 3 IIS C-R/R autodial messages per vaccine dose | In Colorado, the 1-call R/R arm had higher rates of HPV vaccination initiation than the control arm in unadjusted analyzes. In adjusted analyzes, the 1-call R/R arm (adjusted RR = 1.07; 95% CI 1.04–1.10) and the 3-call R/R arm (adjusted RR = 1.04; 95% CI 1.01–1.06) had higher initiation rates than the control arm | C-R/R based on IIS autodial reports for HPV. Vaccination was not effective in increasing HPV vaccination rates in New York. C-R/R is low-cost software, but further studies are needed to find better strategies to increase vaccination rates |