Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2002 Sep;52(482):712–716.

Boosting uptake of influenza immunisation: a randomised controlled trial of telephone appointing in general practice.

Sally Hull 1, Nicola Hagdrup 1, Ben Hart 1, Chris Griffiths 1, Enid Hennessy 1
PMCID: PMC1314410  PMID: 12236273

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Immunisation against influenza is an effective intervention that reduces serologically confirmed cases by between 60% and 70%. Almost all influenza immunisation in the UK is done within general practice. Current evidence on the effectiveness of patient reminders for all types of immunisation programmes is largely based on North American studies. AIM: To determine whether telephone appointments offered bygeneral practice receptionists increase the uptake of irfluenza immunisation among the registered population aged over 65 years in east London practices. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Three research general practices within the East London and Essex network of researchers (ELENoR). METHOD: Participants were 1,820 low-risk patients aged 65 to 74 years who had not previously been in a recall system for influenza immunisation at their general practice. The intervention, during October 2000, was a telephone call from the practice receptionist to intervention group households, offering an appointment for influenza immunisation at a nurse-run. clinic Main outcome measures were the numbers of individuals in each group receiving immunisation, and practice costs of a telephone-appointing programme. RESULTS: intention to treat analysis showed an immunisation rate in the control group of 44%, compared with 50% in the intervention group (odds ratio = 1.29, 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.63). Of the patients making a telephone appointment, 88% recieved immunisation, while 22% of those not wanting an appointment went on to be immunised. In the controlgroup, income generated was 11.35 pounds per immunisation, for each additional immunisation in the intervention group the income was 5.20 pounds. The 'number needed to telephone' was 17. CONCLUSION: Uptake of influenza immunisation among the low-risk older population in inner-city areas can be boosted by around 6% using a simple intervention by receptionists. Immunisation rates in this low-risk group fell well short of the 60% government target. Improving immunisation rates will require a sustained public health campaign. Retaining the item-of-service payments to practices should support costs of practice-based interventions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (75.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ahmed A. E., Nicholson K. G., Nguyen-Van-Tam J. S. Reduction in mortality associated with influenza vaccine during 1989-90 epidemic. Lancet. 1995 Sep 2;346(8975):591–595. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91434-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cate T. R. Clinical manifestations and consequences of influenza. Am J Med. 1987 Jun 19;82(6A):15–19. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(87)90555-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Christenson B., Lundbergh P., Hedlund J., Ortqvist A. Effects of a large-scale intervention with influenza and 23-valent pneumococcal vaccines in adults aged 65 years or older: a prospective study. Lancet. 2001 Mar 31;357(9261):1008–1011. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04237-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Clayton A. E., McNutt L. A., Homestead H. L., Hartman T. W., Senecal S. Public health in managed care: a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of postcard reminders. Am J Public Health. 1999 Aug;89(8):1235–1237. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.8.1235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cook R. J., Sackett D. L. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995 Feb 18;310(6977):452–454. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6977.452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gross P. A., Hermogenes A. W., Sacks H. S., Lau J., Levandowski R. A. The efficacy of influenza vaccine in elderly persons. A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 1995 Oct 1;123(7):518–527. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-123-7-199510010-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hart J. T. The inverse care law. Lancet. 1971 Feb 27;1(7696):405–412. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(71)92410-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hart J. T. The inverse care law. Lancet. 1971 Feb 27;1(7696):405–412. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(71)92410-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mangtani P., Roberts J. Influenza vaccination. Shot down. Health Serv J. 2000 Nov 2;110(5729):26–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Nguyen-Van-Tam J. S., Nicholson K. G. Influenza immunization; vaccine offer, request and uptake in high-risk patients during the 1991/2 season. Epidemiol Infect. 1993 Oct;111(2):347–355. doi: 10.1017/s0950268800057058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Szilagyi P. G., Bordley C., Vann J. C., Chelminski A., Kraus R. M., Margolis P. A., Rodewald L. E. Effect of patient reminder/recall interventions on immunization rates: A review. JAMA. 2000 Oct 11;284(14):1820–1827. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.14.1820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Wiselka M. Influenza: diagnosis, management, and prophylaxis. BMJ. 1994 May 21;308(6940):1341–1345. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6940.1341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES