Abstract
Annual influenza vaccination has long been recommended for the elderly population. Despite this recommendation, immunization rates have remained very low. This study measured the effects of two approaches to the provision of influenza immunization to the 65-years-and-over age group in a single family practice. The “drop-in” group (N=123) was informed of the availability of the vaccine at visits made during the vaccination period. The “phone” group (N=120) was notified of the availability of the vaccine by telephone and was invited to come in for the shot. An immunization rate of 50.8% for the “phone” group and 26.8% for the “drop-in” group was obtained (P=.0002). These results contrast strongly with the overall immunization rates of 5.9% and 9.5% obtained during the previous two years, when no active immunization policy was in place. The telephone approach was found to benefit the type of patient at greatest risk from influenza: the chronically ill and the aged. It is clear that having a defined immunization policy substantially improves the provision of influenza vaccination. The authors discuss the effectiveness and practicality of these approaches to the delivery of influenza vaccine and their applicability to other forms of prevention in family medicine.
Keywords: elderly, influenza vaccine, preventive medicine, telephone
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Anderson C., Martin H. Effectiveness of patient recall system on immunization rates for influenza. J Fam Pract. 1979 Oct;9(4):727–730. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barker W. H., Mullooly J. P. Influenza vaccination of elderly persons. Reduction in pneumonia and influenza hospitalizations and deaths. JAMA. 1980 Dec 5;244(22):2547–2549. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barker W. H., Mullooly J. P. Pneumonia and influenza deaths during epidemics: implications for prevention. Arch Intern Med. 1982 Jan;142(1):85–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Briscoe J. H. The protective effect of influenza vaccine in a mixed influenza A and B epidemic in a boys' boarding school. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1977 Jan;27(166):28–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Frank J. W., Henderson M., McMurray L. Influenza vaccination in the elderly: 1. Determinants of acceptance. Can Med Assoc J. 1985 Feb 15;132(4):371–375. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Henk M., Froom J. Outreach by primary-care physicians. JAMA. 1975 Jul 21;233(3):256–259. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Larson E. B., Olsen E., Cole W., Shortell S. The relationship of health beliefs and a postcard reminder to influenza vaccination. J Fam Pract. 1979 Jun;8(6):1207–1211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McDowell I., Newell C., Rosser W. Comparison of three methods of recalling patients for influenza vaccination. CMAJ. 1986 Nov 1;135(9):991–997. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Patriarca P. A., Weber J. A., Parker R. A., Hall W. N., Kendal A. P., Bregman D. J., Schonberger L. B. Efficacy of influenza vaccine in nursing homes. Reduction in illness and complications during an influenza A (H3N2) epidemic. JAMA. 1985 Feb 22;253(8):1136–1139. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ruben F. L., Johnston F., Streiff E. J. Influenza in a partially immunized aged population. Effectiveness of killed Hong Kong vaccine against infection with the England strain. JAMA. 1974 Nov 11;230(6):863–866. doi: 10.1001/jama.230.6.863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schoenbaum S. C. Influenza vaccine--unacceptable or unaccepted. Am J Public Health. 1979 Mar;69(3):219–221. doi: 10.2105/ajph.69.3.219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]