Methods | Purpose: to compare influenza vaccination uptake of those ≥ 65 attending primary care clinics which received an intervention to increase staff influenza vaccination uptake, or control (no staff intervention). No influenza intervention for patients Design: C‐RCT (intervention provided to staff in 13 intervention clinics and not provided in 14 control clinics) Duration of study: data extracted from HMO computers for 2007 to 2008 (intervention year) and previous year (2006 to 2007) Interval between intervention and when outcome was measured: 2007 to 2008 (intervention year) (no further details) Power computation: based on 2006 2007 imputed ICC = 0.019, for the sample of patients in 2007 to 2008 ≥ 65, alpha = 0.05, power = 80% for increase in vaccination uptake from 50% to 58%, and power of 90% for increase in vaccination uptake to 60% for the healthcare workers, based on previous year staff vaccination uptake, predicted 156 healthcare workers required in each of intervention and control groups for power = 90% to detect relative increase in staff immunisation from 30% to 50%, with alpha = 0.05 Statistics: odds ratios and 95% CI corrected for clustering, logistic regression |
|
Participants | Country: Israel Setting: 27 primary care community clinics Eligible participants: (health status); all healthcare workers in the 13 intervention clinics; all patients ≥ 65 in 13 intervention and 14 control clinics Age: ≥ 65; staff were all 344 physicians, nurses, pharmacists, administrative and ancillary staff with direct patient contact Gender of patients: 58% f |
|
Interventions | Intervention 1: intervention to increase staff influenza vaccination uptake in the Jerusalem area Control: no staff intervention Co‐interventions: none |
|
Outcomes | Outcome measured: % ≥ 65 influenza vaccination (intervention clinics 2006 to 2007 avg influenza vaccination uptake 58.1% (43.4% 2006 to 2007); control 56.7% (44.7%). Data are from Table 1, text offers different %s Time points reported in the study: 2007 to 2008 was intervention year (time points not stated) |
|
Notes | Funding: none stated | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Clinics randomly selected for staff intervention (method not stated) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No statement |
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | No statement |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Baseline 11,755 in 13 intervention clinics; 420 (3.6%) excluded as died or left clinics or moved to sheltered accomodation before end of intervention period; 15,660 in 14 control clinics, 503 (3.2%) excluded |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | No selective reporting |