ABSTRACT
Immunization is one of the most important public health interventions to contrast infectious disease; however, many people nowadays refuse vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is due to several factors that influence the complex decision-making process. Information technology tools might play an important role in vaccination programs. In particular, immunization information systems (IISs) have the potential to improve performance of vaccination programs and to increase vaccine uptake. This review aimed to present IIS functionalities in order to counter VH. In detail, we analyzed the automatic reminder/recall system, the interoperability of the system, the decision support system, the web page interface and the possibility to record adverse events following immunization. IIS could concretely represent a valid instrument to increase vaccine confidence, especially trust in both health-care workers and decision makers. There are not enough trials aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IIS to counter VH. Further researches might focalize on this aspect.
KEYWORDS: Immunization information system, vaccine, vaccine hesitancy, vaccines refuser, automatic reminder, vaccine confidence
Introduction
Vaccine hesitancy
Although vaccines represent one of the safest and most effective public health tools available to prevent and control infectious diseases, they are victims of their own success. Vaccine concern is as old as the vaccine itself, and although vaccines are safer than before, a recent review highlights discrepancy between scientific evidence and general perception.1 There is no unique form of vaccine hesitancy (VH), nor a single reason behind this hesitancy: reasons are contextual (cultural, religious and geographical) and sometimes even vaccine specific.2 According to the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy: “Vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services”.3 From the literature, it is known that vaccine hesitance is a continuum between full acceptors and total refusers.4 Moreover, the 3 C model emphasizes complacency, convenience and confidence as factors that can influence the parents’ complex decision-making process on immunization. Complacency is determined by the reduction of perceived disease risk, due to the low incidence of the infection. Confidence is the trust in vaccine safety and effectiveness, and the trust in policy makers who decide for vaccinations. Convenience refers to the comfort, appeal and the quality of the service (real or perceived), including economic and geographic factors, but also the ability of people to understand priority placed on immunization.3,5,6 As shown in the literature, the different proposed methods (i.e., reminder/recall and educational workshops) failed to motivate the total refusers compared to late/selective refusers or cautious acceptors; nevertheless, communication approaches should take into account the various degrees of hesitancy.7 The main public health issue related to VH is that the higher the VH, the less the vaccination rate, with decrease of herd immunity and higher risk of “old disease” outbreaks.8 In other words, the increasing VH could jeopardize the individual and societal ability to prevent the impact of vaccine preventable diseases (VPD). To bridge VH, World Health Organization (WHO) proposes the use of a proactive and methodological communication strategy to face the misinformation and to contrast the anti-immunization movement. Tailored programs could reduce the unvaccinated pocket population, interrupt the infective transmission chain and reach the aims of eradication (polio) and elimination (measles and rubella).9 Recently a review, published by Mayo Clinic experts, described what approach should be taken toward addressing VH.10 They suggest (1) improving reminder/recall communications; (2) spreading vaccine schedules among physicians; (3) reducing as much as possible missed opportunities to delivery vaccines; (4) addressing hesitancy; (5) using a standard protocol; (6) having clear recommendations and (7) increasing pediatrician or general practitioner (GP) involvement in an immunization information system (IIS). Due to the cultural heterogeneity in VH, the proposed multiple approach should be tailored for each country, since it covers many of the key factors like offering an easy access to vaccination, communication mediated through health-care workers (HCWs), availability of information for action and understanding the reasons of VH.
IISs
IISs are confidential, electronic population-based systems storing individual-level data on vaccines received within a given geopolitical area.11 These electronic registries store and provide access to consolidate personal immunization information. IIS has the potential to improve the performance of vaccination programs and to increase vaccine uptake. The importance of IIS and information technology tools for the vaccination programs was recognized by the Council of the European Union, in the Council Conclusions on 6 June 2011 on childhood immunization, followed by the Council Conclusions 1 December 2014 on vaccination: “…consider introducing or further developing immunisation information systems, including improved registration, where applicable, and pharmacovigilance systems”.
Indeed IIS is also mentioned in the European Vaccine Action plan 2015–2020, the most recently launched global effort by the WHO.12 Furthermore, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) recently published a technical guidance aimed to provide support in plan, operation, management or continuous enhancement of IIS.13
IISs are also known as immunization registries, and in the majority of cases, data are entered by HCWs, whilst sometimes, the general population may also enter data, followed by a GP’s approval. IISs are integrated systems in which all the entire process of vaccination is managed and recorded including the logistical aspect of the management of the vaccination services. So often, IIS is able to generate reminder and recall notifications, and it is largely used to assess vaccination coverage within a defined geographic area. Moreover, because in some countries, the vaccination services are private, the functions dedicated to recording of the vaccinated population are well separated from the other dedicated to the management of vaccination process and call of the people. Most IISs have additional capabilities, such as monitoring vaccine stocks to facilitate timely procurement of vaccines in order to limit wastage and ensure adequate supplies, as well as monitoring of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) reporting, and communicating with other health information systems, in particular with civil and cancer registries. The interoperability with civil registries allows the maintenance of birth-to-death vaccination histories, while the interconnection with the cancer registry is useful for efficacy/effectiveness study, particularly for vaccine-preventable cancers such as Hepatitis B virus (HBV) or HPV. Moreover, IIS can provide accurate data on which to make informed vaccination decisions and better protect against vaccine-preventable diseases. IISs have the potential to improve the performance of vaccination programs and to increase vaccine uptake; the strength of IIS is to provide decision makers with support for a vaccine strategy aimed to evaluate the efficacy of such vaccine policy and to improve program management. In our historical context, where VH is one of the most important challenges in the VPD field and since VH is a personal/community behavior choice in a specific context and for specific vaccines, it is important to know who, why and where VH is distributed (in socio-cultural, political, religious and geographical context). Even if the hesitants do not strictly match with not vaccinated, because it is possible that hesitants delay the vaccination; IIS could help to fight VH through recording additional information regarding reasons for delay, interruption or refusal vaccinations. However, a review by Schuster et al. revealed gaps in knowledge especially due to the paucity of studies from middle- and low-income settings.1 This is one of the possible applications of IIS for VH, also in the low- and middle-income countries, especially because several incoming countries are developing or piloting these instruments. The ECDC provided the last updating data on IIS implementation among European countries,14 while WHO made available data for the other developing countries.15
Study aim
The aim of this review was to present the advantages coming from the use of IIS as a tool able to counter VH. It is extremely important to take into account that VH is only one determinant of vaccine uptake and several other factors impact on that, such as vaccines supply, availability and accessibility to immunization services. In this paper, we only presented the IIS applicability on countering VH. In particular, we focalized our attention on: (1) automatic reminder/recall; (2) assessment of vaccines refusers and vaccines recipients characteristics; (3) interoperability with other electronic registries and decision support system; (4) evaluation of vaccine program performance; (5) possibility to record AEFI; (6) social mobilization to promote vaccine programs and (7) geographical distribution and clusters of vaccine hesitants. Each of the following aspects of IIS is discussed in reference to the 3C model, as depicted in Figure 1.
Methods
We conducted a narrative review, as a comprehensive qualitative synthesis of previously published information.16 The original research articles were retrieved from PubMed and Embase on June 2016, using a combination of MeSH term and free text words. The search terms were electronic, computerized, registr*, register*, immunization, immunisation, vaccin*, “immunization registr*”, “immunisation registr*”, “vaccination registr*”, “vaccine hesitancy”, barrier*. Nevertheless, a manual check of the reference lists of the retrieved studies was carried out, in order to further identify proper articles. The articles were included in this narrative review whether they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) full text available; (2) articles using IISs as primary data source and (3) articles focusing on IIS’s functionalities useful to counter VH (as previously detailed).
Exclusion criteria were: (1) studies without original data (abstract, letters to editor, editorials, comments and commentaries) and (2) studies published in Congress proceedings and gray literature. No time filter was applied. Only articles in English were evaluated. Synthetic description of included articles is reported in Table 1, whilst papers considered more relevant were deeply discussed in the text.
Table 1.
Reference | Country | Name of IIS | Study aim | Main results |
---|---|---|---|---|
IIS functionality explored: recall | ||||
Chung17 | USA | North Carolina Immunization Registry | Evaluate the efficacy of registry-driven recall | VC was higher in intervention counties compared to the control |
Clark18 | USA | Michigan IIS | Evaluate parental’ s experiences and preferences about reminder/recall | 56% of parents preferred to register their cell phone number and to receive call or text messages |
Crawford19 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate the effect of post card recall on VC | The post card recall did not increase significantly the VC |
Custis20 | USA | WIZRD | Evaluate the effect of recall letter on VC | The recall letter did not increase significantly the VC |
Dombkowski21 | USA | Michigan Care Improvement Registry | Assess feasibility for initiating a recall by private sector | The cost of recall intervention ranged between $0.05 and $6 per children |
Dombkowski22 | USA | Michigan Care Improvement Registry | Evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of recall during seasonal flu campaign | Recall group had a VC significantly higher compared to the control group |
Dombkowski23 | USA | Michigan Care Improvement Registry | Assess the completeness of parent contact information | Adolescents had the lowest data completeness |
Dombkowski24 | USA | Michigan Care Improvement Registry | Evaluate the effect of centralized recall strategies on children VC | Children 19 months old in the recall group had significantly higher immunization activity compared to children who did not receive a recall notification |
Dombkowski25 | USA | Michigan Care Improvement Registry | Evaluate the effect of recall strategies for flu vaccination, among chronic children | The recall strategy increased significantly the VC among intervention group compared to control |
Hofstetter26 | USA | New York State IIS | Determine the impact of text message on flu VC among unvaccinated children | Beneficial effect of educational plus interactive text message on VC |
Kempe27 | USA | Colorado IIS | Compared population-based recall vs. practice-based recall | Population-based recall was more effective and cost-effective |
Kempe28 | USA | Colorado IIS | Compared collaborative centralized vs. practice-based recall approaches | The centralized recall was more cost-effective compared to practice-based ($11.75 vs. $74.00 per child, and vaccination was performed in 19.2% vs. 9.8% of children) |
Morris29 | USA | San Diego Immunization Registry | Compare 4 types of recall: postcard, text message, e-mail, phone call and nonintervention control group | The text message group had the highest VC |
Saville30 | USA | Colorado IIS | Identify parents’ preferences on type of recall | The most preferred recall was mail, followed by telephone, e-mail and lastly messages |
Stockwell31 | USA | New York Citywide Immunization Registry | Evaluate the effect of educational recall messages | Children and adolescents who received the recall had higher VC compared to control |
Stockwell32 | USA | New York Citywide Immunization Registry | Evaluate the efficacy of two types of recall (paper mail plus text messages vs. paper mail) | Text-messaging platform integrated with the IIS was developed and users who received text messages had higher VC |
Stockwell33 | USA | New York Citywide Immunization Registry | Evaluate the efficacy of recall on health record | The recall increased documentation of the reason for vaccine non-administration |
Suh34 | USA | Computerized immunization registry in Denver Community Health Services | Estimate the effectiveness of automatic recalls | The intervention group had significantly higher VC for at least one vaccine and for all targeted vaccines |
IIS functionality explored: reminder | ||||
Allison35 | USA | Regional IIS | Evaluate the effectiveness of a reminder for flu seasonal vaccine in chronic patients | VC in chronic patients did not change during the study period. However, the VC in healthy children reduced |
Brousseau36 | Canada | Vaccination registry VAXIN | Evaluate the impact of feedback to immunization providers | Provide feedback to vaccinators, promoted a changes in immunization providers’ habits |
Crawford37 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate the effectiveness of an audit findings feedback | Reminder improved vaccine delivery |
IIS functionality explored: characteristics of vaccine refusers and vaccine recipients | ||||
Beard38 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate the trend of vaccination objections | The objections recorded increased over the time. Children resident in low SES area had the higher rate of vaccination objections |
Bernhardt39 | New Zealand | New Zealand National Immunisation Register | Explore association between vitamin K prophylaxis decline and low acceptance of vaccination | Refusing vitamin K prophylaxis was associated with low acceptance of vaccinations |
Feemster40 | USA | Vaccines for Children program database | Identify characteristics of children who delay vaccination | Maternal characteristics and type of prenatal care visits were associated with vaccines delay |
Feiring41 | Norway | Norwegian Immunisation Registry | Identify reasons to not accept HPV vaccination | Parental education and income were associated with HPV vaccine acceptance |
Forbes7 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate the vaccination uptake after immunization consultation among hesitant parents | 42% of hesitant parents accepted the vaccination after the consultation |
Gold42 | USA | Oregon’s IIS | Evaluate timing of HPV vaccination | Age and ethnicity were associated with timely and completion of vaccination |
Gowda43 | USA | Michigan Care Improvement Registry | Identify factors associated to vaccination acceptance | Age, provider type and childhood immunization history were factors associated with vaccination acceptance |
Grant44 | New Zealand | New Zealand National Immunisation Register | Identify antenatal factors associated to vaccination acceptance | Addressing vaccine concerns during antenatal periods increases vaccination acceptance |
Gupta45 | USA | Virginia’s Statewide IIS | Identify factors associated to vaccination acceptance | Access limitations, perception of low urgency and safety of vaccine were main factors |
Hofstetter46 | USA | New York State Citywide IIS | Identify characteristics of children who performed vaccination in time | Missed opportunities and ethnicity were negatively associated with timeliness |
Lin47 | China | China Information Management System for Immunization Programming | Identify factors associated with measles vaccination delay | Immigration, sex, low SES, had a history of delays in other vaccinations and had parents who did not believe in vaccinations importance were determinants of measles vaccination delay |
MacDonald48 | Canada | Canadian Regional Immunization Registry | Identify reasons for partial immunization | Safety concern, lack of awareness and lack of trust in the health institutions were the most frequent reasons for partial immunizations |
Martinez-Baz49 | Spain | Population-based vaccination registry | Analyze factors influencing continued adherence to flu vaccination | Number of physician visits per year, sex, age and major chronic condition were statistically associated with flu vaccination |
Nadeau50 | USA | New York State IIS | Evaluation of trends in alternative schedule compliance | Alternative schedule was mainly adopted by children not up-to-date at age 9 months, with 2 extra vaccine visits compared to children following standard schedules |
Riise51 | Norway | Norwegian Immunisation Registry SYSVAK | Identify characteristic of children delaying vaccinations | Be an immigrant children, vaccinations scheduled during summer and first dose of measles had the higher odds to delay vaccination |
Robison52 | USA | Oregon ALERT IIS | Evaluation of trends in alternative schedule compliance | Alternative schedule was increasingly adopted during the study period |
Schmitt53 | USA | Florida statewide immunization registry | Examine factors associated with HPV immunization timely completion | Women under Medicaid were less likely to complete the vaccination on time, as African-Americans, and aged 18–21 |
Tan54 | USA | North Caroline Immunization Registry | Assess characteristic of girls in time with the HPV vaccination | Ethnicity and race, such as having received previous vaccine doses in time, were associated to receive HPV vaccine doses on time |
Van Keulen55 | Netherlands | Dutch national immunization register Præventis | Evaluate the factors related to HPV vaccination acceptance | Social–psychological variables largely impacted on HPV vaccination acceptance |
van Lier56 | Netherlands | Dutch national immunization register Præventis | Identify uptake vaccine determinants | Low VC was associated with had at least one parent born out of the Netherlands and low SES |
Wagner57 | United Kingdom | CHIS | Monitoring vaccination coverage by ethnicity | Ethnicity but not deprivation was associated with VC. Practitioner not in practice in the CHIS decreased the odd to be vaccinated |
Wei58 | USA | Vaccine Safety Datalink | Assess refusal status | Racial, education and income characteristics were associated with vaccinations refuse |
Wilson59 | Canada | Immunization Records Information System | Evaluate the trend of nonmedical expectations | Religious/Conscientious exemptions increased over the study period |
Wilson60 | Canada | Immunization Records Information System | Evaluate the trend of nonmedical expectations | Nonmedical exemptions increased over the period |
Woestenberg61 | Netherlands | Dutch national immunization register Præventis | Estimate the timeliness vaccination among preterm infants | Urbanity, being vaccinated in hospital, ethnicity, gestational age and birth weight impact on vaccination timeliness |
IIS functionality explored: missed opportunities | ||||
Berling62 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Estimate missed opportunities in local ED | 35/95 cases were missed opportunities |
Daley63 | USA | Regional IIS | Assess frequency of missed opportunities | Missed opportunities occurred approximately in 70% of all vaccine-eligible visits |
Oltean64 | USA | Washington State IIS | Estimate missed opportunities for HPV | One-third of eligible unvaccinated girls and two of five eligible boys aged 11–17 y had at least one missed opportunity to receive HPV |
Shingler65 | New Zealand | New Zealand National Immunisation Register | Evaluate the effectiveness of an audit of missed opportunities | The majority of children under immunized were vaccinated in hospital setting |
Verani66 | USA | New York State IIS | Assess the prevalence of missed opportunities | Missed opportunities had occurred in 82.2% of all vaccine-eligible visits |
Way67 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Estimate the proportion of missed opportunities in ED | Half of the children overdue for immunization remained under immunized for more than 77 d in mean |
IIS functionality explored: interoperability and DSS | ||||
Hosseini68 | Iran | Iran’s IIS | Simplify and encourage the use of decision system support within the IIS | Address interoperability within and between IISs |
Rajamani69 | USA | Minnesota Immunization Information Connection | Evaluate the utilization of DSS for immunizations | 59% of queries identified a successful record |
Stevens70 | USA | California Immunization Registry | Develop an integrated interface between IIS and EMR | The new interface was considered more comfortable and efficient by physicians |
Swenson71 | USA | Regional IIS | Evaluate the effect of DSS on VC | DSS identified more patients increasing VC among adults |
IIS functionality explored: vaccine program performance | ||||
Ali72 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate if visiting practices with low VC increase the immunization rate | The intervention increase the VC |
Brotherton73 | Australia | Australian National HPV Vaccination Program Register | Evaluate the efficacy of a school-based approach | 70% of girls in this age group was fully vaccinated |
Cates74 | USA | Sentinel IIS sites | Evaluate the effect of a social marketing intervention to increase HPV VC | VC increased by 34% |
Clayton75 | USA | Michigan Care Improvement Registry | Evaluate the effect of immunization provider type | Public providers had lower odds of vaccinating children compared to private |
Ernst76 | USA | Arizona State IIS | Evaluate the effect of new policy on HAV VC | Differences were found among the regions with different policies implemented |
Feiring77 | Norway | Norwegian Immunisation Registry | Efficacy of selective immunization strategy | Selective vaccination reached lower rate of VC compared to universal program |
Hull78 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate the impact of introduction of new vaccine (rotavirus) | Timeliness of other vaccinations improve |
Humiston79 | USA | New York State Citywide IIS | Evaluate the impact of SLV influenza programs | Intervention group had higher VC compared to control group |
Isaac80 | Canada | Manitoba IIS | Evaluate the efficacy of home visiting programs on VC | VC increased among families enrolled in the home visiting program compared to controls |
Kansagra81 | USA | New York State Citywide IIS | Evaluate the impact of SLV influenza programs to reach children never immunized against flu | SLV reach more children never immunized |
Kharbanda82 | USA | New York State Citywide IIS | Evaluate VC changes after the introduction of school mandated immunization | VC increased during the study period |
Melinkovich83 | USA | Computerized immunization registry in Denver Community Health Services | Evaluate VC after implementation of combined several types of activities | Financial incentives and shared strategy and policy increased VC |
Moore84 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate the effect of policy initiatives on VC | Proactive follow up of children, more sustain for immunization services and centralization of vaccine delivery service increased VC |
Moss85 | USA | North Carolina Immunization Registry | Analyze organization aspects of clinics that impact on vaccination acceptance | Pediatrics clinics specializing in pediatry had higher VC for pediatrics vaccines but not for HPV, also vaccination documentation type impact on VC |
Moss86 | USA | North Carolina Immunization Registry | Evaluate the efficacy of a brief intervention on HPV VC | The intervention (webinar) increased VC during the study period |
Potter87 | USA | Michigan Care Improvement Registry | Evaluate the effect of new school rules and vaccine coadministration | The new policy was associated with high completion rate of the vaccines required |
Rehn88 | Sweden | Swedish vaccination register SVEVAC | Evaluate the efficacy of implementation strategies | Counties offering vaccination in school had higher VC compared to counties without vaccination program in school |
Simpson89 | USA | Arizona State IIS | Evaluate the VC changes after the school entry mandate | After the school entry mandate the VC increased |
Sull90 | USA | New York State Citywide IIS | Estimate the effect of vaccine coadministration on VC | Age-specific VC increased |
Suryadevara91 | USA | New York State IIS | Estimate the efficacy of multicomponent community-based interventions | VC increased after providing practical information about where, why and how to perform vaccinations |
Teplow- Phipps 92 | USA | New York State Citywide IIS | Identify factors associated with early uptake and completeness of immunization | Greater odds of early uptake were registered among publicly insured adolescents, while completion was higher in private hospital |
Ward93 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluation of varicella vaccination program implementation | The introduction of public-funded vaccination increased VC in 24 months aged children, but not in adolescents |
IIS functionality explored: record or link AEFIs data | ||||
Alguacil-Ramos94 | Spain | Vaccination Information System | Estimate the incidence of AEFIs | An increased number of AEFIs were recorded after the switch from DTaP to Tdap |
Arnheim-Dahlstrom137 | Sweden | Swedish vaccination register SVEVAC | Evaluate incidence of epileptic seizures after A/H1N1 vaccination | No association between epileptic seizures and flu vaccination |
Baker95 | USA | Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Virginia IIS | Merge data from different database to evaluate the efficacy of a post-licensure vaccine safety program (PRISM) | The PRISM was complete enough to guaranty a valid surveillance system |
Bakken96 | Norway | Norwegian Immunisation Register | Estimate the risk of febrile seizure after flu infection or vaccination (A/H1N1) | The risk of febrile seizure was higher in both group |
Buttery97 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate the risk of intussusception after rotavirus vaccination | No significant increased risk of intussusception, but there was some evidence of higher risk following the first dose |
Carlin98 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate the risk of intussusception after rotavirus (Rotarix and RotaTeq) vaccination | Similar increased risk after both types of vaccine; however, the benefits were higher compared to the risk |
Conlin99 | USA | The National Smallpox Vaccine in Pregnancy Registry | Evaluate the risk of pregnancy loss after inadvertently smallpox and/or anthrax vaccination | No risk after inadvertently smallpox and/or anthrax vaccination during pregnancy |
De Wals100 | Canada | Meningococcal Vaccination Registry | Analyze mortality after meningococcal C vaccination | Mortality rate for all causes was higher in the control group |
Dey101 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Identify a proxy for an early-onset AEFIs | Representation to general practice, 48 h after immunization, is a good proxy of early-onset AEFIs |
Gold102 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate the association between MMR vaccination and febrile convulsion | Confirmation of association between MMR vaccination and febrile convulsion |
Håberg103 | Norway | Norwegian Immunisation Register | Evaluate the risk of fetal death after flu vaccination during pregnancy | No association between flu vaccination in pregnancy and fetal death was associated. Fetal death was higher after flu infection in pregnancy |
Heier104 | Norway | Norwegian Immunisation Register | Estimate the risk of narcolepsy after A/H1N1 vaccination | Risk of narcolepsy was higher in children 4–19 y old |
Hu105 | China | Individual IIS | Describe the reported AEFIs | The majority of AEFIs recorded were nonserious events |
Kiraly106 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Estimate the risk of allergy after DTaP vaccination | No increased risk of atopy was found |
Liang107 | China | National IIS’s National Adverse Event Following Immunization Surveillance System | Assess the post-marketing safety of flu vaccination | No patterns of AEFIs were identified |
Liu108 | Canada | Alberta Immunization and Adverse Reaction to Immunization | Estimate the incidence of AEFIs and venous thromboembolism, after HPV vaccination | Incidence of AEFIs was within the expected rate |
Lloyd-Johnsen109 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Estimate the incidence of intussusception after rotavirus vaccination among patients admitted to the Royal Children’s Hospital | Intussusception after vaccination occurred in 27 patients admitted to the Royal Children’s Hospital |
Macartney110 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate the association between MMR and varicella vaccination and febrile convulsion | There was an association between MMR vaccination and febrile convulsion, but not for varicella vaccine |
Persson111 | Sweden | Swedish vaccination register SVEVAC | Evaluate the risk of neurological and immune-related diseases after A/H1N1 vaccination | Increased risk of narcolepsy in subjects younger than 20 y old |
Rouleau112 | Canada | Provincial Pandemic Influenza Vaccination Registry | Identify risk factors associated with anaphylaxis after flu pandemic vaccination | Women with acute respiratory infection or food allergy had higher risk of anaphylaxis |
Rousseau113 | Canada | Québec BCG Vaccination Registry | Evaluate the association between BCG vaccine and diabetes | No association was found |
Schurink-van114 | Netherlands | Dutch national immunization register Præventis | Estimate the risk of migraine after HPV vaccination | No association was found |
Stehr-Green115 | New Zealand | New Zealand National Immunisation Register | Estimate the risk of bronchiolitis after meningococcal B vaccination | No association was found |
Van Der Maas116 | Netherlands | Dutch national immunization register Præventis | Identify potential AEFIs after HPV vaccination | No severe AEFIs were found, neither venous thromboembolic events |
IIS functionality explored: social mobilization | ||||
Robison117 | USA | Oregon ALERT Immunization Information System | Produce more accurate VC rate among adolescents, weighting individual records by the length of time since last activity | Weighting individual records improved the fit of IIS data |
Wilson118 | Canada | Immunization Records Information System | Assess mobile phone software as a tool to solve the issue of people’s mobility | Mobile technologies can empower individuals with their own health information |
IIS functionality explored: identify barriers | ||||
Charland119 | Canada | Montreal IIS | Identify barriers for under-immunization | Ethnic–religious barriers and socioeconomic barriers such us poverty, immigrant status, high residential density, material deprivation and high violent crime rates impacted on VC |
Fu120 | USA | Washington, IIS | Evaluation of spatial accessibility and vaccination compliance | Having high level of access to pediatric vaccination providers is associated with high vaccination compliance |
Hull121 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Estimate the 7vPCV coverage in Aboriginal | VC vary significantly between the very remote areas and the accessible districts |
Hull122 | Australia | Australian Childhood Immunisation Register | Evaluate factors associated with vaccination timeliness | Timeliness is negatively associated with age, remoteness and later doses of vaccine |
IIS functionality explored: geographical distribution | ||||
Barbaro123 | Australia | National HPV Vaccination Program Register | Geographic distribution of HPV VC | VC in low SES areas was lower than in high SES areas |
Brien124 | Canada | Immunization Records Information System | Geographic distribution of VC | VC in low SES areas was lower than in high SES areas |
Eccles125 | Canada | Immunization Records Information System | Geospatial distribution of MMR vaccination | Clusters of high immunization rates in the center compared to low rate in south and north |
Mueller126 | New Zealand | New Zealand National Immunisation Register | Identify geographical distribution and disparities in immunization uptake | Ethnicity, low SES, year of birth and geographic location were associated with low immunization |
Teng127 | Haiti | Electronic immunization system developed ad hoc | Monitor the vaccination campaign after cholera outbreak in Haiti | Identification of geographical distribution of community coverage |
Thompson128 | USA | Florida Department of Health IIS | Identify geographical distribution after the outbreak of measles | It was possible to map the percent of children with religious exemptions, children on track or overdue for each vaccine series and children with no recorded vaccine |
Trogdon129 | USA | North Carolina Immunization Registry | Evaluate spatial patterns in HPV vaccination acceptance | Identification of underimmunized cluster that were low public-funded areas |
Trogdon130 | USA | North Carolina Immunization Registry | Evaluate spatial patterns in flu vaccination acceptance | Underimmunized cluster were in low public-funded areas |
Wagner131 | China | Shanghai Immunization Program Information System | Evaluate the effect of urbanity on VC | Disparities were higher in migrant population compared to locals, and it was higher in suburb areas |
HCW: Health-care worker; VH: vaccine hesitancy; IIS: immunization information system; AEFIs: adverse events following immunizations; HPV: human papilloma virus; VC: vaccination coverage; SES: socioeconomic status; ED: emergency department; EMR: electronic medical records; SLV: school-located vaccination; MMR: measles, mumps, rubella; HAV: hepatitis A virus; DSS: decision support systems; BCG: Bacillus Calmette–Guérin; WIZARD: web-based immunization registry database; CHIS: child health information systems.
Results
Automatic reminder/recall
One of the benefits of IIS is the potential for generating automatic reminders or recalls. This review identified 21 articles focused on reminder/recall and the IIS. Usually, the reminder/recall is developed to provide information about vaccination delivery, such as vaccines recommended or mandated for a child at a specific age and, in some cases, educational information is also provided.17–34 Nowadays, many IISs are developed with a built-in reminder system that automatically emits reminders. These automated systems can send reminders directly to people who are in due for a vaccination, or otherwise, other automatic feedback/reminders are sent to health professionals, in order to be updated on the patients who have to be called for the next vaccination.13 In 2012, IIS was used, for the first time, as a tool able to evaluate the efficacy of two different methods of reminders (paper mail plus text messages versus paper mail).32 Indeed, researchers developed a text-messaging platform integrated with the IIS aimed to estimate the list of persons to be contacted. At the end of the study (January–June 2009), 21.8% of the patients who received text messages compared to 9.2% (p = 0.02) who received only a letter were vaccinated. The same results were also obtained by Morris et al., who compared four different types of recall: postcard, text message, e-mail, phone call and nonintervention control group.29 In this trial, the group who received a text message was the group with the highest rate of vaccination attendance (32.1% compared to 9.7% in the nonintervention group). Moreover, text message appeared to be the most effective system: fewer days passed between the reminder and when people were vaccinated (110 d compared to 234 d for nonintervention control).
Given the utility of a text-message reminder, the impact of (1) an educational and interactive text message, (2) educational only text-message reminder and (3) usual protocol (telephone appointment reminder with general information on vaccination) on flu vaccine coverage in children (aged 6 months–17 y) who were not vaccinated until mid-November 201126 was also compared. The results proved the beneficial effect of text messages, especially the educational plus interactive text message (p < 0.02 compared to usual care and p = 0.04 compared to only educative text message). The possible explanation, as the authors suggested is that the interactivity increased the sense of responsibility due to the parents’ active engagement that, in the 3C model, is represented by complacency. The text messages were sent by a platform, named EzVac, connected to the IIS. The IIS was also used to check the vaccination status and the timeliness of vaccinations. Recently, Suh and colleagues showed the greater adherence and cost-effectiveness of the recalls generated automatically from the centralized IIS compared to population-based recalls.34
These results highlight how new technology such as text messages and IIS can improve vaccine coverage, especially if mobile phone numbers are recorded as a part of the registration process and if the IIS is connected to the civil registry.132 This last option could serve as a way to geo-localize patients and to send them a more tailored messaging reminder, for example, messages with information on where and when they can be vaccinated or how to receive more information. These functionalities can contrast VH by increasing convenience. Indeed, according to the 3C model, providing information on the vaccination delivery might influence convenience due to an increased perceived quality of services. Clark et al. conducted a cross-sectional web-based national survey of parents of children 0–17 y old, evaluating the experiences and preferences about reminder/recall immunization messages.18 They found that 76% of parents received vaccination notices by mail, by e-mail and call to mobile phone and that none received a text message. However, only 33% of the parents preferred to still receive notices by mail, while 3% preferred to receive text messages, and 56% of parents indicated that they would be willing to register their cell phone number to receive future call or text messages with information regarding immunization. The IIS could be a useful tool to record parental preferences about reminder/recall message modes. In general, the new technologies could help to increase parental empowerment regarding child vaccination, thanks to educational and tailored text messages, based on the characteristics of child, vaccinations and doses. However, to better understand text messaging, the methodologies and the applicability of this innovative system, other studies are ongoing.133 In particular, we expect future studies on the application of social software (e.g., WhatsApp) that could represent the next and cheaper strategy compared to the text messages.
Usually, this reminder/recall approach is designed for the user but several studies evaluate the possibility to also send a reminder to the HCW.35–37 This particular type of feedback/reminder is based on the vaccine coverage data and on the best evidence-based practice. Different organizational models are in place in different countries; however, the main advantage is that HCW can personalize immunization care, tailor counseling and lastly move from administrative to involvement tasks. Brousseau and colleagues demonstrated how providing feedback to vaccinators is an effective strategy to improve vaccine coverage and reduce vaccine delay.36 In this study, IIS was used to identify the clinics that had administered the highest number of doses of DTaP–polio–Hib, pneumococcal, meningococcal and mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) in 2007 in Quebec City, to calculate the vaccine coverage rate before and after the intervention and to establish the number of vaccination delays. During the two feedback sessions (before and after the intervention), authors presented the coverage data, the vaccine delays data obtained for the previous years and the best evidence practice; moreover, they also surveyed the organizational characteristic of the clinics. After a 12-month period, they found an increased number of administered doses and an increase in proportion of vaccines administered in time. A statistically significant increase was observed for DTaP–polio–Hib and pneumococcal (both +9% p < 0.001) using the 1-week delay definition. No significant statistics were observed for the 1-month definition. Moreover, after the intervention (provide feedback to vaccinators), four of the ten respondent clinics changed their habits, encouraging multiple injections and two of them improved nurse contribution. Among these four clinics, the vaccine delay was significantly decreased. The increasing proportion of infants immunized within a 1-month delay ranged from 32% to 44.6% (p < 0.001) for pneumococcal vaccine. The proportion of infants immunized without delay for MMR increased from 27.4% to 67.6% (p < 0.001) and from 56.5% to 80.9% (p < 0.001) for meningococcal.
Finally, these data highlight the important role played by IIS in vaccination reminders both to parent/patients and to HCW. Indeed, with educational text messages, parents can improve their empowerment on vaccination and are also facilitated with respect to the immunization schedule, while HCW can update, in real time, the immunization status of their patients. This shows that IIS could counteract VH by increasing the number of opportunities during which hesitant parents could discuss immunization with professionals. According to the 3C model, this could be beneficial to increase confidence and to contrast complacency.
Characteristics of vaccines refusers and vaccines recipients
Several recent reports confirm that the “new” outbreaks of measles and pertussis, for example, start in unvaccinated individuals and then spread to children whose vaccination may have failed. Due to these fundamental public health issues and the decreased immunization coverage, it is extremely important to know refusal and recipients characteristics. We identified 25 papers aimed to explore the characteristics of refusal or recipients.7,38–61 Wei and colleagues used the information from the IIS to assess refusal status and then retrieved the racial, education and income characteristics from the census tract.58 In this study, refusers had higher education levels and incomes p < 0.03 compared to non-refusers. Moreover, the refusers had no well-child visit and, compared to non-refusers, a higher percentage of refusers took antibiotics or seizure medications (p = 0.0003).
Van Lier and colleagues, using IIS, were able to outline the incomplete vaccination status of children in the Netherlands. The partially immunized children had at least one parent born out of the Netherlands or in no Western country; even a low socioeconomic status was associated with low vaccination coverage.56 Another example comes from the study by MacDonald et al. where they assess, through a postal questionnaire, the reasons for no vaccination, or partial immunization, in children 2 y old during the period May 2008–April 2009 in Edmonton, Canada.48 The obtained results show that concerns about vaccine safety, lack of awareness about disease severity and susceptibility and lack of trust in the health institutions and government were the most frequent reasons for partial immunizations, whereas children attending day care who had regular contact with a pediatrician and had at least one parent working outside the home were the most likely to complete the vaccinations. From these studies, it is noticeable how IIS might resolve the issue related to identification of unvaccinated people, especially if vaccine refusals are recorded as a part of the registration process and if the IIS is connected to pediatricians or family doctors’ software (electronic medical record systems). This function of IIS, if concretely used, could be important to contrast “complacency”, because it could allow analysis of parents’ reluctance.
Moreover, IISs may allow to record parents’ reasons of vaccinations refusal. Beard et al. published in 2016 a study evaluating the trend of vaccination objections.38 People more affected by vaccine objections were the groups aged 12 months to 7 y old, in the lowest 10% of postcodes regarding socioeconomic status, while children born overseas had less registered objections.
Health programs rarely have the ability to track and follow-up vaccination refusers. It may seem to be expensive and time consuming but previous epidemiological studies have shown that refusers are able to transmit diseases to vaccinated individuals (taking into account vaccine efficacy and full immunization of people) when the two groups are mixed in a crowded area. Also Italy, with a subnational IIS – a national IIS, in Italy, is currently establishing134 – was able to analyze reason of vaccinations refusal.135 The IIS can provide the needed fundamentals to record the refusal status and the reasons for refusal.
Through IIS, it could also be possible to study the profile of people vaccinated and the characteristics of those who complete vaccination on time. Martinez-Baz et al., using a population-based vaccination registry (IIS), evaluated the proportion of persons vaccinated against influenza in Navarre, Spain, in the 2010–2011 season.49 The aim was to analyze the factors influencing continued adherence to influenza vaccination in people older than 65 y and in those with major chronic conditions, who are considered at high risk of influenza complications.
Tan et al. extrapolated immunization records from the North Caroline Immunization Registry (their IIS) to evaluate the characteristics of girls who completed the HPV vaccination and completed it on time.54 They stratified for several sociodemographic characteristics and they found that ethnicity and race was one of the most important factors influencing the completeness and on time delivery of the vaccine doses (59% vs. 43% p < 0.001 white vs. black, 51% vs. 47% p < 0.001 non-Hispanic vs. Hispanic for both completeness and on time). Comparing the funding type, those whose vaccine was privately funded were more likely than those that were publicly funded to complete the vaccine schedule and do it on time (both p < 0.001). Approximately 50% of those who completed the vaccination on time were immunized at pediatrician, GP clinics or local health units (both p < 0.001).
Leveraging IIS is possible to define the characteristics of vaccines refusers, which is extremely important in order to tailor the vaccination campaign. It is particularly true if we look at the parents’ fear on vaccine safety. Clearly, the opportunity to understand better the characteristics of target population depends on the type and quality of data recorded. Geographic or demographic data, such as reasons for not vaccinated, could not be available in all IISs.
Interoperability, missed opportunities and decision support system
One of the possible reasons for a low specific vaccine rate is missed opportunities; through this review, six manuscripts were retrieved and analyzed.62–67 Verani and colleagues performed a retrospective evaluation of 2001–2005 influenza seasons (using data from New York Citywide Immunization Registry) aimed to assess the prevalence of missed opportunities in children aged 6–23 months, among a practice network in New York.66 Missed opportunities were defined as clinic visits during which the patients eligible for vaccination did not received vaccine. Missed opportunities had occurred in 82.2% of all vaccine-eligible visits, but with a remarkable decrease during the 5 y of study that was followed by an increasing coverage rate. Daley et al. conducted a prospective cohort study evaluating the frequency, reasons and the characteristics of missed opportunities for flu vaccinations in children aged 6–72 months with high-risk conditions, among four pediatrics clinics in Denver, during the 2002–2003 influenza season.63 They extracted the vaccination status from the IIS, and the information about number, reasons and characteristics of clinical visits from billing databases. Also in this study, the missed opportunities were around 80%. Daley et al. surveyed parents of unvaccinated children to understand the reasons for no immunization. In the majority of the cases (29%), the reason was lack of physician recommendation, followed by low perception of flu risk (23%) and lack of particular reason (24%), while 13% were worried about potential vaccination risk. Only in 6% of cases was there a real opposition to the vaccinations, while in 5% of the cases, the reason was parental barriers. We can see that, probably, around 89% of unvaccinated children could have been immunized if they had received recommendations, information and education on vaccines. The missed opportunities for flu vaccine are particularly high, and interoperability between IIS and GP software, for instance, might reduce these occurrences. In fact, it is plausible that physicians can fail to recommend immunizations if they are not aware of both vaccination status or vaccine indications for their patients. Having this information available might increase the number of occasions in which HCW and parents can deal with the issue of vaccinations, addressing parents’ doubts and insecurities and thus reducing VH. Indeed, offering tailored counseling is extremely important in countering VH. Interoperability and DSS are extremely important for this aspect, as reported in the four articles found in the literature.68–71 Steven and colleagues present a brilliant example of bidirectional interface between electronic medical records and IIS. They developed a visual integrated interface by which physicians could easily and quickly acquire patients’ immunization information directly from IIS.70 Of surveyed physicians, 68% feel more comfortable with the new interface; furthermore, they consider it much more efficient. IIS might provide decision support to the physician or to those who perform vaccinations, and assessment or feedback automatically generated can reduce missed opportunities. Hosseini and colleagues developed a method able to address interoperability within and between IISs; moreover, their main aim was to simplify and encourage the use of decision system support within the IIS.68 Recently, Martinelli and colleagues combined three different data sources (hospital discharge registry, drug prescription registry and user fee exempt registry) with the IIS to identify patients with chronic diseases eligible for vaccination.136 All the IISs are more operational when they are comprehensive and largely used by HCW. The decision support system is crucial to help physicians during their work, improving adherence to clinical guidelines and to provide alerts or recommendations in case of needed precautions. IIS equipped with decision system support could reduce the missed opportunities and improve the quality of the service. This is important if we take into account the impact of IIS on “convenience”. At the same time, IIS with decision support might help physicians to increase their trust in their own institution, which can act on “confidence”. The lack of trust may be a contributing factor to the increase in VH also in HCW.
IIS as an instrument to measure vaccine program performance
The concerns of health policy makers about the growing phenomenon of VH force them to promote public health strategies within civil society and among HCW. IIS is a tested tool to evaluate the efficacy of vaccine policy through the assessment of changing vaccine coverage rates before and after policy intervention. Related to this topic, 22 manuscripts were included in this study.72–93 Cates and colleagues assessed vaccine coverage after 3 months of social marketing experiments aimed to facilitate conversation among adolescents/parents and physicians about HPV vaccination.74 They compared the data from IIS of two different counties (one where they performed the intervention and the other as a control) and the probability to get vaccinated was 34% higher in the intervention county. Isaac et al. consulted the Manitoba IIS to assess the efficacy of home visiting programs on vaccine coverage.80 They found higher complete vaccinations in children aged 1–2 y in the families enrolled in the home visiting program compared to control. Grant and colleagues have shown that to address vaccine concerns during antenatal periods is the best method to improve the rate of parents agreeing with full immunization of their child.44 They surveyed both pregnant women and their partners about the intentions of future infant immunization; then the child’s immunization status was assessed by IIS. The results show the highest proportion of timely vaccinations in children whose mother and partner were involved in the decision process; moreover, timeliness was also associated with a mother’s decision to fully immunize, independently of the mother’s demographics and partner’s intention. However, the timeliness was much higher if both mother and partner agreed with complete immunization. Nevertheless, 22% of partners versus 14% of pregnant women hadn’t decided about vaccinations, which might reflect the lesser partner engagement with physicians. Addressing parental concern through educational interventions is associated with increasing coverage rates.44 Suryadevara et al. demonstrated the effectiveness of multicomponent community-based interventions in increasing vaccine coverage among poor families.91 They performed a face-to-face interview, investigating parental concern and at the same time providing practical information about where, why and how to perform vaccinations; additionally, they offered vaccines on site. Nine months after the intervention, the children with “vaccine-complete” status increased from 28% to 45%; in adolescents, the HPV vaccination had increased 16%, 8% for meningococcal vaccine. Finally, the flu vaccine had a 17% increase compared to 8% in one county (without intervention), during the same period.
Kharbanda et al. evaluated changes on coverage rates, before and after the introduction of school mandated immunization.82 Data on immunization coverage were extracted from IIS (EzVAC: web-based immunization registry of New York). They evaluated the coverage rate of diphtheria and pertussis (Tdap) and meningitis (MCV4) (vaccines required by the mandate) in three overlapping cohorts of adolescents aged 11–14 y, in three consecutive years: pre mandate, the first year of mandate and the following year. Data show a remarkable increase of coverage rates for both vaccines, which was stunning throughout the study period (Tdap coverage moved from 29% in pre mandate era to 58% during the first year, to 83% during the following year. Data are also similar for MCV4). Also, Simpson and colleagues, through IIS, found an increasing coverage rate after changes in the school entry mandate, requiring meningococcal vaccinations for all 11–18 y old adolescents as CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended in 2007.89
Possibility to record AEFI
As a consequence of the high safety and efficacy vaccines, the perception of infectious disease severity is decreasing, conversely increasing vaccine concern. This scenario imposes an increase and renewal of surveillance strategies of adverse events after immunizations, especially in light of the introduction of newly licensed vaccines. The integration between IIS and the AEFI registry can be important to identify new and rare adverse reactions, to recognize new potential risk factors, to verify the safety of new licensed vaccine through post-marketing studies and to be reactive in case of suspected adverse events reported by the media, as discussed in the 24 articles presented in this review,94–116,137 because the trust building process is very complex and long, and it could be undermined in an instant.138 In fact, in the case of a health crisis (i.e., new outbreak, alleged AEFIs), public opinion is formed within the first 24 h; that is why health institutions need to provide timely, transparent, true, coherent and credible information,138,139 particularly for vaccinations that are administered routinely in healthy people to prevent disease.
In Valencia, Spain, the IIS was set up in 2002, and in 2005, recording of AEFIs was allowed through the IIS. From the analysis of the period 2005–2011, including information about vaccine safety and reported AEFIs according to patient characteristics (age and sex) and type of vaccine administered, it was possible to identify an increase in local reported reactions due to the switch from DTaP to Tdap.94 Another example of IIS connected to AEFI surveillance system is the Alberta IIS, where AEFIs related to HPV vaccination were explored.108 Among 195,270 women who received the vaccine, only 192 reported AEFIs. They were also able to know the type of AEFI reported, how many days after the immunization, associated dose, if hospitalization was required and the outcome. Among the AEFIs found, in the majority of cases, they happened after the first dose (n = 117). The most common AEFIs reported were 90 allergic reactions, 32 rush, 34 unusual reactions and 23 swelling or pain. Out of these, only five were hospitalized, four within 42 d after vaccination and one after 110 d. All the hospitalized women were alive, the ICD-10 diagnostic codes were available for three of them: one was “other physical therapy”, one was “chest pain unspecified” and the last one was “phlebitis and thrombophlebitis of other deep vessels of lower extremities”. Dey et al. used the Australian IIS – where AEFIs are routinely reported – to detect an early-onset signal of adverse reactions.101 After a punctual evaluation of the AEFIs recorded, the increased rate was clearly imputable to one specific vaccine manufacturer when compared to the others. It is an important example of timely and sensitive methods to assess adverse events associated with immunization. It was also possible because of traceability of vaccine lots, highlighting the relevance of accuracy in reported batches.
Social mobilization to promote vaccine programs
Previous studies evaluated the association between maintaining immunization records and the increase of vaccine coverage rates.140 McElligott and Darden conducted a national validated survey aimed to assess availability of vaccination records among households with children between 19 and 35 months of age and assess if updating the vaccination database may increase the vaccination rate.141 After stratification for numerous variables (ethnicity, parent education level, number of children at home, poverty status), they found a statistically significant relationship between having a vaccination record and immunization rate, for all variables. Moreover, having vaccination records increased the odds of being updated compared to not having vaccine records by 62%. These increasing vaccination rates among the group with vaccination records highlight the importance for parents to have a record, in order to have more control of children’s health, and for HCW to double check the vaccination status at every visit. One of the new challenges for IIS is migration, which can reduce a person’s own data availability; however, two papers have shown potential solution to this aspect.117,118 Wilson et al. proposed mobile phone software as a possible solution.118 In fact, apps connected to IIS might consolidate data from multiple sources and, after an internal validation, it can provide a platform where people are engaged with their own vaccine information. Moreover, it can be consulted in all possible settings, increasing people’s awareness and accuracy in vaccine rate estimation. Control vaccination rates are essential to modulate public health efforts and to increase people’s awareness on vaccines that may dominate VH. An example of advocacy is the pro-vaccination campaign launched on Instagram by an Italian mother who was worried about the decreasing vaccination rate.142 This “case-report” approach, also used by anti-vaccine movements, was aimed to motivate reluctant parents to vaccinate their child. This proactive movement overflow in a very short time into all other social networks is the needed evidence of a bottom-up approach.142 Actually, Brunson in her anthropological study evaluated the role played by social networks (in person and sources of information) on parents’ vaccination decisions. This study has shown that both people and social media are essential to formulate vaccination decisions. In particular, among those who decide to get their child vaccinated, the people network was supportive of a conformal recommendation, instead of un-(under)immunized parents. Conversely, the highest percentage of network people recommended nonconformity was found in un-(under)immunized parents. HCWs were considered for both groups, the second important network member after their own partner; other network members included were friends, family members, coworkers, midwives and university professors. This study suggests that social networks largely influence vaccination decisions in both groups. Furthermore, it is essential to develop vaccine promotion programs engaging the whole community, instead of just parents, because of the high importance of parents’ network members.143 In general terms, positive social mobilization in vaccine programs (even through implementation of IIS) might be crucial to reduce VH, increase “confidence” (3Cs model) and consequently increase vaccination rates.
Geographical distribution, challenges and barriers and clusters of vaccine hesitant
Increasing evidence shows a relationship between geographical clustering of unvaccinated and localization of VPD outbreaks. In this review, we synthetized results from 13 studies.119–131 Eccles et al., using a geographical visualization method and IIS, assessed how geographical distribution of those who refuse vaccine had changed during a certain period and over time, identifying specific areas of non-vaccinated.125 This geographical distribution has high public health impact, both to identify areas with health systems or ethnic–religious barriers and to identify areas with sanitary issues. In fact, known reasons for un-immunization are health-care access barriers, such as the time needed to reach the health care unit or the presence of public transportation or accessible parking; ethnic–religious barriers and socioeconomic barriers such us poverty, immigrant status, high residential density, material deprivation and high violent crime rates, as Charland and colleagues have shown.119 These factors are part of “convenience” of the 3C model. IIS is a good instrument to assess vaccine coverage and vulnerability of unvaccinated people; moreover, it is a powerful instrument for public health investigations. Thompson et al. employed this instrument to assess vaccination rates and geographical distribution after the outbreak of measles in Disneyland, Florida;128 while Teng and colleagues, after the worst cholera outbreak in Haiti, were able to monitor the massive campaign and through the global positioning system mapped the vaccination post locations and the geographical distribution of community coverage.127 IIS and geographical data are also decisive to assess the equity access of vulnerable populations such as the Australian Aboriginal. A study evaluating the Indigenous vaccination rate in relation to accessibility or remoteness, (graded in five categories, according to Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia) found that pneumococcal conjugate vaccine immunization coverage ranged between 0.06% in very remote areas and 28.8% in accessible districts.121 However, the coverage was suboptimal even in highly accessible areas with a range between 2.7% and 92.2% among Indigenous children aged 3 months. Using the same index, it was also possible to assess the timeliness of the first three doses of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP), Haemophilus influenza type b and MMR vaccines among Aboriginal children (aged at least 36 months in accordance with Australian vaccine schedules) even in relation to remoteness.122 Timeliness and completeness of vaccination data and Indigenous status were assessed by Australian IIS. Delayed vaccine delivery was 3–5 times higher among Indigenous children compared to non-Indigenous children. In particular, for the last DTP dose, the delay was higher among Indigenous children living in remote areas compared to Indigenous children residing in accessible areas.
Trogdon and Ahn, using data from IIS, found a geographical cluster of vaccination coverage in North Carolina. The geographical areas, based on ZIP code, tended to have vaccination coverage similar to their neighbors.130,144 Geolocalization could also be useful to drive allocation of scarce governmental resources in initiatives where it is needed most.120 Indeed, during an epidemic outbreak, vaccine campaign not only needs to first target people with a higher risk (for complications or for epidemiological reasons) but it also needs to take into account the geographical distribution of the outbreak. Keeling and White, with their mathematical model demonstrated the importance to first vaccinate the geographical areas with the higher transmission rates of the previous years,145 because the spatial heterogeneity could reflect the potential sociodemographic heterogeneity.
Discussion
Because of the complexity and the dynamism of vaccine skepticism, it is important for public health institutions to invest as much as possible in studies evaluating vaccine safety and communication strategies. In fact, it is essential to advocate to people about relevance, safety and vaccine effectiveness,146 to offer them a dedicated website to easily find precise scientific information in plain language and, finally, to teach them how to elaborate search strategies and how to flush out fake websites.
Development of IIS could generate beneficial effects for several aspects of immunization policy, such as estimation of vaccination coverage, vaccine efficacy and safety. Particularly, in this review, we presented the principal potential functions of IIS useful to reduce VH in an empowered way for both health-care workers and general population. Through the 3C model of VH, we discussed the beneficial aspects of IISs. We focalized our attention on (a) automatic reminder/recall, (b) characteristics of vaccines refusers and vaccines recipients, (c) interoperability, missed opportunities and decision support system, (d) IIS as an instrument to vaccine program performance, (e) possibility to record AEFI, (f) social mobilization to promote vaccine programs, (g) geographical distribution and cluster of vaccine hesitants.
In relation to automatic reminder/recall, IIS feedback to vaccine providers might reduce vaccine delay and missed vaccination opportunities. IIS might also be an instrument to assess vaccine providers’ performance and to assign incentives. Actually, with a reminder/recall automatic system, IIS can increase people compliance to vaccination and vaccine knowledges whether the reminder is also associated with educational information. Whilst, if the feedback/reminder, based on vaccine coverage, is send to the health care workers, it could increase the communication opportunities on vaccines and reduce the missed opportunities. Furthermore, IIS could be useful to combine several types of activities (financial incentives, share strategy and policy)83 and provide basic information on vaccine counseling during the feedback, in order to be able to experience both health prevention and promotion. IIS could be a very useful instrument for HCW and for public health program managers to identify characteristics of vaccines refusers and vaccines recipients. Indeed, IIS is strategic to assess, monitor and address the determinants of hesitancy and to sustain efforts to enhance vaccination confidence and uptake. Further, the reduction of missed opportunities, thanks to IIS, may, in addition, increase the frequency of recommendations from HCW to patients. This can reinforce the perception of the relevance of vaccinations among patients, resolve possible patient doubts or hesitancy about vaccines and can also transmit health information. In fact, despite 59–81% of surveyed US adults having used the internet to get health information,147,148 physicians remain the highest trusted information source among patients.149
Regarding the evaluation of vaccine campaign performance, the IIS only represents an instrument to evaluate or compare different vaccine policies: how they impact vaccine coverage and cost effectiveness, and they give scientific support to policy makers, independently of potential coercion.146 IIS could concretely represent a valid instrument to increase “confidence”, and especially trust, in both HCW and decision makers.
The possibility to record AEFIs in IIS might help to generate spot signals in the safety surveillance system. It would also help to identify a specific questionable lot and consequently to retrospectively identify who received the vaccine and from which specific lot. Additionally, it allows activation of the specific action required. In other words, IIS represents an excellent instrument to record, and to make available, more information on the event compared to the standard form for AEFI system.
Post-licensure surveillance of AEFIs is an integral part of immunization programs. IIS provides useful information, such as trends and signals that can be detected. In particular, IIS with AEFI records allowed easy and quick evaluation of potential adverse events and, subsequently, planning of a timely, credible and complete communication campaign, avoiding the spread of misleading information.150 An example of this could be the so-called Fluad case during the 2014/2015 influenza vaccination campaign in Italy.151 Indeed, after an erroneous report of four suspected deaths caused by administration of influenza vaccine, the influenza vaccine uptake dramatically dropped.150 Certainly, the concept of “balanced information” in this case is essential. However, the availability of timely and accurate data may contribute in preventing misinformation.152 It is particularly true considering that low trust in institution and fear of vaccine safety are the most frequent reasons of VH. In this sense, the possibility to record AEFIs could help in countering VH. In other words, IISs may easily evaluate vaccines safety also through individuals data linkage with other electronic systems that are part of the e-Health initiatives which are developing quickly and they will be very useful to general population, vaccine providers and health authorities. Clearly, IIS with AEFIs, and consequently its rapid consultation, may increase people’s “confidence”, improving trust particularly in vaccine safety. Moreover, it is noteworthy that continuous recommendations from physicians, updated education on vaccines for HCWs, traceability of immunizations records and dissemination of scientific evidence in plain language are milestones in facing vaccine delay or hesitancy. All of these are potential IIS functions that can improve the quality of the service, increasing “convenience” and “confidence”. The use of IIS at full operating speeds might represent an efficient tool to bridge the gap in vaccine coverage rates. Lastly, the possibility to geolocalize in detail the districts with low vaccination rates might underline the presence of potential issues, can allow to know more in depth the characteristics of the people in these areas and may support more tailored interventions to face specific needs.
Lastly, IIS can also reduce entry errors. Indeed, because IIS is an electronic system, the data entry could be carried out electronically, for instance vaccine bench codes, bar codes or drop-down menus could be used instead of manual data entry. Such innovative immunization surveillance system may be extremely useful also in rural area and in developing countries where computing infrastructures are very limited.153 Inversely, mobile phones are very promising, because they are cheaper, easily used by HCW, with low power consumption and ubiquitous. Furthermore, mobile app can also be useful for cross-border travelers who have to show the International Certificate of Vaccination, for instance yellow fever, when arriving in countries where this is mandatory. Digital immunization passports could be beneficial for both public health purpose and users. In fact, if information could be stored centrally, more data could be recorded and the digital identification could be less prone to forgery.154 Blockchain is a real-time digital technology that allows any user to figure out who owns what, where and when within a hypothetical supply chain.155 This technology would be very helpful in those situations where vaccine supply chain should be warranted and a supply chain disruption may affect seriously vaccine uptake, which is the case of vaccine delivery in developing countries. In addition, the blockchain technology may ensure secure data access and patient privacy when it comes to distribute information coming from IIS.
Nevertheless, IIS is not without potential limitations. Researchers during IIS studies often face other obstacles, such as data sharing and confidentiality, or the overestimation of the denominator used to calculate the coverage rate.156 The number of people who moved to another state or region but remain active in the IIS could explain this. Indeed, the completeness and accuracy of the denominator is one of the limits of IIS. It could be due principally to the absence of a unique identifier number assigned to the citizens or the absence of multiple sources for denominator data, which are characteristics considered important for IIS in order to fully support the immunization programs. Several possibilities can be offered to address this problem. For instance, reminder/recall systems can help to identify the cross-border child, the system could allow their citizens to update their own information108 or an IIS interconnected with civil registries could reduce this bias.157 Timeliness is another aspect that should be taken into account. Indeed, in order to reduce missing data or data entry error, the time between vaccination administration and data record should be reduced. Finally, the adoption of electronic devices requires a huge investment both in terms of time and financial resources.158 Another potential limit of the IIS is the upgrade of the functionalities such as the cross-talk between different registries. Registries may differ in terms of aims (e.g., cancer registry, civil registry) and, in the case of subnational IIS, different counties or districts could have different software.159 Nevertheless, the potential benefits in terms of vaccine program quality, high vaccine rates, decrease of social disparities and VH, are invaluable. Indeed, IIS also represents an instrument to evaluate or compare different vaccine policies, how they can affect vaccine coverage and cost effectiveness and give scientific support to policy makers. IIS could concretely represent a valid instrument to increase “confidence” and “convenience”, especially trust in both health-care workers and decision makers and to reduce “complacency”. Nowadays, VH is one of the most important issues in public health; therefor, it is mandatory for public health workers to find new strategies able to address this problem. Currently, the international public health institutions are focusing on communication, but this could not be enough. Developing and improving IISs could represent one useful tool to improve communication, confidence and convenience on immunization programs. VH is a complex phenomenon where complacency, confidence and convenience are the three main decision factors. The results of this review show that IISs are important instruments to counter VH; nevertheless, there are not enough trials aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IIS to contrast VH. Further researches should focalize on this aspect.
Lastly, the present review had some limitations. Indeed, due to the newness of this topic, there is a wide variation in the indexed terms used in PubMed and Embase to describe IIS. However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first review analyzing the application of IIS in order to counter VH.
Conclusion
In conclusion, some of the potential applications of IISs are get data on refusers’ characteristics, such as geographic distribution; be aware of the personal immunization status, which appear much more important in the current context of migration/globalization and social mobilization; get data on potential adverse effects following immunization, increasing the vaccine’s confidence and people trust.160 The use of IIS is a promising tool useful for both vaccine providers and vaccine recipients as well as public health policy makers and epidemiologists.13,161 It allows access to flexible analyses that cannot be done using other vaccination data sources. It is able to reduce the burden of manual paper reporting systems, to facilitate quarterly vaccine coverage reports instead of aggregate data, to increase the accuracy of the data and to track the administered doses.162 Recent systematic reviews gave an overview of the possible IIS uses in public health.163,164 However, Curran and colleagues have stated that the IIS is probably used below its real potential, as shown by an exponential increase of published articles only in the last few years.156
Funding Statement
This research received no grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ms. Christina Drace, a native speaker, for English revision.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
- 1.Schuster M, Eskola J, Duclos P; Hesitancy SWGoV . Review of vaccine hesitancy: rationale, remit and methods. Vaccine. 2015. August 14;33(34):4157–60. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.035 PubMed PMID: 25896380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hickler B, Guirguis S, Obregon R.. Vaccine special issue on vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine. 2015. August 14;33(34):4155–56. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.034 PubMed PMID: 25896381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.MacDonald NE; Hesitancy SWGoV . Vaccine hesitancy: definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine. 2015. August 14;33(34):4161–64. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 PubMed PMID: 25896383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Leask J, Kinnersley P, Jackson C, Cheater F, Bedford H, Rowles G. Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals. BMC Pediatr. 2012;12:154. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-12-154 PubMed PMID: 22998654; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3480952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe , editor. Working group on vaccine communications. 2011. October 13–14 Istanbul (Turkey): WHO. [Google Scholar]
- 6.The SAGE Vaccine Hesitancy Working Group What influences vaccine acceptance: a model of determinants of vaccine hesitancy; 2013. [accessed 2019 January20]. https://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2013/april/1_Model_analyze_driversofvaccineConfidence_22_March.pdf?ua=1
- 7.Forbes TA, McMinn A, Crawford N, Leask J, Danchin M. Vaccination uptake by vaccine-hesitant parents attending a specialist immunization clinic in Australia. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(12):2895–903. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1070997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Eckersberger E, Smith DM, Paterson P. Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007-2012. Vaccine. 2014. April 17;32(19):2150–59. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.081 PubMed PMID: 24598724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.World Health Organization Addressing vaccine hesitancy; 2016. http://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/vaccine_hesitancy/en/.
- 10.Jacobson RM, St Sauver JL, Finney Rutten LJ. Vaccine Hesitancy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015. November;90(11):1562–68. PubMed PMID: 26541249. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Immunization information systems progress–United States, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008. March 21;57(11):289–91. PubMed PMID: 18354373; eng. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.World Health Organization European vaccine action plan 2015–2020. editor. Copenhagen (Denmark): Regional Office for Europe; 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 13.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Designing and implementing an immunisation information system. Stockholm, Sweden: ECDC; 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Derrough T, Olsson K, Gianfredi V, Simondon F, Heijbel H, Danielsson N, Kramarz P, Pastore-Celentano L. Immunisation information systems - useful tools for monitoring vaccination programmes in EU/EEA countries, 2016. Euro Surveill. 2017. April 27;22(17). doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.17.30519 PubMed PMID: 28488999; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5434883. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.World Health Organization A case for better immunization information systems; 2013. http://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/supply_chain/optimize/better_immunization_information_systems.pdf.
- 16.Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006. Autumn;5(3):101–17. doi: 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6 PubMed PMID: 19674681; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2647067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Chung RJ, Walter EB, Kemper AR, Dayton A. Keen on teen vaccines: improvement of adolescent vaccine coverage in rural North Carolina. J Adolesc Health. 2015. May;56(5 Suppl):S14–6. PubMed PMID: 25863548; eng. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.10.272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Clark SJ, Butchart A, Kennedy A, Dombkowski KJ. Parents‘ experiences with and preferences for immunization reminder/recall technologies. Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):e1100–e5. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Crawford N, Royle J, Sonja Elia RN, South M, Buttery J. Effect of a postcard immunisation reminder in hospital outpatients: A randomised controlled trial. J Paediatr Child Health. 2011;47:20. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2010.01995.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Custis CL, Helgerson SD, Murphy JS, Parry CA, Nett RJ. Evaluation of vaccination recall letter system for medicaid-enrolled children aged 19-23 months - Montana, 2011. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61:811–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Dombkowski KJ, Cowan AE, Harrington LB, Allred NJ, Hudson E, Clark SJ. Feasibility of initiating and sustaining registry-based immunization recall in private practices. Acad Pediatr. 2012. Mar-Apr;12(2):104–09. PubMed PMID: 22321815; eng. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2012.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Dombkowski KJ, Harrington LB, Dong S, Clark SJ. Seasonal influenza vaccination reminders for children with high-risk conditions: a registry-based randomized trial. Am J Prev Med. 2012. January;42(1):71–75. PubMed PMID: 22176850; eng. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.09.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Dombkowski KJ, Reeves SL, Dong S, Stevenson J, Clark SJ. Assessing the burden of undeliverable immunization reminder and recall notifications. Prev Med. 2011. December;53(6):424–26. PubMed PMID: 22001688; eng. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Dombkowski KJ, Costello LE, Harrington LB, Dong S, Kolasa M, Clark SJ. Age-specific strategies for immunization reminders and recalls: A registry-based randomized trial. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(1):1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Dombkowski KJ, Cowan AE, Potter RC, Dong S, Kolasa M, Clark SJ. Statewide pandemic influenza vaccination reminders for children with chronic conditions. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(1):e39–44. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hofstetter AM, Vargas CY, Camargo S, Holleran S, Vawdrey DK, Kharbanda EO, Stockwell MS. Impacting delayed pediatric influenza vaccination: A randomized controlled trial of text message reminders. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(4):392–401. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.10.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kempe A, Saville A, Dickinson LM, Eisert S, Reynolds J, Herrero D, Beaty B, Albright K, Dibert E, Koehler V, et al. Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial. Am J Public Health. 2013. June;103(6):1116–23. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2012.301035 PubMed PMID: 23237154; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3619016. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kempe A, Saville AW, Dickinson LM, Beaty B, Eisert S, Gurfinkel D, Brewer S, Shull H, Herrero D, Herlihy R. Collaborative centralized reminder/Recall notification to increase immunization rates among young children a comparative effectiveness trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(4):365–73. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Morris J, Wang W, Wang L, Peddecord KM, Sawyer MH. Comparison of reminder methods in selected adolescents with records in an immunization registry. J Adolesc Health. 2015;56(5):S27–S32. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.10.274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Saville AW, Beaty B, Dickinson LM, Lockhart S, Kempe A. Novel immunization reminder/recall approaches: rural and urban differences in parent perceptions. Acad Pediatr. 2014;14(3):249–55. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2014.02.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Stockwell MS, Kharbanda EO, Martinez RA, Vargas CY, Vawdrey DK, Camargo S. Effect of a text messaging intervention on influenza vaccination in an urban, low-income pediatric and adolescent population: a randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2012. April 25;307(16):1702–08. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.502 PubMed PMID: 22535855; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Stockwell MS, Kharbanda EO, Martinez RA, Lara M, Vawdrey D, Natarajan K, Rickert VI. Text4Health: impact of text message reminder-recalls for pediatric and adolescent immunizations. Am J Public Health. 2012. February;102(2):e15–21. PubMed PMID: 22390457; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3483980. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Stockwell MS, Catallozzi M, Camargo S, Ramakrishnan R, Holleran S, Findley SE, Kukafka R, Hofstetter AM, Fernandez N, Vawdrey DK. Registry-linked electronic influenza vaccine provider reminders: A cluster-crossover trial. Pediatrics. 2015;135(1):e75–e82. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-1115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Suh CA, Saville A, Daley MF, Glazner JE, Barrow J, Stokley S, Dong F, Beaty B, Dickinson LM, Kempe A. Effectiveness and net cost of reminder/recall for adolescent immunizations. Pediatrics. 2012. June;129(6):e1437–45. PubMed PMID: 22566415. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-1714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Allison MA, Daley MF, Barrow J, Crane LA, Beaty BL, Allred N, Kempe A. High influenza vaccination coverage in children with high-risk conditions during a vaccine shortage. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009. May;163(5):426–31. PubMed PMID: 19414688; eng. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Brousseau N, Sauvageau C, Ouakki M, Audet D, Kiely M, Couture C, Pare A, Deceuninck G. Feasibility and impact of providing feedback to vaccinating medical clinics: evaluating a public health intervention. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:750. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-750 PubMed PMID: 21129216; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3017028. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Crawford NW, Barfield C, Hunt RW, Pitcher H, Buttery JP. Improving preterm infants‘ immunisation status: a follow-up audit. J Paediatr Child Health. 2014. April;50(4):314–18. PubMed PMID: 24372963; eng. doi: 10.1111/jpc.12481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Beard FH, Hull BP, Leask J, Dey A, McIntyre PB. Trends and patterns in vaccination objection, Australia, 2002-2013. Med J Aust. 2016. April 18;204(7):275. doi: 10.5694/mja15.01226 PubMed PMID: 27078604; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Bernhardt H, Barker D, Reith DM, Broadbent RS, Jackson PM, Wheeler BJ. Declining newborn intramuscular vitamin K prophylaxis predicts subsequent immunisation refusal: A retrospective cohort study. J Paediatr Child Health. 2015. September;51(9):889–94. PubMed PMID: 25873083; eng. doi: 10.1111/jpc.12887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Feemster KA, Spain CV, Eberhart M, Pati S, Watson B. Identifying infants at increased risk for late initiation of immunizations: maternal and provider characteristics. Public Health Rep (Washington, DC: 1974). 2009. Jan-Feb;124(1):42–53. doi: 10.1177/003335490912400108 PubMed PMID: 19413027; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2602930. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Feiring B, Laake I, Molden T, Cappelen I, Haberg SE, Magnus P, Steingrimsdottir OA, Strand BH, Stalcrantz J, Trogstad L. Do parental education and income matter? A nationwide register-based study on HPV vaccine uptake in the school-based immunisation programme in Norway. BMJ Open. 2015;5(5):e006422. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006422 PubMed PMID: 25991445; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4442157. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Gold R, Naleway AL, Jenkins LL, Riedlinger KK, Kurosky SK, Nystrom RJ, Kurilo MB. Completion and timing of the three-dose human papillomavirus vaccine series among adolescents attending school-based health centers in Oregon. Prev Med. 2011. June;52(6):456–58. PubMed PMID: 21539853; eng. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Gowda C, Dong S, Potter RC, Dombkowski KJ, Dempsey AF. A population-level assessment of factors associated with uptake of adolescent-targeted vaccines in Michigan. J Adolesc Health. 2013. October;53(4):498–505. PubMed PMID: 24054080; eng. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Grant CC, Chen MH, Bandara DK, Marks EJ, Gilchrist CA, Lewycka S, Carr PE, Robinson EM, Pryor JE, Camargo CA, et al. Antenatal immunisation intentions of expectant parents: relationship to immunisation timeliness during infancy. Vaccine. 2016. March 8;34(11):1379–88. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.01.048 PubMed PMID: 26850758; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Gupta R, Alkhateeb FM, Latif DA, Farley KN. Parental attitudes affecting compliance with the recommendation for two doses of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in children less than 10 years of age in West Virginia. W V Med J. 2013. Mar-Apr;109(2):10–14. PubMed PMID: 23600099; eng. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Hofstetter AM, Natarajan K, Martinez RA, Rabinowitz D, Vawdrey DK, Stockwell MS. Influenza vaccination coverage and timeliness among children requiring two doses, 2004-2009. Prev Med. 2013. March;56(3–4):165–70. PubMed PMID: 23219757; eng. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.11.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Lin W, Xiong Y, Tang H, Chen B, Ni J. Factors associated with delayed measles vaccination among children in Shenzhen, China: a case-control study. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(12):3601–06. doi: 10.4161/21645515.2014.979687 PubMed PMID: 25668667; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4514074. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.MacDonald SE, Schopflocher DP, Vaudry W. Parental concern about vaccine safety in Canadian children partially immunized at age 2: A multivariable model including system level factors. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(9):2603–11. doi: 10.4161/21645515.2014.970075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Martinez-Baz I, Aguilar I, Moran J, Albeniz E, Aldaz P, Castilla J. Factors associated with continued adherence to influenza vaccination in the elderly. Prev Med. 2012. September;55(3):246–50. PubMed PMID: 22759626; eng. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.06.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Nadeau JA, Bednarczyk RA, Masawi MR, Meldrum MD, Santilli L, Zansky SM, Blog DS, Birkhead GS, McNutt LA. Vaccinating my way - Use of alternative vaccination schedules in New York State. J Pediatr. 2015;166(1):151–6.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.09.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Riise OR, Laake I, Bergsaker MA, Nokleby H, Haugen IL, Storsaeter J. Monitoring of timely and delayed vaccinations: a nation-wide registry-based study of Norwegian children aged < 2 years. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15:180. doi: 10.1186/s12887-015-0487-4 PubMed PMID: 26563381; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4643514. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Robison SG, Groom H, Young C. Frequency of alternative immunization schedule use in a metropolitan area. Pediatrics. 2012. July;130(1):32–38. PubMed PMID: 22711719; eng. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-3154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Schmitt K, Thompson DR. HPV vaccine timeliness and completion rates, Florida 2007-2011. J Womens Health. 2013;22:40. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Tan W, Viera AJ, Rowe-West B, Grimshaw A, Quinn B, Walter EB. The HPV vaccine: are dosing recommendations being followed? Vaccine. 2011. March 21;29(14):2548–54. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.01.066 PubMed PMID: 21300098; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.van Keulen HM, Otten W, Ruiter RA, Fekkes M, van Steenbergen J, Dusseldorp E, Paulussen TW. Determinants of HPV vaccination intentions among Dutch girls and their mothers: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:111. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-111 PubMed PMID: 23388344; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3570492. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.van Lier A, van de Kassteele J, de Hoogh P, Drijfhout I, de Melker H. Vaccine uptake determinants in The Netherlands. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(2):304–09. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckt042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Wagner KS, van Wijgerden JC, Andrews N, Goulden K, White JM. Childhood vaccination coverage by ethnicity within London between 2006/2007 and 2010/2011. Arch Dis Child. 2014. April;99(4):348–53. PubMed PMID: 24347574; eng. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Wei F, Mullooly JP, Goodman M, McCarty MC, Hanson AM, Crane B, Nordin JD. Identification and characteristics of vaccine refusers. BMC Pediatr. 2009;9:18. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-9-18 PubMed PMID: 19261196; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2667392. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Wilson S, Lim G, Seo C, McIntyre M, Fediurek J, Deeks S. School-based vaccination programs in Ontario: vaccine coverage and non-medical exemptions. Paediatr Child Health (Canada). 2014;19(6):e45. doi: 10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-27. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Wilson SE, Seo CY, Lim GH, Fediurek J, Crowcroft NS, Deeks SL. Trends in medical and nonmedical immunization exemptions to measles-containing vaccine in Ontario: an annual cross-sectional assessment of students from school years 2002/03 to 2012/13. CMAJ Open. 2015. Jul-Sep;3(3):E317–23. PubMed PMID: 26457292; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4596119. eng. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20140088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Woestenberg PJ, van Lier A, van der Maas NA, Drijfhout IH, Oomen PJ, de Melker HE. Delayed start of diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis and inactivated polio vaccination in preterm and low birth weight infants in the Netherlands. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014. February;33(2):190–98. PubMed PMID: 24168985; eng. doi: 10.1097/inf.0000000000000106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Berling I, Stephenson J, Cashman PM, Loten C, Butler M, Durrheim D. Are emergency departments missing an opportunity to increase childhood immunisation rates? EMA - Emerg Med Australas. 2011;23:20. [Google Scholar]
- 63.Daley MF, Beaty BL, Barrow J, Pearson K, Crane LA, Berman S, Kempe A. Missed opportunities for influenza vaccination in children with chronic medical conditions. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005. October;159(10):986–91. PubMed PMID: 16203946; eng. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.10.986. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Oltean HN, Lofy KH, Goldoft MJ, DeBolt CA. Human papillomavirus vaccination in washington state: estimated coverage and missed opportunities, 2006-2013. Public Health Rep. 2016;131(3):474–82. doi: 10.1177/003335491613100313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Shingler S, Hunter K, Graham D. Opportunities taken: the need for, and effectiveness of secondary care opportunistic immunisation. J Paediatr Child Health. 2011;47:22–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2010.01885.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Verani JR, Irigoyen M, Chen S, Chimkin F. Influenza vaccine coverage and missed opportunities among inner-city children aged 6 to 23 months: 2000-2005. Pediatrics. 2007. March;119(3):e580–6. PubMed PMID: 17332178; eng. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-1580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Way AS, Durrheim DN, Vally H, Massey PD. Missed immunisation opportunities in emergency departments in northern New South Wales, Australia. J Paediatr Child Health. 2012. January;48(1):66–70. PubMed PMID: 21988697; eng. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2011.02188.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Hosseini M, Ahmadi M, Dixon BE. A service oriented architecture approach to achieve interoperability between immunization information systems in Iran. AMIA Annu Symp proc/AMIA Symp AMIA Symp. 2014;2014:1797–805. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Rajamani S, Bieringer A, Muscoplat M. Characterizing the access of clinical decision support offered by immunization information system in minnesota. Online J Public Health Inform. 2015;7(3):e227. doi: 10.5210/ojphi.v7i3.6282 PubMed PMID: 27252795; eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Stevens LA, Palma JP, Pandher KK, Longhurst CA. Immunization registries in the EMR Era. Online J Public Health Inform. 2013;5(2):211. doi: 10.5210/ojphi.v5i2.4696 PubMed PMID: 23923096; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3733755. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Swenson CJ, Appel A, Sheehan M, Hammer A, Fenner Z, Phibbs S, Harbrecht M, Main DS. Using information technology to improve adult immunization delivery in an integrated urban health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012. January;38(1):15–23. PubMed PMID: 22324187; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Ali H, Zwar N, Wild J. Improving childhood immunisation coverage rates–evaluation of a divisional program. Aust Fam Physician. 2009. October;38(10):833–35. PubMed PMID: 19893825; eng. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Brotherton JM, Murray SL, Hall MA, Andrewartha LK, Banks CA, Meijer D, Pitcher HC, Scully MM, Molchanoff L. Human papillomavirus vaccine coverage among female Australian adolescents: success of the school-based approach. Med J Aust. 2013. November 4;199(9):614–17. PubMed PMID: 24182228; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Cates JR, Diehl SJ, Crandell JL, Coyne-Beasley T. Dissemination strategies to promote hpv vaccination among preteen boys: embracing the transition to adolescence through three-way conversations among provider, parent and preteen. J Adolesc Health. 2015;56(2):S14–S5. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.10.274. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Clayton JL, Potter RC, Wells EV, Carlton CA, Boulton ML. Influenza vaccination of Michigan children by provider type, 2010-2011. Am J Prev Med. 2014. July;47(1):46–52. PubMed PMID: 24854780; eng. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Ernst KC, Pogreba-Brown K, Rasmussen L, Erhart LM. The effect of policy changes on hepatitis A vaccine uptake in Arizona children, 1995-2008. Public Health Rep (Washington, DC: 1974). 2011. Jul-Aug;126(Suppl 2):87–96. doi: 10.1177/00333549111260S211 PubMed PMID: 21812173; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3113434. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Feiring B, Laake I, Molden T, Haberg SE, Nokleby H, Seterelv SS, Magnus P, Trogstad L. Do selective immunisation against tuberculosis and hepatitis B reach the targeted populations? A nationwide register-based study evaluating the recommendations in the Norwegian Childhood Immunisation Programme. Vaccine. 2016. April 12;34(17):2015–20. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.02.060 PubMed PMID: 26947498; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Hull BP, Menzies R, Macartney K, McIntyre PB. Impact of the introduction of rotavirus vaccine on the timeliness of other scheduled vaccines: the Australian experience. Vaccine. 2013. April 8;31(15):1964–69. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.02.007 PubMed PMID: 23422140; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Humiston SG, Schaffer SJ, Szilagyi PG, Long CE, Chappel TR, Blumkin AK, Szydlowski J, Kolasa MS. Seasonal influenza vaccination at school: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Isaac MR, Chartier M, Brownell M, Chateau D, Nickel NC, Martens P, Katz A, Sarkar J, Hu M, Burland E, et al. Can opportunities be enhanced for vaccinating children in home visiting programs? A population-based cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:620. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1926-8 PubMed PMID: 26149681; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4494701. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Kansagra SM, Papadouka V, Geevarughese A, Hansen MA, Konty KJ, Zucker JR. Reaching children never previously vaccinated for influenza through a school-located vaccination program. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(1):e45–e9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Kharbanda EO, Stockwell MS, Colgrove J, Natarajan K, Rickert VI. Changes in Tdap and MCV4 vaccine coverage following enactment of a statewide requirement of Tdap vaccination for entry into sixth grade. Am J Public Health. 2010. September;100(9):1635–40. PubMed PMID: 20634463; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2920954. eng. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2009.179341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Melinkovich P, Hammer A, Staudenmaier A, Berg M. Improving pediatric immunization rates in a safety-net delivery system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007. April;33(4):205–10. PubMed PMID: 17441558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Moore AM, Burgess S, Shaw H, Banks C, Passaris I, Guest C. Achieving high immunisation rates amongst children in the Australian Capital Territory: a collaborative effort. Aust Health Rev. 2011. February;35(1):104–10. PubMed PMID: 21367341; eng. doi: 10.1071/ah10769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Moss JL, Gilkey MB, Griffith T, Bowling JM, Dayton AM, Grimshaw AH, Quinn B, Brewer NT. Organizational correlates of adolescent immunization: findings of a state-wide study of primary care clinics in North Carolina. Vaccine. 2013. September 13;31(40):4436–41. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.06.092 PubMed PMID: 23845803; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3798154. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Moss JL, Reiter PL, Dayton A, Brewer NT. Increasing adolescent immunization by webinar: a brief provider intervention at federally qualified health centers. Vaccine. 2012. July 13;30(33):4960–63. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.042 PubMed PMID: 22652406; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Potter RC, DeVita SF, Vranesich PA, Boulton ML. Adolescent immunization coverage and implementation of new school requirements in Michigan, 2010. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(8):1526–33. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.301910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Rehn M, Uhnoo I, Kuhlmann-Berenzon S, Wallensten A, Sparen P, Netterlid E. Highest vaccine uptake after school-based delivery - a county-level evaluation of the implementation strategies for HPV catch-up vaccination in Sweden. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0149857. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149857 PubMed PMID: 26974977; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4790890. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Simpson JE, Hills RA, Allwes D, Rasmussen L. Uptake of meningococcal vaccine in Arizona schoolchildren after implementation of school-entry immunization requirements. Public Health Rep (Washington, DC: 1974). 2013. Jan-Feb;128(1):37–45. doi: 10.1177/003335491312800106 PubMed PMID: 23277658; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3514719. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Sull M, Eavey J, Papadouka V, Mandell R, Hansen MA, Zucker JR. Adolescent vaccine co-administration and coverage in New York City: 2007-2013. Pediatrics. 2014;134(6):e1576–e83. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-3604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Suryadevara M, Bonville CA, Ferraioli F, Domachowske JB. Community-centered education improves vaccination rates in children from low-income households. Pediatrics. 2013. August;132(2):319–25. PubMed PMID: 23837177; eng. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Teplow-Phipps R, Papadouka V, Benkel DH, Rosenthal S, Soren K, Stockwell M. Factors associated with early uptake and series completion of HPV vaccination in male and female adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2014;54(2):S12. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.10.040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Ward K, Dey A, Hull B, Quinn HE, Macartney K, Menzies R. Evaluation of Australia‘s varicella vaccination program for children and adolescents. Vaccine. 2013. February 27;31(10):1413–19. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.12.052 PubMed PMID: 23290837; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Alguacil-Ramos AM, Muelas-Tirado J, Garrigues-Pelufo TM, Portero-Alonso A, Diez-Domingo J, Pastor-Villalba E, Lluch-Rodrigo JA. Surveillance for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) for 7 years using a computerised vaccination system. Public Health. 2016. June;135:66–74. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.11.010 PubMed PMID: 26976484; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Baker MA, Nguyen M, Cole DV, Lee GM, Lieu TA. Post-licensure rapid immunization safety monitoring program (PRISM) data characterization. Vaccine. 2013. December 30;31(Suppl 10):K98–112. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.04.088 PubMed PMID: 24331080; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Bakken IJ, Aaberg KM, Ghaderi S, Gunnes N, Trogstad L, Magnus P, Håberg SE. Febrile seizures after 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccination and infection: A nationwide registry-based study. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15(1). doi: 10.1186/s12879-015-1263-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Buttery JP, Danchin MH, Lee KJ, Carlin JB, McIntyre PB, Elliott EJ, Booy R, Bines JE. Intussusception following rotavirus vaccine administration: post-marketing surveillance in the National Immunization Program in Australia. Vaccine. 2011. April 5;29(16):3061–66. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.01.088 PubMed PMID: 21316503; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Carlin JB, Macartney KK, Lee KJ, Quinn HE, Buttery J, Lopert R, Bines J, McIntyre PB. Intussusception risk and disease prevention associated with rotavirus vaccines in Australia‘s National Immunization Program. Clin Infect Dis. 2013. November;57(10):1427–34. PubMed PMID: 23964090; eng. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Conlin AM, Bukowinski AT, Gumbs GR. Analysis of pregnancy and infant health outcomes among women in the National Smallpox Vaccine in Pregnancy Registry who received Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed. Vaccine. 2015. August 26;33(36):4387–90. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.054 PubMed PMID: 26049005; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.De Wals P, Deceuninck G, Ouakki M, Boulianne N, De Serres G, Danzig L. Analysis of mortality following a mass immunization campaign with serogroup C meningococcal conjugate vaccine: methodological difficulties and imperfect solutions. Vaccine. 2009. May 21;27(24):3223–27. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.02.055 PubMed PMID: 19446195; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Dey A, Gidding HF, Menzies R, McIntyre P. General practice encounters following seasonal influenza vaccination as a proxy measure of early-onset adverse events. Vaccine. 2014. April 17;32(19):2204–08. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.02.044 PubMed PMID: 24613527; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Gold M, Dugdale S, Woodman RJ, McCaul KA. Use of the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register for vaccine safety data linkage. Vaccine. 2010. June 11;28(26):4308–11. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.04.021 PubMed PMID: 20430123; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Håberg SE, Trogstad L, Gunnes N, Gjessing HK, Samuelsen SO, Cappelen I, Engeland A, Aavitsland P, Madsen S, Buajordet I, et al. The 2009 influenza pandemic, vaccination during pregnancy and fetal death: A national registry-based study in Norway. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:382. [Google Scholar]
- 104.Heier MS, Gautvik K, Wannag E, Bronder KH, Midtlyng E, Kamaleri Y, Storsæther J. Narcolepsy in Norwegian children and adolescents after Pandemrix‘ vaccination. J Sleep Res. 2012;21:30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Hu Y, Li Q, Lin L, Chen E, Chen Y, Qi X. Surveillance for adverse events following immunization from 2008 to 2011 in Zhejiang Province, China. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2013. February;20(2):211–17. PubMed PMID: 23239804; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3571262. eng. doi: 10.1128/cvi.00541-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Kiraly N, Koplin JJ, Crawford NW, Bannister S, Flanagan KL, Holt PG, Gurrin LC, Lowe AJ, Tang ML, Wake M, et al. Timing of routine infant vaccinations and risk of food allergy and eczema at one year of age. Allergy. 2016. April;71(4):541–49. doi: 10.1111/all.12830 PubMed PMID: 26707796; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Liang XF, Li L, Liu DW, Li KL, Wu WD, Zhu BP, Wang HQ, Luo HM, Cao LS, Zheng JS, et al. Safety of influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in postmarketing surveillance in China. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(7):638–47. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Liu XC, Bell CA, Simmonds KA, Svenson LW, Russell ML. Adverse events following HPV vaccination, Alberta 2006-2014. Vaccine. 2016. April 4;34(15):1800–05. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.02.040 PubMed PMID: 26921782; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Lloyd-Johnsen C, Justice F, Donath S, Bines JE. Retrospective hospital based surveillance of intussusception in children in a sentinel paediatric hospital: benefits and pitfalls for use in post-marketing surveillance of rotavirus vaccines. Vaccine. 2012. April 27;30(Suppl 1):A190–5. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.015 PubMed PMID: 22520131; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Macartney KK, Gidding HF, Trinh L, Wang H, McRae J, Crawford N, Gold M, Kynaston A, Blyth C, Yvonne Z, et al. Febrile seizures following measles and varicella vaccines in young children in Australia. Vaccine. 2015;33(11):1412–17. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.10.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Persson I, Granath F, Askling J, Ludvigsson JF, Olsson T, Feltelius N. Risks of neurological and immune-related diseases, including narcolepsy, after vaccination with Pandemrix: A population- and registry-based cohort study with over 2 years of follow-up. J Intern Med. 2014;275(2):172–90. doi: 10.1111/joim.12150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Rouleau I, De Serres G, Skowronski DM, Drolet JP, Lemire C, Toth E, Landry M. Risk factors associated with anaphylaxis and other allergic-like events following receipt of 2009 monovalent AS03-adjuvanted pandemic influenza vaccine in Quebec, Canada. Vaccine. 2014;32(28):3480–87. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Rousseau MC, El-Zein M, Conus F, Legault L, Parent ME. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination in infancy and risk of childhood diabetes. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2016;30(2):141–48. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Schurink-van ‘T Klooster TM, De Ridder MAJ, Kemmeren JM, Van Der Lei J, Dekker F, Sturkenboom M, De Melker HE. Determination of a possible association between human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and migraine. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:151. [Google Scholar]
- 115.Stehr-Green P, Galloway Y, Kieft C, McNicholas A. The risk of bronchiolitis hospitalisation following administration of a group B meningococcal vaccine in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2007;120(1263):U2746 PubMed PMID: 17972966; eng. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Van der Maas N, Wesselo C, Phaff T, Vermeer-de Bondt P, Oostvogels B. Adverse events following bivalent human papillomavirus vaccination reported to the enhanced passive surveillance system of the Netherlands. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:S324. [Google Scholar]
- 117.Robison SG. Addressing immunization registry population inflation in adolescent immunization rates. Public Health Rep. 2015;130(2):161–66. doi: 10.1177/003335491513000209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Wilson K, Atkinson KM, Deeks SL, Crowcroft NS. Improving vaccine registries through mobile technologies: A vision for mobile enhanced Immunization information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):207–11. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Charland KM, de Montigny L, Brownstein JS, Buckeridge DL. Clinic accessibility and clinic-level predictors of the geographic variation in 2009 pandemic influenza vaccine coverage in Montreal, Canada. Influenza Other Respi Viruses. 2014;8(3):317–28. doi: 10.1111/irv.12227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Fu LY, Cowan N, McLaren R, Engstrom R, Teach SJ. Spatial accessibility to providers and vaccination compliance among children with medicaid. Pediatrics. 2009. December;124(6):1579–86. PubMed PMID: 19933734; eng. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Hull BP, Deeks S, Menzies R, McIntyre PB. What do we know about 7vPCV coverage in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children? A 2007 update. Commun Dis Intell Q Rep. 2008. June;32(2):257–60. PubMed PMID: 18767426; eng. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Hull BP, McIntyre PB. Timeliness of childhood immunisation in Australia. Vaccine. 2006. May 15;24(20):4403–08. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.02.049 PubMed PMID: 16569467; eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Barbaro B, Brotherton JM. Assessing HPV vaccine coverage in Australia by geography and socioeconomic status: are we protecting those most at risk? Aust N Z J Public Health. 2014;38(5):419–23. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Brien S, Kwong JC, Charland KM, Verma AD, Brownstein JS, Buckeridge DL. Neighborhood determinants of 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 influenza vaccination in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Am J Epidemiol. 2012. November 15;176(10):897–908. doi: 10.1093/aje/kws154 PubMed PMID: 23077284; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3662406. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Eccles KM, Bertazzon S. Applications of geographic information systems in public health: A geospatial approach to analyzing MMR immunization uptake in Alberta. Can J Public Health = Revue Canadienne De Sante Publique. 2015. Sep-Oct;106(6):e355–61. PubMed PMID: 26680425; eng. doi: 10.17269/cjph.106.4981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Mueller S, Exeter DJ, Petousis-Harris H, Turner N, O‘Sullivan D, Buck CD. Measuring disparities in immunisation coverage among children in New Zealand. Health Place. 2012. November;18(6):1217–23. PubMed PMID: 23000894; eng. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Teng JE, Thomson DR, Lascher JS, Raymond M, Ivers LC. Using Mobile Health (mHealth) and geospatial mapping technology in a mass campaign for reactive oral cholera vaccination in rural Haiti. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(7):e3050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003050 PubMed PMID: 25078790; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4117440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Thompson KM, Logan GE. Characterization of heterogeneity in childhood immunization coverage in central florida using immunization registry data. Risk Anal. 2015. May 29. doi: 10.1111/risa.12424 PubMed PMID: 26033542; Eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Trogdon JG, Ahn T. Geospatial patterns in human papillomavirus vaccination uptake: evidence from uninsured and publicly insured children in North Carolina. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015;24(3):595–602. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Trogdon JG, Ahn T. Geospatial patterns in influenza vaccination: evidence from uninsured and publicly insured children in North Carolina. Am J Infect Control. 2015. March 1;43(3):234–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2014.11.022 PubMed PMID: 25637432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Wagner AL, Sun X, Montgomery JP, Huang Z, Boulton ML. The impact of residency and urbanicity on Haemophilus influenzae Type b and pneumococcal immunization in Shanghai Children: a Retrospective Cohort Study. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097800 PubMed PMID: 24828814; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4020859. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Odone A, Ferrari A, Spagnoli F, Visciarelli S, Shefer A, Pasquarella C, Signorelli C. Effectiveness of interventions that apply new media to improve vaccine uptake and vaccine coverage. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(1):72–82. doi: 10.4161/hv.34313 PubMed PMID: 25483518; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4514191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Kalan R, Wiysonge CS, Ramafuthole T, Allie K, Ebrahim F, Engel ME. Mobile phone text messaging for improving the uptake of vaccinations: A systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2014;4(8). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Establishment of the national vaccine registry [Istituzione dell’Anagrafe nazionale vaccini.] Gazzetta ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana: Ministry of Health, n. 257. 2018. September 17. [Google Scholar]
- 135.Iannazzo S, Rizzuto E, Pompa MG. Polio vaccination failure in Italy, years 2006-2010. Epidemiol Prev. 2014. Nov-Dec;38(6 Suppl 2):98–102. PubMed PMID: 25759353. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Martinelli D, Fortunato F, Iannazzo S, Cappelli M, Prato R. Using routine data sources to feed an immunization information system for high-risk patients—a pilot study. Front Public Health. 2018;6:1–6. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Arnheim-Dahlstrom L, Hallgren J, Weibull CE, Sparen P. Risk of presentation to hospital with epileptic seizures after vaccination with monovalent AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine (Pandemrix): self controlled case series study. Bmj. 2012;345:e7594. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7594 PubMed PMID: 23274350; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3532724. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control A literature review of trust and reputation management in communicable disease public health. Stockholm, Sweden: ECDC; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 139.Higgins O, Sixsmith J, Barry MM, Domegan C. A literature review on health information seeking behaviour on the web: a health consumer and health professional perspective. Stockholm, Sweden: ECDC; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 140.Rosenthal J, Rodewald L, McCauley M, Berman S, Irigoyen M, Sawyer M, Yusuf H, Davis R, Kalton G. Immunization coverage levels among 19- to 35-month-old children in 4 diverse, medically underserved areas of the United States. Pediatrics. 2004. April;113(4):e296–302. doi: 10.1542/peds.113.4.e296 PubMed PMID: 15060256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141.McElligott JT, Darden PM. Are patient-held vaccination records associated with improved vaccination coverage rates? Pediatrics. 2010;125(3):e467–e72. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Rosselli R, Martini M, Bragazzi NL. The old and the new: vaccine hesitancy in the era of the Web 2.0. Challenges and opportunities. J Prev Med Hyg. 2016;57(1):E47–50. PubMed PMID: 27346940; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4910443. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Brunson EK. The impact of social networks on parents‘ vaccination decisions. Pediatrics. 2013. May;131(5):e1397–404. PubMed PMID: 23589813. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Trogdon JG, Ahn T. Geospatial patterns in human papillomavirus vaccination uptake: evidence from uninsured and publicly insured children in North Carolina. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015. March;24(3):595–602. PubMed PMID: 25576528. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Keeling MJ, White PJ. Targeting vaccination against novel infections: risk, age and spatial structure for pandemic influenza in Great Britain. J Royal Soc Interface. 2011. May 6;8(58):661–70. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0474 PubMed PMID: 20943682; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3061093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.Cooper LZ, Larson HJ, Katz SL. Protecting public trust in immunization. Pediatrics. 2008. July;122(1):149–53. PubMed PMID: 18595998. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.HarrisInteractive Number of ‘cyberchondriacs’ - adults going online for health information - has plateaued or declined; 2010. March 30 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/healthnews/HI_HealthCareNews2008Vol8_Iss8.pdf.
- 148.Susannah F. The social life of health information. Washington (DC): Project PRCsIAL, editor; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 149.Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005. December 12–26;165(22):2618–24. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618 PubMed PMID: 16344419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.Rosselli R, Martini M, Bragazzi NL, Watad A. The public health impact of the so-called “Fluad Effect” on the 2014/2015 influenza vaccination campaign in Italy: ethical implications for health-care workers and health communication practitioners. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;973:125–34. doi: 10.1007/5584_2017_39 PubMed PMID: 28452003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.Signorelli C, Odone A, Conversano M, Bonanni P. Deaths after Fluad flu vaccine and the epidemic of panic in Italy. Bmj. 2015. January 14;350:h116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h116 PubMed PMID: 25589037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Bonanni P. Enlarged free childhood vaccination offer in Italy proposed to curb the rise in the growing anti-vaccine message. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2018. February;17(2):103–05. PubMed PMID: 29257703. doi: 10.1080/14760584.2018.1419069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Katib A, Rao D, Rao P, Williams K, Grant J. A prototype of a novel cell phone application for tracking the vaccination coverage of children in rural communities. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2015. November;122(2):215–28. PubMed PMID: 26363678. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2015.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Wilson K, Atkinson KM, Bell CP. Travel vaccines enter the digital age: creating a virtual immunization record. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016. March;94(3):485–88. PubMed PMID: 26711516; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4775877. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Mamoshina P, Ojomoko L, Yanovich Y, Ostrovski A, Botezatu A, Prikhodko P, Izumchenko E, Aliper A, Romantsov K, Zhebrak A, et al. Converging blockchain and next-generation artificial intelligence technologies to decentralize and accelerate biomedical research and healthcare. Oncotarget. 2018. January 19;9(5):5665–90. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.22345 PubMed PMID: 29464026; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5814166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Curran EA, Bednarczyk RA, Omer SB. Evaluation of the frequency of immunization information system use for public health research. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013. June;9(6):1346–50. PubMed PMID: 23422024; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3901828. eng. doi: 10.4161/hv.24033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157.Olsson K, Gianfredi V, Derrough T. Immunisation information systems in the EU and EEA - Results of a survey on implementation and system characteristics. Stockholm, Sweden: ECDC: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 158.Tozzi AE, Gesualdo F, D‘Ambrosio A, Pandolfi E, Agricola E, Lopalco P. Can digital tools be used for improving immunization programs? Front Public Health. 2016;4:36. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00036 PubMed PMID: 27014673; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4782280. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159.D‘Ancona F, Gianfredi V, Riccardo F, Iannazzo S. Immunisation Registries at regional level in Italy and the roadmap for a future Italian National Registry. Ann Ig. 2018. Mar-Apr;30(2):77–85. PubMed PMID: 29465145. doi: 10.7416/ai.2018.2199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160.Goldstein ND, Maiese BA. A brief review of vaccination coverage in immunization registries. Online J Public Health Inform. 2011;3(1). doi: 10.5210/ojphi.v3i1.3385 PubMed PMID: 23569601; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3615778. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161.Sartori AM, Nascimento AF, Yuba TY, Soarez PC, Novaes HM. Methods and challenges for the health impact assessment of vaccination programs in Latin America. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49. doi: 10.1590/s0034-8910.2015049006058 PubMed PMID: 26759964; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4687821. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162.Metroka AE, Hansen MA, Papadouka V, Zucker JR. Using an immunization information system to improve accountability for vaccines distributed through the Vaccines for Children program in New York City, 2005–2008. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009. Sep-Oct;15(5):E13–21. PubMed PMID: 19704302; eng. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181a8c31f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163.Groom H, Hopkins DP, Pabst LJ, Murphy Morgan J, Patel M, Calonge N, Coyle R, Dombkowski K, Groom AV, Kurilo MB, et al. Immunization information systems to increase vaccination rates: a community guide systematic review. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015. May-Jun;21(3):227–48. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000069 PubMed PMID: 24912082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164.Patel M, Pabst L, Chattopadhyay S, Hopkins D, Groom H, Myerburg S, Morgan JM; Community Preventive Services Task F . Economic review of immunization information systems to increase vaccination rates: a community guide systematic review. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015. May-Jun;21(3):253–62. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000100 PubMed PMID: 24912081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Citations
- The SAGE Vaccine Hesitancy Working Group What influences vaccine acceptance: a model of determinants of vaccine hesitancy; 2013. [accessed 2019 January20]. https://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2013/april/1_Model_analyze_driversofvaccineConfidence_22_March.pdf?ua=1