Abstract
The recent introduction of new vaccines into the school-based immunization program in British Columbia (BC) included monitoring of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) for these new vaccines. This commentary discusses different methods used to collect AEFIs in school immunization campaigns and the effects on response rate. The results of a study using an internet-based tool inspired this paper. The study examined adverse events following human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine given to grades 6 and 9 students. The low response rate of the internet survey resulted in insufficient findings regarding adverse events. Consequent to the analysis of the study’s data, a literature review was conducted to examine survey methodologies used to collect adverse event data following school-based immunization of adolescents. A PubMed search used various combinations of the following terms: vaccine, immunization, immunization programs, reactogenicity, adverse reactions, safety, adolescent, schoolchildren, and survey. Potentially relevant papers were identified based upon the titles and abstracts and subsequently reviewed. Only four studies were deemed appropriate for comparison purposes: all were done in Canada.
Keywords: Immunization, adolescent, data collection, adverse effects
Résumé
L’introduction récente de nouveaux vaccins dans le programme de vaccination en milieu scolaire de la Colombie-Britannique a compris la surveillance de leurs effets secondaires suivant l’immunisation (ESSI). Nous expliquons les différentes méthodes employées pour recueillir les données sur les ESSI lors des campagnes de vaccination à l’école et leurs effets sur le taux de réponse. Notre commentaire s’inspire des résultats d’une étude ayant utilisé un outil Internet. L’étude portait sur les effets secondaires de l’administration du vaccin contre le virus du papillome humain (VPH) à des élèves de la 6e à la 9e année. En raison d’un faible taux de réponse au sondage en ligne, on a obtenu des résultats insuffisants sur les effets secondaires. Après l’analyse des données de l’étude, nous avons mené une enquête bibliographique afin d’examiner les méthodes de sondage utilisées pour recueillir des données sur les effets secondaires de vaccins administrés en milieu scolaire à des adolescents. Nous avons fait une recherche dans PubMed en utilisant diverses combinaisons des termes vaccin, immunisation, programmes d’immunisation, réactogénicité, réactions indésirables, sécurité, adolescent, élèves et sondage. Les articles potentiellement pertinents ont été identifiés à partir de leurs titres et de leurs résumés, puis examinés. Seules quatre études ont été jugées utiles à des fins de comparaison; les quatre avaient été menées au Canada.
Motsclés: immunisation, adolescent, collecte de données, effets indésirables
Footnotes
Source of support: British Columbia Centre for Disease Control.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
References
- 1.British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. Communicable disease control: Immunization program. Vancouver, BC: BCCDC; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Public Health Agency of Canada. The Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System (CAEFISS) Ottawa, ON: PHAC; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Canadian Pediatric Society. Canadian Immunization Monitoring Program Active (IMPACT) Ottawa: CPS; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Pielak KL, Buxton JA, McIntyre CC, Tu A, Botnik M. Determining if vaccines should be given together or separately (Grades 6 and 9). Unpublished manuscript.
- 5.David ST, Hemsley C, Pasquali PE, Larke B, Buxton JA, Lior LY. Enhanced surveillance for adverse events following immunization: Two years of dTap catchup among high school students in Yukon, Canada (2004, 2005) Can J Public Health. 2006;97(6):465–69. doi: 10.1007/BF03405229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Tremblay M, Grenier J D, Serres G, Menard S, Toth E, Roussel R, et al. Adverse events after vaccination with dTap in high school students who have previously been vaccinated with d2T5. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2006;32(3):25–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Pielak KL, McIntyre CC, Remple VP, Buxton JA, Skowronski DM. One arm or two? Concurrent administration of meningococcal C conjugate and hepatitis B vaccines in pre-teens. Can J Public Health. 2008;99(1):52–56. doi: 10.1007/BF03403741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Dobson S, Scheifele D, Bell A. Assessment of a universal, school-based hepatitis B vaccination program. JAMA. 1995;274(15):1209–13. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03530150033030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: A systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2007;30(4):303–21. doi: 10.1177/0163278707307899. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Shih TH, Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods. 2008;20:249–71. doi: 10.1177/1525822X08317085. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Aday LA, Cornelius LJ. Designing and Conducting Health Surveys: A Comprehensive Guide. 3rd Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Willoughby T. A short-term longitudinal study of internet and computer game use by adolescent boys and girls: Prevalence, frequency of use, and psychosocial predictors. Developmental Psychol. 2008;44(1):195–204. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]