Search

Objective: To provide insights into complexities of seeking access to state and federal cross-jurisdictional data for linkage with the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR). We provide recommendations for improving access and receipt of linked datasets involving Australian Government-administered data., Methods: We describe requirements for linking eleven federal and state data sources to establish a national linked dataset for safety evaluation of vaccines. The required data linkage methodology for integrating cross-jurisdictional data sources is also described., Results: Extensive negotiation was required with 18 different agencies for 21 separate authorisations and 12 ethics approvals. Three variations of the 'best practice' linkage model were implemented. Australian Government approval requests spanned nearly four years from initial request for data, with a further year before ACIR data transfer to the linkage agency., Conclusions: Integration of immunisation registers with other data collections is achievable in Australia but infeasible for routine and rapid identification of vaccine safety concerns. Lengthy authorisation requirements, convoluted disparate application processes and inconsistencies in data supplied all contribute to delayed data availability. Implications for public health: Delayed data access for safety surveillance prevents timely epidemiological reviews. Poor responsiveness to safety concerns may erode public confidence, compromising effectiveness of vaccination programs through reduced participation., (© 2019 The Authors.)

Passive reporting of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) by consumers or healthcare professionals is the primary mechanism for post-marketing surveillance of vaccine safety. Although recent initiatives have promoted consumer reporting, there is a lack of research concerning consumer reporters. Computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted in 2011 of a cross-sectional, random, general population sample of 191 South Australian parents who stated that their children had previously experienced an AEFI. We compared awareness of surveillance, vaccine safety opinions, and demographics of parents reporting an AEFI to either healthcare professionals or surveillance authorities with those who did not report their children's AEFI. Multivariate regression analyses measured: the association between reporting and safety views; and demographic predictors of reporting an AEFI. Reporting an AEFI to a healthcare professional or a surveillance authority was not significantly associated with awareness of a surveillance system. AEFI reporters, when compared with non-reporters, were more likely to be Australian-born (OR = 4.58, [1.64, 12.78], P = 0.004); were associated with the perception that a serious reaction was more likely to occur at their children's last immunization (OR = 2.54 [95%CI 1.22, 5.30], P = 0.013); and were less accepting of the risk of febrile convulsion, (OR = 3.59 [95%CI 1.50, 8.57], P = 0.004). Although reporting an AEFI was not associated with awareness of surveillance or most socio-demographics, the results suggest some difference in safety opinions. Further studies are required to ascertain if these differences pre-date the occurrence of an AEFI or are a consequence of the AEFI and how consumers can contribute further to vaccine safety surveillance.

Background: Healthcare provider spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) is central to monitoring post-licensure vaccine safety, but little is known about how healthcare professionals recognise and report to surveillance systems. The aim of this study was explore the knowledge, experience and attitudes of medical and nursing professionals towards detecting and reporting AEFI., Methods: We conducted a qualitative study, using semi-structured, face to face interviews with 13 Paediatric Emergency Department consultants from a tertiary paediatric hospital, 10 General Practitioners, 2 local council immunisation and 4 General Practice nurses, recruited using purposive sampling in Adelaide, South Australia, between December 2010 and September 2011. We identified emergent themes related to previous experience of an AEFI in practice, awareness and experience of AEFI reporting, factors that would facilitate or impede reporting and previous training in vaccine safety. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data., Results: AEFI reporting was infrequent across all groups, despite most participants having reviewed an AEFI. We found confusion about how to report an AEFI and variability, according to the provider group, as to the type of events that would constitute a reportable AEFI. Participants' interpretation of a "serious" or "unexpected" AEFI varied across the three groups. Common barriers to reporting included time constraints and unsatisfactory reporting processes. Nurses were more likely to have received formal training in vaccine safety and reporting than medical practitioners., Conclusions: This study provides an overview of experience and beliefs of three healthcare professional groups in relation to identifying and reporting AEFI. The qualitative assessment reveals differences in experience and awareness of AEFI reporting across the three professional groups. Most participants appreciated the importance of their role in AEFI surveillance and monitoring the ongoing safety of vaccines. Future initiatives to improve education, such as increased training to health care providers, particularly, medical professionals, are required and should be included in both undergraduate curricula and ongoing, professional development.

Childhood immunisation programmes have seen well-heralded successes in disease control. An increasing number of scheduled vaccines, narrowing risk-benefit ratios and public attention to vaccine safety raise new questions about consent. We first explore the challenges that this highly dynamic environment poses for valid consent. Then, we broaden this discussion to wider public engagement by suggesting how the public - the bearers of vaccine risk and benefit - can be better involved in immunisation policy., (© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health © 2011 Paediatrics and Child Health Division (Royal Australasian College of Physicians).)

Objective: Governments use vaccination mandates, of different degrees of coerciveness, to encourage or require childhood vaccination. We elicited the views of well‐informed community members on the public acceptability of using childhood vaccination mandates in Australia. Methods: Four community juries were conducted in Canberra, Launceston, Cairns and Melbourne, Australia between 2021 and 2022. We recruited 51 participants from diverse backgrounds, genders and ages through random digit dialling and social media. Two juries were held in metropolitan areas, and two in regional/rural settings. Outcome measures included jury verdicts and reasons in response to structured questions. Results: All juries were concerned about collective protection and individual rights but prioritised the former over the latter. A majority in all juries supported mandates but juries disagreed with respect to the appropriate mandate types. All juries endorsed using the least restrictive or coercive means to encourage vaccination (providing incentives or education, e.g.) before imposing penalties such as financial losses and school exclusions. The overriding view was that it is fairer to place a direct burden on parents rather than children and that mandates should be designed to avoid inequitable impacts on less advantaged groups in society. Many jurors found conscientious objection acceptable as a controlled option for resolute refusers, provided that overall vaccination coverage remains high. Conclusion: This paper gives policymakers access to the reasons that Australians have for supporting or opposing different mandates under conditions of high knowledge, understanding and deliberation regarding policy options. Sustaining high rates of vaccination requires high levels of co‐operation between governments, public health actors and the public. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public values in the design and implementation of vaccination mandates. Patient and Public Involvement: We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate during the study design. The views and perspectives of nonvaccinating parents were presented in the evidence to juries. We deliberately excluded nonvaccinating individuals from participating, as the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic, and their minority status, made it difficult to ensure they would feel safe as members of the jury without overrepresenting their perspective in the sample. Two related projects engaged directly with these parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the processes and the factors influencing intersectoral collaboration is vital for the ongoing success of programmes that rely on effective partnerships between sectors, such as the school-based immunization programme, the school dental health programme and health promotion interventions delivered in school settings. We studied school-based health programmes delivered by partnerships between health, education and the local government sectors. We used purposive sampling to identify 19 people working in school-based health programmes and interviewed them about the barriers and enablers of successful collaboration. Data were analysed thematically. We found that collaboration between complex systems was a skilled endeavour which relied on a strong foundation of communication and interpersonal professional relationships. Understanding the core business, operational context and intersectoral point-of-view of collaborative partners was important both for establishing good intersectoral programmes and sustaining them as contexts and personnel changed. Aligning divergent sectoral agendas early in the collaborative processwas essential for ensuring that all partners could meet their core business needs while also delivering the programme outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Schools are increasingly asked to participate in a range of public health programs, but there has been little consideration of the impact of these programs on policy and/or implementation. We investigated intersectoral collaboration between the health and education sectors using a case study of a school-based immunization program (SBIP). Methods The study was undertaken in South Australia. We undertook an ethnographic review examining health and education system functioning at a variety of levels using a mixed methods approach, informed by an interactive and multidirectional knowledge transfer framework. Results Facilitators for intersectoral collaboration included: explicit responsibilities for specific activities; clear communication channels; including the core values of each sector in planning and implementation; and collaborative development of health educational programs. Including consumers as key stakeholders in planning and implementing intersectoral programs is important. While the SBIP itself is currently successful, threats to its sustainability were identified. Conclusions Outcomes included: (i) a clearer understanding of the functioning of the SBIP in SA including wide-ranging and practical recommendations to facilitate the implementation of the program in both sectors, including revisions to enhance the experience for students; (ii) a broader outcome focusing on identification of barriers and facilitators for intersectoral collaboration and suggestions for enhancing such collaborations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Adolescents’ views, and preferences are often over-looked when public health policies that affect them are designed and implemented. The purpose of this study was to describe young people's views and preferences for determining government funding priorities for adolescent immunization programs. Methods In 2015 we conducted a youth jury in metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia to deliberate on the question “What criteria should we use to decide which vaccines for young people in Australia should receive public funding?” Fifteen youth aged 15–19 years participated in the jury. Jury members were recruited from the general community through a market research company using a stratified sampling technique. Results The jury's key priorities for determining publically funded vaccines were: Disease severity – whether the vaccine preventable disease (VPD) was life threatening and impacted on quality of life. Transmissibility – VPDs with high/fast transmission and high prevalence. Demonstration of cost-effectiveness, taking into account purchase price, program administration, economic and societal gain. The jury's recommendations for vaccine funding policy were strongly underpinned by the belief that it was critical to ensure that funding was targeted to not only population groups who would be medically at risk from vaccine preventable diseases, but also to socially and economically disadvantaged population groups. A novel recommendation proposed by the jury was that there should be a process for establishing criteria to remove vaccines from publically funded programs as a complement to the process for adding new vaccines. Conclusions Young people have valuable contributions to make in priority setting for health programs and their views should be incorporated into the framing of health policies that directly affect them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Program in Australia commenced in 2007 for females and in 2013 for males, using the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (HPV 6,11,16,18). Thus far, we have demonstrated very substantial reductions in genital warts and in the prevalence of HPV among young Australian women, providing early evidence for the success of this public health initiative. Australia has a long history of school-based vaccination programs for adolescents, with comparatively high coverage. However, it is not clear what factors promote success in a school vaccination program. The HPV.edu study aims to examine: 1) student knowledge about HPV vaccination; 2) psycho-social outcomes and 3) vaccination uptake.Methods/design: HPV.edu is a cluster randomised trial of a complex intervention in schools aiming to recruit 40 schools with year-8 enrolments above 100 students (approximately 4400 students). The schools will be stratified by Government, Catholic, and Independent sectors and geographical location, with up to 20 schools recruited in each of two states, Western Australia (WA) and South Australia (SA), and randomly allocated to intervention or control (usual practice). Intervention schools will receive the complex intervention which includes an adolescent intervention (education and distraction); a decisional support tool for parents and adolescents and logistical strategies (consent form returns strategies, in-school mop-up vaccination and vaccination-day guidelines). Careful process evaluation including an embedded qualitative evaluation will be undertaken to explore in depth possible mechanisms for any observed effect of the intervention on primary and secondary outcomes.Discussion: This study is the first to evaluate the relative effectiveness of various strategies to promote best practice in school-based vaccination against HPV. The study aims to improve vaccination-related psychosocial outcomes, including adolescent knowledge and attitudes, decision-making involvement, self-efficacy, and to reduce fear and anxiety. The study also aims to improve school vaccination program logistics including reduction in time spent vaccinating adolescents and increased number of consent forms returned (regardless of decision). Less anxiety in adolescents will likely promote more efficient vaccination, which will be more acceptable to teachers, nurses and parents. Through these interventions, it is hoped that vaccination uptake will be increased.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000404628 , 14.04.2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. We investigated ethical issues in school-based immunization programs for adolescents and how they are addressed. Methods. We used qualitative methods and an ethnographic approach to observe 9 secondary schools on immunization days in South Australia in 2011; concurrently, we conducted 9 focus groups with female secondary school students, 6 semistructured interviews with parents, and 10 interviews with nurses and teachers. We explored ethical challenges from the perspective of these groups. Results. We identified ethical challenges for the delivery of adolescent immunization in a school-based setting in 3 main areas: informed consent, restrictions on privacy, and harm to students in the form of fear and anxiety. Conclusions. We found areas in which the design and delivery of school-based immunization programs can be improved. Information about immunization should be provided in ways that are appropriate to young people and their parents, and privacy protections should be enhanced when possible. Involving young people in the design and delivery of programs would assist with making these improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] Use of adolescent and community views may lead to greater support for the SBIP. [•] Community and adolescent views on the SBIP provided unique insights for improvement. [•] Citizens juries offer a unique and rigorous methodology for accessing community and adolescent views to impact policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Since 2006 Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination has become available to adolescent girls and women in an increasing number of countries, to protect against the virus causing cervical cancer. The vaccine series is offered in three doses over 6 months, and this study aimed to identify factors associated with initiation and/or completion of the 3 dose series in (pre-) adolescent girls. Previous studies have considered intention to vaccinate rather than actual vaccination uptake. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Medline in process, Embase and CINAHL, from 2006 to March 2011 for articles related to HPV-vaccine uptake among adolescent girls and factors potentially associated with uptake yielded 25 studies. Results: The majority of studies were surveys or retrospective reviews of data, only 5 studies reported data on program completion. Most were conducted in the United States (20/25). Higher vaccine uptake was associated with having health insurance, of older age, receipt of childhood vaccines, a higher vaccine related knowledge, more healthcare utilization, having a healthcare provider as a source of information and positive vaccine attitudes. In US settings, African American girls were less likely to have either initiated or completed the three dose vaccination series. Conclusions: HPV vaccination programs should focus on narrowing disparities in vaccine receipt in ethnic and racial groups and on providing correct information by a reliable source, e.g. healthcare providers. School-based vaccination programs have a high vaccine uptake. More studies are required to determine actual vaccine course completion and factors related to high uptake and completion, and information from a broader range of developed and developing settings is needed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]