Search

Background: It is estimated that vaccinating 50%-70% of school-aged children for influenza can produce population-wide indirect effects. We evaluated a city-wide school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) intervention that aimed to increase influenza vaccination coverage. The intervention was implemented in ≥95 preschools and elementary schools in northern California from 2014 to 2018. Using a matched cohort design, we estimated intervention impacts on student influenza vaccination coverage, school absenteeism, and community-wide indirect effects on laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations., Methods and Findings: We used a multivariate matching algorithm to identify a nearby comparison school district with pre-intervention characteristics similar to those of the intervention school district and matched schools in each district. To measure student influenza vaccination, we conducted cross-sectional surveys of student caregivers in 22 school pairs (2017 survey, N = 6,070; 2018 survey, N = 6,507). We estimated the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization from 2011 to 2018 using surveillance data from school district zip codes. We analyzed student absenteeism data from 2011 to 2018 from each district (N = 42,487,816 student-days). To account for pre-intervention differences between districts, we estimated difference-in-differences (DID) in influenza hospitalization incidence and absenteeism rates using generalized linear and log-linear models with a population offset for incidence outcomes. Prior to the SLIV intervention, the median household income was $51,849 in the intervention site and $61,596 in the comparison site. The population in each site was predominately white (41% in the intervention site, 48% in the comparison site) and/or of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (26% in the intervention site, 33% in the comparison site). The number of students vaccinated by the SLIV intervention ranged from 7,502 to 10,106 (22%-28% of eligible students) each year. During the intervention, influenza vaccination coverage among elementary students was 53%-66% in the comparison district. Coverage was similar between the intervention and comparison districts in influenza seasons 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and was significantly higher in the intervention site in seasons 2016-2017 (7%; 95% CI 4, 11; p < 0.001) and 2017-2018 (11%; 95% CI 7, 15; p < 0.001). During seasons when vaccination coverage was higher among intervention schools and the vaccine was moderately effective, there was evidence of statistically significant indirect effects: The DID in the incidence of influenza hospitalization per 100,000 in the intervention versus comparison site was -17 (95% CI -30, -4; p = 0.008) in 2016-2017 and -37 (95% CI -54, -19; p < 0.001) in 2017-2018 among non-elementary-school-aged individuals and -73 (95% CI -147, 1; p = 0.054) in 2016-2017 and -160 (95% CI -267, -53; p = 0.004) in 2017-2018 among adults 65 years or older. The DID in illness-related school absences per 100 school days during the influenza season was -0.63 (95% CI -1.14, -0.13; p = 0.014) in 2016-2017 and -0.80 (95% CI -1.28, -0.31; p = 0.001) in 2017-2018. Limitations of this study include the use of an observational design, which may be subject to unmeasured confounding, and caregiver-reported vaccination status, which is subject to poor recall and low response rates., Conclusions: A city-wide SLIV intervention in a large, diverse urban population was associated with a decrease in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization in all age groups and a decrease in illness-specific school absence rate among students in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, seasons when the vaccine was moderately effective, suggesting that the intervention produced indirect effects. Our findings suggest that in populations with moderately high background levels of influenza vaccination coverage, SLIV programs are associated with further increases in coverage and reduced influenza across the community., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: The following authors report grant support from the Flu Lab to the University of California, Berkeley for the conduct of this research: JBC, BFA, KM, NP, AN, WJ, AEH, AR, JMC. EP reports grant support from the Shoo the Flu organization to the Alameda County Public Health Department. KH reports paid employment from the Shoo the Flu organization. CK reports paid employment from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Division of Research. PDK and TL report grant support from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the California Emerging Infections Program.

OBJECTIVE To characterize health professional schools by their vaccination policies for acceptable forms of evidence of immunity and exemptions permitted. METHODS Data were collected between September 2011 and April 2012 using an Internet-based survey e-mailed to selected types of accredited health professional programs. Schools were identified through accrediting associations for each type of health professional program. Analysis was limited to schools requiring ≥1 vaccine recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, varicella, pertussis, and influenza. Weighted bivariate frequencies were generated using SAS 9.3. RESULTS Of 2,775 schools surveyed, 75% (n=2,077) responded; of responding schools, 93% (1947) required ≥1 ACIP-recommended vaccination. The proportion of schools accepting ≥1 non-ACIP-recommended form of evidence of immunity varied by vaccine: 42% for pertussis, 37% for influenza, 30% for rubella, 22% for hepatitis B, 18% for varicella, and 9% for measles and mumps. Among schools with ≥1 vaccination requirement, medical exemptions were permitted for ≥1 vaccine by 75% of schools; 54% permitted religious exemptions; 35% permitted personal belief exemptions; 58% permitted any nonmedical exemption. CONCLUSIONS Many schools accept non-ACIP-recommended forms of evidence of immunity which could lead some students to believe they are protected from vaccine preventable diseases when they may be susceptible. Additional efforts are needed to better educate school officials about current ACIP recommendations for acceptable forms of evidence of immunity so school policies can be revised as needed.

Unlabelled: To help protect healthcare personnel (HCP) from infection and to prevent possible disease transmission to their patients, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends vaccination of all HCP, including students. We sought to gather information on the vaccination policies of U.S. health professional (i.e., non-physician HCP) programs and to compare those requirements to current ACIP recommendations., Methods: A self-administered, internet-based survey sent to 2,779 U.S. health professional programs was used to collect data on program demographics; student vaccination requirements; deadlines for adherence, consequences for non-adherence, and permitted exemptions to these requirements; and factors influencing the program's vaccination policy., Result: The response rate was 75%. Among 2,077 responding programs, 19% required all ACIP-recommended vaccines for HCP--87% required measles, mumps, and rubella; 84% required hepatitis B; 75% required varicella; 48% required tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap); and 32% required influenza. Programs reviewing requirements at least annually and those that reported the ACIP influenced requirements were significantly more likely to require varicella, Tdap, and influenza vaccine. During the 2009-2010 influenza season, only 59% of programs offered influenza vaccine to students., Conclusion: Health professional schools should update their vaccination requirements annually to be consistent with ACIP recommendations.

Objective: To evaluate the reliability and validity of a standardized measure of healthcare personnel (HCP) influenza vaccination., Setting: Acute care hospitals, long-term care facilities, ambulatory surgery centers, physician practices, and dialysis centers from 3 US jurisdictions., Participants: Staff from 96 healthcare facilities randomly sampled from 234 facilities that completed pilot testing to assess the feasibility of the measure., Methods: Reliability was assessed by comparing agreement between facility staff and project staff on the classification of HCP numerator (vaccinated at facility, vaccinated elsewhere, contraindicated, declined) and denominator (employees, credentialed nonemployees, other nonemployees) categories. To assess validity, facility staff completed a series of case studies to evaluate how closely classification of HCP groups aligned with the measure's specifications. In a modified Delphi process, experts rated face validity of the proposed measure elements on a Likert-type scale., Results: Percent agreement was high for HCP vaccinated at the facility (99%) and elsewhere (95%) and was lower for HCP who declined vaccination (64%) or were medically contraindicated (64%). While agreement was high (more than 90%) for all denominator categories, many facilities' staff excluded nonemployees for whom numerator and denominator status was difficult to determine. Validity was lowest for credentialed and other nonemployees., Conclusions: The standardized measure of HCP influenza vaccination yields reproducible results for employees vaccinated at the facility and elsewhere. Adhering to true medical contraindications and tracking declinations should improve reliability. Difficulties in establishing denominators and determining vaccination status for credentialed and other nonemployees challenged the measure's validity and prompted revision to include a more limited group of nonemployees.

BackgroundIncreasing influenza vaccination coverage in school-aged children may substantially reduce community transmission. School-located influenza vaccinations (SLIV) aim to promote vaccinations by increasing accessibility, which may be especially beneficial to race/ethnicity groups that face high barriers to preventative care. Here, we evaluate the effectiveness of a city-wide SLIV program by race/ethnicity from 2014 to 2018.MethodsWe used multivariate matching to pair schools in the intervention district in Oakland, CA with schools in a comparison district in West Contra Costa County, CA. We distributed cross-sectional surveys to measure caregiver-reported student vaccination status and estimated differences in vaccination coverage levels and reasons for non-vaccination between districts stratifying by race/ethnicity. We estimated difference-in-differences (DID) of laboratory confirmed influenza hospitalization incidence between districts stratified by race/ethnicity using surveillance data.ResultsDifferences in influenza vaccination coverage in the intervention vs. comparison district were larger among White (2017-18: 21.0% difference [95% CI: 9.7%, 32.3%]) and Hispanic/Latino (13.4% [8.8%, 18.0%]) students than Asian/Pacific Islander (API) (8.9% [1.3%, 16.5%]), Black (5.9% [-2.2%, 14.0%]), and multiracial (6.3% [-1.8%, 14.3%)) students. Concerns about vaccine effectiveness or safety were more common among Black and multiracial caregivers. Logistical barriers were less common in the intervention vs. comparison district, with the largest difference among White students. In both districts, hospitalizations in 2017-18 were higher in Blacks (Intervention: 111.5 hospitalizations per 100,00; Comparison: 134.1 per 100,000) vs. other races/ethnicities. All-age influenza hospitalization incidence was lower in the intervention site vs. comparison site among White/API individuals in 2016-17 (DID -25.14 per 100,000 [95% CI: -40.14, -10.14]) and 2017-18 (-36.6 per 100,000 [-52.7, -20.5]) and Black older adults in 2017-18 (-282.2 per 100,000 (-508.4, -56.1]), but not in other groups.ConclusionsSLIV was associated with higher vaccination coverage and lower influenza hospitalization, but associations varied by race/ethnicity. SLIV alone may be insufficient to ensure equitable influenza outcomes.