Search

Abstract Background Early intervention and conversation about a child’s weight may offer an important chance of success in reducing weight and implementing a healthier lifestyle. This review explores the most effective ways to notify parents and children about the child’s weight as well as their preferences and experiences around weight notification. Methods We systematically searched nine databases for relevant primary research. Records were independently screened by two authors. We extracted data into a form designed for this review. Effect data was analysed using narrative synthesis and qualitative data using a best-fit framework synthesis. We assessed our confidence in the evidence using GRADE and GRADE-CERQual. Results Studies of effect found that the format of feedback made little or no difference in parents attending further treatment, recognising their child as overweight or obese, reactions to the way the weight notification is given, motivation for lifestyle change, understanding how to reduce the risk of overweight, or taking any action. However, parents receiving feedback with motivational interviewing have somewhat greater satisfaction with the way the healthcare provider supports them. Qualitative studies found that parents had clear preferences for the format, timing, content and amount of information they wanted to receive in relation to both the weighing process and weight notification. They also had clear preferences for how they wanted health care providers to interact and communicate with them and their children. Both parents and children often felt that they were not receiving enough information and worried about how their results would be kept private. Many parents experienced an emotional response when told about their child’s weight ranging from positive, disbelief and negative feelings. Those who reacted with disbelief or negatively were less likely to accept their child’s weight status and/or act upon the notification letter. No studies reported results for children who were underweight. Conclusions Based on these qualitative results people working with weight assessment and notification programs should consider parents’ preferences when developing feedback formats, considering the mode of feedback they are going to use and provide parents and children with tailored feedback and personalized follow up once a child is identified as overweight or obese.

Background: Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform decision-making in health, education, social care and environmental protection. However, decision makers still experience barriers to using reviews, including not knowing how findings might translate to their own contexts, and lack of collaboration with systematic review authors. The TRANSFER approach is a novel method that aims to support review authors to systematically and transparently collaborate with stakeholders to consider context and the transferability of review findings from the beginning of the review process. Such collaboration is intended to improve the usefulness and relevance of review findings for decision makers., Objectives: We aim to explore the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide, and in doing so gain a better understanding of the role and perceived value of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews for informed decision-making., Methods: We conducted four user tests of groups using the guide, organized around simulated meetings between review authors and stakeholders. Review authors led the meeting using the TRANSFER approach conversation guide. We audio-recorded and observed the meetings, collected feedback forms and conducted semi-structured interviews with review authors following the meeting. We analysed the data using framework analysis to examine the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide and of stakeholder engagement more generally., Results: Seventeen participants in four user groups participated in the user tests. Most participants were generally positive toward the structured approach using the conversation guide, and felt it would be useful in systematic review projects. We observed examples of misunderstanding of the terminology included in the guide, and received multiple suggestions for how to make the conversation guide more user friendly. We observed numerous challenges related to the hypothetical nature of a user test, including lack of familiarity with the review question/topic among participants and lack of preparation for the meeting., Conclusions: Review authors and stakeholders are positive toward using a structured approach to guide collaboration within the context of a systematic review. The TRANSFER conversation guide helps participants to discuss the review question and context in a structured way. Such structured collaboration could help to improve the usefulness and relevance of systematic reviews for decision making by improving the review question, inclusion criteria and consideration of transferability of review findings. The conversation guide needs to be modified to improve user experience. Further research is needed to explore stakeholder collaboration and the use of the TRANSFER conversation guide in systematic review processes., (© 2022 The Authors. Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration.)

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of both exposure and transmission of infectious disease. Two European Union (EU) directives state that health services are responsible for assessing their employees' potential exposure to infectious diseases and offering immunisation free of charge. We assessed current policy for immunisation of HCWs and the availability of vaccine coverage data in the Nordic countries by surveying national vaccination experts in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, as well as Swedish county medical officers (CMOs). All national experts and 17 of 21 Swedish CMOs responded. All EU countries had transposed the European directives into national law, while Norway and Iceland had similar national legislation. Recommendations or guidelines were issued in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and 15 of 17 responding Swedish counties. The range of diseases covered differed by countries and Swedish counties. HCW vaccine coverage data were not systematically collected; incomplete estimates were only available for Finland and two Swedish counties. In conclusion, recommendations or guidelines exist in the Nordic countries, but their impact cannot be assessed, as vaccine uptake among HCWs is not currently measured. Systematic collection of data is a necessary step towards improving HCW immunisation policy and practice in the Nordic countries.

Background: Systematic reviews are a key input to health and social welfare decisions. Studies included in systematic reviews often vary with respect to contextual factors that may impact on how transferable review findings are to the review context. However, many review authors do not consider the transferability of review findings until the end of the review process, for example when assessing confidence in the evidence using GRADE or GRADE-CERQual. This paper describes the TRANSFER Approach, a novel approach for supporting collaboration between review authors and stakeholders from the beginning of the review process to systematically and transparently consider factors that may influence the transferability of systematic review findings., Methods: We developed the TRANSFER Approach in three stages: (1) discussions with stakeholders to identify current practices and needs regarding the use of methods to consider transferability, (2) systematic search for and mapping of 25 existing checklists related to transferability, and (3) using the results of stage two to develop a structured conversation format which was applied in three systematic review processes., Results: None of the identified existing checklists related to transferability provided detailed guidance for review authors on how to assess transferability in systematic reviews, in collaboration with decision makers. The content analysis uncovered seven categories of factors to consider when discussing transferability. We used these to develop a structured conversation guide for discussing potential transferability factors with stakeholders at the beginning of the review process. In response to feedback and trial and error, the TRANSFER Approach has developed, expanding beyond the initial conversation guide, and is now made up of seven stages which are described in this article., Conclusions: The TRANSFER Approach supports review authors in collaborating with decision makers to ensure an informed consideration, from the beginning of the review process, of the transferability of the review findings to the review context. Further testing of TRANSFER is needed.

Background: Systematic reviews of research evidence have become an expected basis for decisions about practice guidelines and policy decisions in the health and welfare sectors. Review authors define inclusion criteria to help them determine which studies to search for and include in their reviews. However, these studies may still vary in the extent to which they reflect the context of interest in the review question. While most review authors would agree that systematic reviews should be relevant and useful for decision makers, there appears to be few well known, if any, established methods for supporting review authors to assess the transferability of review findings to the context of interest in the review. With this systematic mapping and content analysis, we aim to identify whether there exists checklists to support review authors in considering transferability early in the systematic review process. The secondary aim was to develop a comprehensive list of factors that influence transferability as discussed in existing checklists., Methods: We conducted a systematic mapping of checklists and performed a content analysis of the checklist criteria included in the identified checklists. In June 2016, we conducted a systematic search of eight databases to identify checklists to assess transferability of findings from primary or secondary research, without limitations related to publication type, status, language, or date. We also conducted a gray literature search and searched the EQUATOR repository of checklists for any relevant document. We used search terms such as modified versions of the terms "transferability," "applicability," "generalizability," etc. and "checklist," "guideline," "tool," "criteria," etc. We did not include papers that discussed transferability at a theoretical level or checklists to assess the transferability of guidelines to local contexts., Results: Our search resulted in 11,752 titles which were screened independently by two review authors. The 101 articles which were considered potentially relevant were subsequently read by two authors, independently in full text and assessed for inclusion. We identified 31 relevant checklists. Six of these examined transferability of economic evaluations, and 25 examined transferability of primary or secondary research findings in health (n = 23) or social welfare (n = 2). The content analysis is based on the 25 health and social welfare checklists. We identified seven themes under which we grouped categories of checklist criteria: population, intervention, implementation context (immediate), comparison intervention, outcomes, environmental context, and researcher conduct., Conclusions: We identified a variety of checklists intended to support end users (researchers, review authors, practitioners, etc.) to assess transferability or related concepts. While four of these checklists are intended for use in systematic reviews of effectiveness, we found no checklists for qualitative evidence syntheses or for the field of social welfare practice or policy. Furthermore, none of the identified checklists for review authors included guidance to on how to assess transferability, or present assessments in a systematic review. The results of the content analysis can serve as the basis for developing a comprehensive list of factors to be used in an approach to support review authors in systematically and transparently considering transferability from the beginning of the review process.

Limited data exist on the immunogenicity of a third dose of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). In this study, our aim was to evaluate the long-term rubella immunogenicity afforded by two childhood MMR doses of the Norwegian vaccination program in a cohort of conscripts and to determine the effect of an additional dose of MMR vaccine, in order to inform vaccination policy. Blood samples from Norwegian conscripts (n = 495) taken both before and eight months after administration of a dose of MMR vaccine were tested using an enzyme immunoassay to measure anti-rubella IgG. Concentrations <5 IU/mL were regarded as negative, 5.0-9.9 IU/mL as equivocal, and ≥10 IU/mL as positive. Overall, the seropositivity before vaccination was 84.6%, and 99.0% of the conscripts had anti-rubella IgG concentrations ≥5 IU/mL. The seropositivity after vaccination was 94.5%, and 99.8% of the conscripts had antibody concentrations ≥5 IU/mL. The geometrical mean IgG concentrations increased from 21.4 IU/mL before vaccination to 28.9 IU/mL after. Four out of five conscripts, with seronegative concentrations before administrations of an additional MMR dose, had equivocal or seropositive results following vaccination. The cohort of young adults in Norway, which was eligible for two childhood MMR doses, was protected against rubella, and efforts should be made to maintain high vaccine coverage to ensure immunity in the future. A third dose of MMR administered in early adulthood led to an increase in the antibody concentration in our cohort and seroconversion for the majority of seronegative persons.

Background: Selective immunisation is an alternative to universal vaccination if children at increased risk of disease can be identified. Within the Norwegian Childhood Immunisation Programme, BCG vaccine against tuberculosis and vaccine against hepatitis B virus (HBV) are offered only to children with parents from countries with high burden of the respective disease. We wanted to study whether this selective immunisation policy reaches the targeted groups., Methods: The study population was identified through the Norwegian Central Population Registry and consisted of all children born in Norway 2007-2010 and residing in Norway until their second birthday, in total 240,484 children. Information on vaccinations from the Norwegian Immunisation Registry, and on parental country of birth from Statistics Norway, was linked to the population registry by personal identifiers. The coverage of BCG and HBV vaccine was compared with the coverage of vaccines in the universal programme., Results: Among the study population, 16.1% and 15.9% belonged to the target groups for BCG and HBV vaccine, respectively. Among children in the BCG target group the BCG vaccine coverage was lower than the coverage of pertussis and measles vaccine (83.6% vs. 98.6% and 92.3%, respectively). Likewise, the HBV vaccine coverage was lower than the coverage of pertussis and measles vaccine in the HBV target group (90.0% vs. 98.6% and 92.3%, respectively). The coverage of the targeted vaccines was highest among children with parents from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The coverage of vaccines in the universal programme was similar in targeted and non-targeted groups., Conclusions: Children targeted by selective vaccination had lower coverage of the target vaccines than of vaccines in the universal programme, indicating that selective vaccination is challenging. Improved routines for identifying eligible children and delivering the target vaccines are needed. Universal vaccination of all children with these vaccines could be considered., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Delayed vaccinations increase the risk for vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs). Monitoring of delayed vaccinations by using a national immunisation registry has not been studied in countries recommending a two-dose (3 and 5 months of age) primary series of e.g., pertussis vaccine. Surveillance/monitoring of all vaccinations may improve vaccination programmes functioning., Methods: We obtained information from the Norwegian immunisation registry (SYSVAK) on all programme vaccinations received at age up to 730 days in children born in 2010 (n = 63,382). Timely vaccinations were received up to 7 days after the recommended age. Vaccinations were considered delayed if they were received more than one month after the recommended age in the schedule., Results: In vaccinated children, timely administration of the subsequent three doses of pertussis and one dose of measles occurred in 73.8, 47.6, 53.6 and 43.5 % respectively. Delay for one or more programme vaccinations (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenza type B, invasive pneumococcal disease, measles, mumps or rubella) was present in 28,336 (44.7 %) children. Among those who were delayed the mean duration was 139 days. The proportion of children that had vaccinations delayed differed among counties (range 37.4 %-57.8 %). Immigrant children were more frequently delayed 52.3 % vs. 43.1 %, RR 1.21 (95 % CI 1.19, 1.24). Children scheduled for vaccines in the summer holiday month (July) were more frequently delayed than others (1(st) dose pertussis vaccine 6.5 % vs. 3.9 % RR 1.65 (95 % CI 1.48, 1.85). Priming against pertussis (2(nd) dose), pneumococcal (2(nd) dose) and measles (1(st) dose) was delayed in 16.8, 18.6 and 29.3 % respectively., Conclusion: Vaccinations were frequently delayed. Delayed vaccinations differed among counties and occurred more frequently during the summer vacation (July) and in the immigrant population. Monitoring improves programme surveillance and may be used on an annual basis.

Infections caused by cytomegalovirus (CMV), parvovirus B19 (B19), and rubella can lead to serious complications in pregnant women. The aim of this study was to determine the susceptibility to CMV, B19, and rubella antibodies in pregnant women in Norway. Consecutive sera samples were collected from pregnant women in two different regions in Norway. Sera were collected from age groups; ≤19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and ≥40 years old. Of the 2,000 pregnant women tested, anti-CMV IgG was positive in 62.8% anti-parvovirus B19 IgG in 59.7% and anti-rubella IgG in 94.4%. CMV IgG susceptibility has decreased in pregnant women less than 30 years of age, from 60% in a study conducted in 1973-1974 to 37.2% in present study. There was a significant difference in CMV IgG seropositivity rate between the two regions (58.6% and 67.1%). Serum levels of rubella IgG was lowest in age group 25-29 years with a positivity rate of 91.0%. Women born before vaccination with two doses of MMR started, had both a higher positivity rate and significantly higher levels of rubella antibody titre, 96.1% and 82.2 IU/ml compared to those born after 92.9% and 41.7 IU/ml. Significantly lower anti-rubella IgG titre found in the youngest age groups highlights the need for continued antenatal screening. A considerable increase in anti-CMV-IgG seropositivity rate was observed and might be associated with higher rate of breastfeeding and a higher percentage attending day-care centres., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: During the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, pregnant women were at risk for severe influenza illness. This concern was complicated by questions about vaccine safety in pregnant women that were raised by anecdotal reports of fetal deaths after vaccination., Methods: We explored the safety of influenza vaccination of pregnant women by linking Norwegian national registries and medical consultation data to determine influenza diagnosis, vaccination status, birth outcomes, and background information for pregnant women before, during, and after the pandemic. We used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios for fetal death, with the gestational day as the time metric and vaccination and pandemic exposure as time-dependent exposure variables., Results: There were 117,347 eligible pregnancies in Norway from 2009 through 2010. Fetal mortality was 4.9 deaths per 1000 births. During the pandemic, 54% of pregnant women in their second or third trimester were vaccinated. Vaccination during pregnancy substantially reduced the risk of an influenza diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.34). Among pregnant women with a clinical diagnosis of influenza, the risk of fetal death was increased (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.07 to 3.41). The risk of fetal death was reduced with vaccination during pregnancy, although this reduction was not significant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.17)., Conclusions: Pandemic influenza virus infection in pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of fetal death. Vaccination during pregnancy reduced the risk of an influenza diagnosis. Vaccination itself was not associated with increased fetal mortality and may have reduced the risk of influenza-related fetal death during the pandemic. (Funded by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.).

The development of conjugate vaccines has enabled the prevention and control of Neisseria meningitidis caused by serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y. Vaccines that provide protection against a broad number of serogroup B strains likely will be available soon to enable greater control of meningococcal disease in high income countries. We present an argument for adequate post-marketing surveillance to monitor epidemiological shifts and to provide a context for the safety and reactogenicity of serogroup B vaccines, including the newer recombinant vaccines. We also offer a series of recommendations to address possible concerns about vaccine safety., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is unknown. In Norway, a vaccine against Neisseria meningitides group B was administered to teenagers in 1988--1989 in a protection trial. In order to estimate the relative risk of CFS/ME according to vaccine history, we conducted a case-control study in 2007, with 201 cases diagnosed at one of two hospitals and 389 controls. The adjusted odds ratio for CFS/ME was 1.06 (95% CI: 0.67-1.66) for subjects who received the active vaccine contrasted to subjects who did not. Using this design, no statistically significant association between vaccination against meningococcal disease in teenagers and occurrence of CFS/ME could be observed.

Throughout the history of vaccination, vaccines have been accused of harmful side effects. Adverse events following immunization may be caused by the active antigen in the vaccine or other constituents, such as adjuvants, or may merely be coincidental. Possible neurological side effects have always obtained high attention. However, the risk of serious events caused by existing vaccines or aluminum adjuvants is very small. Currently, there are several new vaccines and adjuvants in the pipeline. Of these vaccines, many will be offered mainly to adolescents or adults. When taken into general use, some of them will probably be associated with serious adverse events. Although coincidence will be the most probable explanation in most cases, causality will have to be discussed in many situations. Preparing to address the causes of these adverse events is important.

MenBvac and MeNZB are safe and efficacious vaccines against serogroup B meningococcal disease. MenBvac is prepared from a B:15:P1.7,16 meningococcal strain (strain 44/76), and MeNZB is prepared from a B:4:P1.7-2,4 strain (strain NZ98/254). At 6-week intervals, healthy adults received three doses of MenBvac (25 microg), MeNZB (25 microg), or the MenBvac and MeNZB (doses of 12.5 microg of each vaccine) vaccines combined, followed by a booster 1 year later. Two-thirds of the subjects who received a monovalent vaccine in the primary schedule received the other monovalent vaccine as a booster dose. The immune responses to the combined vaccine were of the same magnitude as the homologous responses to each individual vaccine observed. At 6 weeks after the third dose, 77% and 87% of the subjects in the combined vaccine group achieved serum bactericidal titers of > or = 4 against strains 44/76 and NZ98/254, respectively, and 97% and 93% of the subjects achieved a fourfold or greater increase in opsonophagocytic activity against strains 44/76 and NZ98/254, respectively. For both strains, a trend of higher responses after the booster dose was observed in all groups receiving at least one dose of the respective strain-specific vaccine. Local and systemic reactions were common in all vaccine groups. Most reactions were mild or moderate in intensity, and there were no vaccine-related serious adverse events. The safety profile of the combined vaccine was not different from those of the separate monovalent vaccines. In conclusion, use of either of the single vaccines or the combination of MenBvac and MeNZB may have a considerable impact on the serogroup B meningococcal disease situation in many countries.

MenBvac is an OMV vaccine against systemic serogroup B Neisseria meningitidis disease. MenBvac was developed for control of a B:15:P1.7,16 subtype epidemic in Norway and administered to 180,000 subjects in 28 clinical studies. MeNZB, a daughter vaccine of MenBvac, was developed for a clonal B:4:P1.7b,4 epidemic in New Zealand and administered to 1 million people <20 years. The vaccines were similar regarding reactogenicity profile. Serious adverse events (SAEs) in general and particularly neurologic SAEs were very rare. Despite frequently reported local reactions and fever in those under 5 years, these OMV-based vaccines containing 25 microg antigen can be considered safe for use in all age groups.

When the diseases we try to prevent through vaccination are rare, we tend to focus more on the associated risks. Vaccination has led to unfortunate consequences, mainly due to production failure and inadequate control in earlier years. The requirements for vaccine control are now so rigorous that the risk for such occurrences is close to zero. Local and mild systemic reactions to vaccines are rather common, and are usually well known and described in detail when a vaccine is licensed. Some vaccine reactions are however so rare that they only will be discovered through surveillance after the vaccine has become available for routine use. Suspicion of adverse events will now normally arise through the official notification systems for adverse events. Large epidemiological studies are often necessary to decide whether there is a causal relationship or only a coincidence. Recording of adverse events following vaccination and transparency about their existence, are important issues in the work to maintain the credibility of vaccines.

Development of vaccines has in many ways been the art of the possible, using current knowledge about infections and microbes to devise new products. The aim of every vaccination is to prevent disease, but use of vaccines within vaccination programs is usually targeted not only to protect the individual, but also to changing the epidemiology of the disease. Several new vaccines will become available during the next decade, but the vaccination program will probably not be dramatically changed. Increased knowledge about the immune system might, in a longer time perspective, make it possible to rebuild a vaccination program on a new basis. Immunisations can perhaps be used for targeting the immune system in ways that still give protection against the specific infections, but in addition lead to better health through general protection against diseases, less allergy and less autoimmune diseases than we have today.