Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial.
Am J Public Health. 2013 Jun; 103(6):1116-23.AJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of population-based recall (Pop-recall) versus practice-based recall (PCP-recall) at increasing immunizations among preschool children.

METHODS

This cluster-randomized trial involved children aged 19 to 35 months needing immunizations in 8 rural and 6 urban Colorado counties. In Pop-recall counties, recall was conducted centrally using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). In PCP-recall counties, practices were invited to attend webinar training using CIIS and offered financial support for mailings. The percentage of up-to-date (UTD) and vaccine documentation were compared 6 months after recall. A mixed-effects model assessed the association between intervention and whether a child became UTD.

RESULTS

Ten of 195 practices (5%) implemented recall in PCP-recall counties. Among children needing immunizations, 18.7% became UTD in Pop-recall versus 12.8% in PCP-recall counties (P < .001); 31.8% had documented receipt of 1 or more vaccines in Pop-recall versus 22.6% in PCP-recall counties (P < .001). Relative risk estimates from multivariable modeling were 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10, 1.37) for becoming UTD and 1.26 (95% CI = 1.15, 1.38) for receipt of any vaccine. Costs for Pop-recall versus PCP-recall were $215 versus $1981 per practice and $17 versus $62 per child brought UTD.

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based recall conducted centrally was more effective and cost-effective at increasing immunization rates in preschool children.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Children's Outcomes Research Program, The Children's Hospital, Denver, CO, USA. Allison.Kempe@childrenscolorado.orgNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Language

eng

PubMed ID

23237154

Citation

Kempe, Allison, et al. "Population-based Versus Practice-based Recall for Childhood Immunizations: a Randomized Controlled Comparative Effectiveness Trial." American Journal of Public Health, vol. 103, no. 6, 2013, pp. 1116-23.
Kempe A, Saville A, Dickinson LM, et al. Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):1116-23.
Kempe, A., Saville, A., Dickinson, L. M., Eisert, S., Reynolds, J., Herrero, D., Beaty, B., Albright, K., Dibert, E., Koehler, V., Lockhart, S., & Calonge, N. (2013). Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial. American Journal of Public Health, 103(6), 1116-23. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301035
Kempe A, et al. Population-based Versus Practice-based Recall for Childhood Immunizations: a Randomized Controlled Comparative Effectiveness Trial. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):1116-23. PubMed PMID: 23237154.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial. AU - Kempe,Allison, AU - Saville,Alison, AU - Dickinson,L Miriam, AU - Eisert,Sheri, AU - Reynolds,Joni, AU - Herrero,Diana, AU - Beaty,Brenda, AU - Albright,Karen, AU - Dibert,Eva, AU - Koehler,Vicky, AU - Lockhart,Steven, AU - Calonge,Ned, Y1 - 2012/12/13/ PY - 2012/12/15/entrez PY - 2012/12/15/pubmed PY - 2013/7/10/medline SP - 1116 EP - 23 JF - American journal of public health JO - Am J Public Health VL - 103 IS - 6 N2 - OBJECTIVES: We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of population-based recall (Pop-recall) versus practice-based recall (PCP-recall) at increasing immunizations among preschool children. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial involved children aged 19 to 35 months needing immunizations in 8 rural and 6 urban Colorado counties. In Pop-recall counties, recall was conducted centrally using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). In PCP-recall counties, practices were invited to attend webinar training using CIIS and offered financial support for mailings. The percentage of up-to-date (UTD) and vaccine documentation were compared 6 months after recall. A mixed-effects model assessed the association between intervention and whether a child became UTD. RESULTS: Ten of 195 practices (5%) implemented recall in PCP-recall counties. Among children needing immunizations, 18.7% became UTD in Pop-recall versus 12.8% in PCP-recall counties (P < .001); 31.8% had documented receipt of 1 or more vaccines in Pop-recall versus 22.6% in PCP-recall counties (P < .001). Relative risk estimates from multivariable modeling were 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10, 1.37) for becoming UTD and 1.26 (95% CI = 1.15, 1.38) for receipt of any vaccine. Costs for Pop-recall versus PCP-recall were $215 versus $1981 per practice and $17 versus $62 per child brought UTD. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based recall conducted centrally was more effective and cost-effective at increasing immunization rates in preschool children. SN - 1541-0048 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/23237154/Population_based_versus_practice_based_recall_for_childhood_immunizations:_a_randomized_controlled_comparative_effectiveness_trial_ L2 - http://www.ajph.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301035?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&amp;rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&amp;rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -