4.6 Article

Increasing Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination Uptake in Seniors Using Point-of-Care Informational Interventions in Primary Care in Singapore: A Pragmatic, Cluster-Randomized Crossover Trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 109, 期 12, 页码 1776-1783

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305328

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Services Research New Investigator Grant [HNIG16Jul007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To evaluate the effectiveness of point-of-care informational interventions in general practitioner clinics to improve influenza and pneumococcal vaccination uptake among elderly patients. Methods. We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized crossover trial in 22 private general practitioner clinics in Singapore, from November 2017 to July 2018. We included all patients aged 65 years or older. Clinics were assigned to a 3-month intervention (flyers and posters encouraging vaccination) plus 1-month washout period, and a 4-month control period (usual care). Primary outcomes were differences in vaccination uptake rates between periods. Secondary outcomes were identification of other factors associated with vaccination uptake. Results. A total of 4378 and 4459 patients were included in the intervention and control periods, respectively. Both influenza (5.9% vs 4.8%; P = .047) and pneumococcal (5.7% vs 3.7%; P = .001) vaccination uptake rates were higher during the intervention period compared with the control period. On multilevel logistic regression analysis, follow-up for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, or any combination of the 3 was associated with uptake of both vaccines. Conclusions. Point-of-care informational interventions likely contributed to increased influenza and pneumococcal vaccination uptake. Patients on follow-up for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, or any combination of the 3 were more likely to receive influenza and pneumococcal vaccination and should be actively engaged by physicians.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据