0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Article |

Additional Visit Burden for Universal Influenza Vaccination of US School-Aged Children and Adolescents FREE

Cynthia M. Rand, MD, MPH; Peter G. Szilagyi, MD, MPH; Byung-Kwang Yoo, MD, PhD; Peggy Auinger, MS; Christina Albertin, MPH; Margaret S. Coleman, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Pediatrics (Drs Rand and Szilagyi and Mss Auinger and Albertin) and Community and Preventive Medicine (Dr Yoo), University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York; and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (Dr Coleman).


Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(11):1048-1055. doi:10.1001/archpedi.162.11.1048.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To estimate the additional primary care visits needed for universal influenza vaccination of all US children and adolescents if all vaccinations occurred in primary care settings.

Design  Cross-sectional design.

Setting  Well-child care and other visits to primary care practices from the 2003-2004 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

Participants  Children aged 5 to 18 years (n = 3047) with a usual source of care.

Main Outcome Measure  Percentage of children needing 0, 1, or 2 additional visits to be immunized against influenza in a 3-, 4-, or 5-month vaccination window.

Results  In a 3-month window, if only well-child care visits were used for first immunization, 97% of 5- and 6-year-olds and 98% of 7- and 8-year-olds would need 1 or 2 additional visits for complete vaccination; 95% of 9- to 18-year-olds would need 1 visit. If instead all visits were used for immunization, 90% of 5- and 6-year-olds and 91% of 7- and 8-year-olds would need 1 or 2 visits; 78% of 9- to 18-year-olds would need 1 visit. Expanding the window to 4 or 5 months slightly reduces the need for additional visits. Nationally, using all opportunities for vaccination, 42 million additional visits would be needed in a generous 5-month window.

Conclusions  Most children and adolescents would need additional visits for universal influenza vaccination, even if all existing visits were used as vaccination opportunities. Efficient methods for vaccinating large numbers of children and adolescents are needed if primary care practices are to provide influenza vaccine for all children.

Figures in this Article

Influenza viruses cause an average of roughly 200 000 hospitalizations and 36 000 deaths in the United States annually,1,2 and children younger than 2 years have a risk of influenza hospitalization similar to that of older adults.3 Influenza infections also result in frequent outpatient4 and emergency department5 visits (most not clinically recognized as influenza), school absenteeism, and loss of parental work productivity.6 Further, school-aged children spread influenza disease to other members of their household and throughout the community.7,8

Both live attenuated9 and inactivated influenza vaccine10,11 have been shown to be effective in reducing influenza illness and associated outpatient health care visits and use of both prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Vaccinating children 6 months to 18 years of age against influenza might also reduce the burden of disease among the entire population.12,13

In 2006, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that all children 6 to 59 months of age and their household contacts be vaccinated against influenza, with a goal of reducing influenza-related physician visits and decreasing hospitalization and death among those at high risk.14 In early 2008, ACIP expanded this recommendation to include all children younger than 19 years.15 Most experts anticipate that primary care practices would be the first-line sites for universal influenza vaccination of this large population.

It is currently unknown how many children and adolescents have sufficient visits within the influenza vaccination season to receive their age-specific recommended 1 or 2 influenza vaccinations. Having a better understanding of how many additional visits would be needed to vaccinate the entire pediatric population will enable primary care practices to prepare for an expansion of the vaccine recommendation and can help national organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association of Family Physicians, to develop strategies for influenza vaccination of all children and adolescents. The objectives of this study were to estimate, for the potentially targeted population of 5- to 18-year-olds, the number of children and adolescents who would need additional primary care visits to receive influenza vaccine, above and beyond their current primary care visits and assuming that all vaccinations were provided in primary care. A second objective was to determine factors associated with needing additional primary care visits for universal influenza vaccination.

We analyzed the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component (HC). The MEPS is cosponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Center for Health Statistics. The MEPS-HC is a nationally representative survey of the US civilian noninstitutionalized population that collects medical expenditure data at both the person and household levels. The focus of MEPS-HC is to collect detailed data on demographic characteristics, health conditions, use of medical care services, charges and payments, access to care, and health insurance coverage. We analyzed the 2003-2004 panel of the MEPS-HC to measure well-child care (WCC) and other visits to primary care offices (pediatric, family medicine, and internal medicine) during the influenza vaccination season. These years were the most recently available data from the MEPS. The data were collected in 5 rounds of interviews that took place over 2 and a half years. Each round of MEPS-HC interviews collects information pertaining to a specific period, ranging from 3 to 6 months. Respondents are given calendars during the MEPS precontact interview for use in recording visits to medical providers.16 The response rate was 65.9% for the panel followed up in 2003-2004. To improve the precision of survey estimates for subgroups, Hispanic, black, and Asian households and families with income less than 200% of the poverty level were oversampled.17,18

Altogether, 3047 children and adolescents (from 1755 families) 5 to 18 years of age (as of October 1, 2003) were included in our analyses, which represents 49.3 million children in the United States when weighted. Ten percent of 5- to 8-year-olds and 16% of 9- to 18-year-olds who did not have a usual source of care were excluded since they would be unlikely to be reached with influenza vaccination in a primary care practice.19 The period for potential receipt of influenza vaccine was varied from 3 months (October-December) to 4 months (October-January) and to 5 months (October-February) because the ACIP3 and American Academy of Pediatrics recommend vaccinating throughout the influenza season.20

ADDITIONAL VISITS NEEDED FOR INFLUENZA VACCINATION

We assumed that children younger than 9 years would require 2 vaccinations, at least 4 weeks apart, the first time they receive influenza vaccine.14 We determined the number of children who would need additional visits for influenza vaccination given 2 scenarios: (1) the first influenza vaccination is given at a WCC visit, when physicians may be more likely to review vaccination histories and administer vaccinations, and (2) the first vaccination is given at any type of primary care visit (ie, no missed opportunities).

To account for various scenarios and because the MEPS does not document receipt of influenza vaccination, we made the following assumptions to estimate the number of children who had been vaccinated previously, based on published reports2123:

  • Children 5 to 6 years of age: This age group had a prior recommendation for vaccination (considering the 2006 recommendation that children younger than 59 months receive influenza vaccination). Based on recent vaccination estimates,23 we estimated a low of 20% and high of 30% would have received influenza vaccination (randomly assigned) in a prior season and determined the number who would need 0, 1, or 2 more visits in a 3-, 4-, and 5-month vaccination window.

  • Children 7 to 8 years of age: This age group did not have a prior recommendation for vaccination, unless they were considered high risk. We similarly estimated a low of 10% and a high of 20% would have received influenza vaccination and determined the number needing 0, 1, or 2 additional visits in 3-, 4-, and 5-month vaccination windows. To predict visit needs for future years, we also estimated additional visits needed if 50% of children 5 to 8 years of age had received prior influenza vaccination.

  • Children and adolescents 9 years to 18 years of age: This age group would require only 1 vaccination (regardless of prior vaccinations); therefore, we determined the number who would need 0 or 1 additional visits to primary care offices in a 3-, 4-, and 5-month vaccination window.

We performed bivariate analyses using simple logistic regression with 1 variable at a time entered into the model to determine characteristics of children and adolescents associated with needing 0, 1, or 2 primary care visits in 3-, 4-, and 5-month time frames. We then performed multivariate logistic regressions, with all demographic factors entered a priori, to determine factors associated with the need for 0 vs 1 to 2 additional visits in a 4-month time frame, the most likely scenario. Age was examined based on recommendations for influenza vaccination (5-6, 7-8, and 9-18 years of age). Race/ethnicity was classified into 5 groups (Hispanic, white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, Asian non-Hispanic, and other non-Hispanic), insurance was delineated as “any private, public only, or uninsured,” and federal poverty level (FPL) during 2003 was defined as less than 100%, 100% to less than 200%, 200% to less than 400%, and 400% or more. SUDAAN version 9.024 was used to account for the complex sampling design and to provide national estimates.

The MEPS cohort included 454 children 5 and 6 years of age, 473 children 7 and 8 years of age, and 2120 adolescents 9 to 18 years of age. Characteristics of this population are shown in Table 1, with percentages reflecting weighted data. The majority of children in the sample were white, non-Hispanic, and privately insured.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Percentage of Children 5 to 18 Years of Age in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2003-2004 Panela
CHILDREN 5 AND 6 YEARS OF AGE: FIRST VACCINATION AT WCC VISIT

As a first scenario, we assumed that the initial influenza vaccination would occur at a WCC visit. If we assume that 20% of 5- and 6-year-old children had received influenza vaccination in a prior season, almost one-quarter would need 1 additional visit and three-quarters would need 2 additional visits in a 3-month vaccination window (Figure 1). Expanding the time window for vaccination from 3 to 5 months reduced the number needing 2 visits by only 2.5%. Overall, there would need to be an additional 11.6 million (3-month vaccination window), 11.5 million (4-month vaccination window), or 11.3 million (5-month vaccination window) visits nationally among this age group. Assuming 30% with prior vaccination reduces additional visits needed by 700 000 visits.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Proportion of children 5 to 8 years of age needing 0, 1, or 2 additional visits for influenza vaccination in both scenarios, first vaccination at well-child care (WCC) visits and vaccination at all visits.

Graphic Jump Location
CHILDREN 7 AND 8 YEARS OF AGE
First Vaccination at WCC Visit

Again assuming that the first vaccination is given at a WCC visit, and if we assume that 10% of 7- and 8-year-old children had received influenza vaccination in a prior season, 16%, 18%, and 19% would need 1 additional visit in 3-, 4-, and 5-month windows, respectively, and 82%, 81%, and 80% would need 2 additional visits, respectively (Figure 1). The numbers requiring 1 visit increased as fewer needed 2 visits. This would account for an additional 13.3 million (3-month vaccination window), 13.2 million (4-month vaccination window), or 13.1 million (5-month vaccination window) visits nationally among this age group. Assuming 20% with prior vaccination reduces additional visits needed by 600 000 visits.

All Visits Used for Vaccination

If we instead assume that all visits are used for vaccination (ie, no missed opportunities), then one-third of 5- and 6-year-old children would need 1 visit, regardless of the time window for vaccination, and 57%, 53%, and 48% would need 2 additional visits within 3-, 4-, and 5-month windows, respectively (Figure 1) (assuming 20% with prior vaccination). For 7- and 8-year-olds, 23%, 28%, and 29% would need 1 additional visit within 3-, 4-, and 5-month vaccination windows, and 69%, 63%, and 59% would need 2 visits, respectively (assuming 10% vaccinated prior). In this scenario, an additional 21.8 million visits would be needed to reach all 5- to 8-year-old children with influenza vaccination in a 3-month window and 20.7 million visits (4-month window) or 19.6 million visits (5-month window) if longer periods were used for vaccination. If instead 30% of 5- and 6-year-olds and 20% of 7- and 8-year-olds had been vaccinated in a prior season and all opportunities are used, 20.6 million (3-month window), 19.6 million (4-month window), and 18.5 million (5-month window) visits would be needed.

Bivariate and Multivariate Analyses

In bivariate analyses, in a typical 4-month window, the poorest group of 7- and 8-year-olds was the least likely to need zero additional visits (Table 2). No other demographic factors were significant for 5- and 6-year-olds or 7- and 8-year-olds. In multivariate analyses, also examining a 4-month time frame and assuming 20% prior vaccination, 5- and 6-year-olds at 100% to less than 200% of the FPL were more likely to need additional visits (odds ratio, 2.6) than those at more than 400% of the FPL. No multivariate results were significant for 7- and 8-year-old children.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Percentage of Children 5 to 18 Years of Age Who Would Need Additional Visits During a 4-Month Influenza Season Intervala
Estimation of Future Visit Needs

Since, over time, more school-aged children will have been vaccinated and need only 1 vaccination each season, we estimated the additional visits needed if 50% of children 5 to 8 years of age had been vaccinated in the past. If the first vaccine is given at a WCC visit, an additional 19.7 million (3-month window), 19.5 million (4-month window), and 19.3 million (5-month window) visits would be needed for this age group. But if instead all visits are used for vaccination, 16.9 million (3-month window), 15.9 million (4-month window), and 15 million (5-month window) visits would be needed.

CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS 9 TO 18 YEARS OF AGE
Vaccination at WCC Visit

For this age group, 95%, 94%, and 92% would need an additional visit in 3-, 4-, and 5-month windows, respectively, if influenza vaccinations are given at WCC visits (Figure 2). This would account for an additional 33.5 million (3-month window), 32.9 million (4-month window), or 32.3 million (5-month window) primary care visits.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Percentage of adolescents 9 to 18 years of age needing 0 or 1 additional visits for influenza vaccination in both scenarios, vaccination only at well-child care (WCC) visits and vaccination at all visits.

Graphic Jump Location
All Visits Used for Vaccination

If instead all visits are used for vaccination, 78%, 73%, and 67% of adolescents would need an additional visit in 3-, 4-, and 5-month windows, respectively (Figure 2). This would account for an additional 27.5 million (3-month window), 25.6 million (4-month window), or 23.5 million (5-month window) visits.

Bivariate and Multivariate Analyses

There were no differences by sex in use of primary care in any of the time frames in bivariate analyses, but Asian and black adolescents were consistently more likely than white adolescents to need a primary care visit in 3-, 4-, or 5-month intervals (Table 2). There was no significant difference in use for Hispanic adolescents compared with white adolescents. Adolescents without insurance and those who were in the 100% to less than 200% of the FPL category were more likely to need a visit in the 4-month time frame, compared with those with private insurance and who were at 400% or more of the FPL, respectively (P < .05). In 5 months, adolescents at all poverty levels less than 400% of the FPL were more likely to lack primary care visits (P < .05 for all) and therefore were more likely to require an additional visit for vaccination.

In multivariate analysis (4-month window), only race/ethnicity remained significantly associated with the need for more visits. Children/adolescents of Asian or “other” race were more likely to need additional visits (odds ratio, 2.3 and 2.9, respectively; P < .05) compared with white children/adolescents.

Not surprisingly, we found that the majority of children and adolescents would need additional visits for universal influenza vaccination. On multivariate analyses, subgroups of children were not more likely to need additional visits, suggesting that practice-based strategies should focus on the entire population rather than on subgroups. Conservatively, we estimate that approximately 42 million (18.5 million for 5- to 8-year-olds, 23.5 million for 9- to 18-year-olds) additional visits would be needed for universal influenza vaccination of children and adolescents, if all opportunities and a generous 5-month time frame for vaccination are used, assuming that 30% of 5- and 6-year-olds and 20% of 7- and 8-year-olds were vaccinated in a prior season. Approximately 49 million would be needed if influenza vaccination was provided during a 3-month period or if a lower coverage rate existed during a prior season.

Given an estimated 117 million visits in 12 months for children aged 0 to 18 years overall in this sample, vaccinating the population of 5- to 18-year-olds would increase the total number of annual primary care visits across the United States by 36%. These results show that the types of visits used for vaccination, the length of the vaccination period, and prior rates of vaccination can all affect the burden of additional visits to primary care practices.

TYPE OF VISITS USED FOR VACCINATION

Vaccinating at all types of visits, rather than strictly at WCC visits, had the greatest impact in reducing the additional burden of visits needed. Depending on the time frame and prior rates of immunization, an additional 7% to 15% of 5- to 8-year-olds would not need any extra visits if every visit was used for vaccination, and an additional 2% to 10% would need only 1 extra visit instead of 2 extra visits. For 9- to 18-year-olds, influenza vaccination rates could improve by 17 to 25 percentage points if all primary care visits were used for vaccination, depending on the time window. To reach all school-aged children and adolescents with influenza vaccination, it will be particularly important to avoid missed opportunities, given the relative scarcity of WCC visits for these age groups during the influenza vaccination season. By using all primary care visits as vaccination opportunities, up to 13.6 million additional visits nationally by 5- to 18-year-olds could be saved during a 5-month vaccination window compared with using only WCC visits. Thus, just as for routine childhood vaccinations or children with asthma,2530 reducing missed opportunities would play a major role in influenza vaccination of all children and adolescents.

LENGTH OF THE VACCINATION WINDOW

Lengthening the influenza vaccination window had a surprisingly small but measurable effect on visit burden. For each 1-month forward extension of the vaccination time frame, approximately 1% to 4% of 5- to 8-year-olds would need no additional visits to be fully vaccinated, and 5% of 9- to 18-year-olds could be vaccinated. Of course, lengthening the vaccination window is important to provide primary care practices with time to notify families and vaccinate the large number of eligible children and adolescents. However, vaccination before the onset of influenza activity in the community is ideal.

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

Annual vaccination of the entire pediatric population within medical homes will be challenging, but additional methods that have proven effective for other childhood vaccinations are likely to be helpful for influenza vaccination of all school-aged children and adolescents. These include establishing influenza immunization clinics or special hours within primary care offices,31 informing parents and patients about the need for vaccination,32,33 implementing reminder/recall systems for those who are not vaccinated or need a second dose,3437 and implementing audit and reviewing processes with feedback cycles to inform health care providers about their rates of immunization.3840 Finally, given the large number of additional visits needed, we recommend that each practice form an “influenza vaccination team” to develop, implement, and monitor the practice-based strategies for influenza vaccination of children and adolescents. Ongoing studies are evaluating the practice costs for primary care practices to provide influenza vaccination for all children and adolescents.

OTHER SITES FOR INFLUENZA VACCINATION

Given the large additional burden of visits needed to vaccinate the entire US population of school-aged children and adolescents, additional sites for vaccination outside of medical homes are being considered.

  • Schools: One potential, additional vaccination site might be schools,9,41,42 which have been successful for hepatitis B vaccine delivery in studies when free vaccine is provided.43,44 However, school-based vaccination programs present major logistic challenges.

  • Pharmacies: While state laws vary regarding influenza vaccination within pharmacies,45 such sites could be explored as another potential source for childhood influenza vaccination.

  • Alternative settings: Immunization information systems that communicate with medical homes might enhance the attractiveness of vaccinating in alternative settings, including public health clinics, since medical homes could be notified about vaccinations that were administered.

Use of other settings is being debated,46,47 and there is concern that current resources and delivery systems are not sufficient in these other settings to administer large-scale influenza vaccination programs. Thus, it is likely that medical homes will, in the foreseeable future, be the mainstay for influenza vaccination of children and adolescents in the United States.

CHILDREN WITH NO USUAL SOURCE OF CARE

We excluded children without a usual source of health care from analyses presented earlier; these children/adolescents may need alternative settings and extensive outreach to be reached for influenza vaccination. In a subanalysis, including these children would account for an estimated additional 3.1 million visits for 5- to 8-year-olds (assuming 2 visits needed) and 6.7 million visits for 9- to 18-year-olds, a total of 9.8 million additional visits needed for those with no usual source of health care.

REDUCTION IN OUTPATIENT VISITS BY INFLUENZA VACCINATION

The increased number of outpatient visits measured earlier would be tempered somewhat by a decrease in the number of outpatient visits among 5- to 18-year-olds due to illness from influenza. Based on the literature,12,48,49 outpatient visits could be reduced by approximately 5 visits per 100 children if the influenza vaccine were 70% effective. Assuming 49.3 million children with a usual source of care, outpatient visits would be reduced by 2.5 million by influenza vaccination.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

First, visits reported for children in the MEPS are by parent report and are affected by recall bias. Frequent interviews ameliorate that effect.50 Second, we were unable to measure prior receipt of influenza vaccine (primarily for high-risk children) using the MEPS and relied instead on estimates based on previously reported data.2123 In the national cohort examined, 8.0% of school-aged children and 7.5% of adolescents had a diagnosis of asthma, and less than 1% had other high-risk diagnoses. We included these children in the overall estimates since only a slightly higher percentage (29%-35%) would have been likely to have had a prior vaccination, based on published reports.21 Third, visit patterns of children in 2003-2004 (the most recently available data from MEPS) may differ from those in subsequent influenza seasons, particularly as other vaccinations have been introduced for adolescents (eg, meningococcal, human papillomavirus), and the number of children older than 60 months needing only 1 vaccination should increase with time as prior recommendations are implemented. However, it is unlikely that these new recommendations would dramatically affect the rate of WCC visits offered during an influenza season.

In our multivariate analysis results, only Asian/“other” race groups were significantly associated with needing additional visits, findings that are not consistent with prior studies that suggest that black or Hispanic adolescents have fewer visits to primary care.51 The lack of significant factors associated with needing additional visits may be due to our excluding those with no usual source of health care. This suggests that the impact of a usual source of health care on needing additional visits might be greater than the effect of the other demographic, insurance, and income factors.

In conclusion, the vast majority of 5- to 18-year-olds would need 1 or 2 additional visits to primary care practices for universal influenza vaccination, even if all existing office visits and a generous vaccination window were used. The widest interval for vaccination predicts that an additional 42 million visits to primary care medical homes will be needed for children 5 to 18 years of age to receive influenza vaccine in a 5-month window, not including an additional 9.8 million visits needed among those children/adolescents with no usual source of care. To best cope with this additional burden of visits, primary care providers should offer the vaccine over the widest possible interval, vaccinate at every possible opportunity, implement intensive reminder/recall systems to notify eligible patients, perform audits to measure vaccination rates, and mobilize offices to implement effective strategies to efficiently handle the increased visit volume.

Correspondence: Cynthia M. Rand, MD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 777, Rochester, NY 14642 (cynthia_rand@urmc.rochester.edu).

Accepted for Publication: April 4, 2008.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Rand and Szilagyi. Acquisition of data: Auinger. Analysis and interpretation of data: Rand, Yoo, Auinger, Albertin, and Coleman. Drafting of the manuscript: Rand and Szilagyi. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Rand, Szilagyi, Yoo, Auinger, Albertin, and Coleman. Statistical analysis: Rand, Yoo, and Auinger. Obtained funding: Szilagyi. Administrative, technical, and material support: Rand, Albertin, and Coleman. Study supervision: Szilagyi.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by cooperative agreement 1U01IP000090-01 with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Previous Presentations: This work was presented in part at the Pediatric Academic Societies' Annual Meeting; May 6, 2007; Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Thompson  WWShay  DKWeintraub  E  et al.  Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 2003;289 (2) 179- 186
PubMed Link to Article
Thompson  WWShay  DKWeintraub  E  et al.  Influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States. JAMA 2004;292 (11) 1333- 1340
PubMed Link to Article
Fiore  AEShay  DKHaber  P  et al.  Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2007. MMWR Recomm Rep 2007;56 ((RR-6)) 1- 54
PubMed
Poehling  KAEdwards  KMWeinberg  GA  et al.  The underrecognized burden of influenza in young children. N Engl J Med 2006;355 (1) 31- 40
PubMed Link to Article
Bourgeois  FTValim  CWei  JC McAdam  AJMandl  KD Influenza and other respiratory virus-related emergency department visits among young children. Pediatrics 2006;118 (1) e1- e8.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e1. Accessed December 18, 2006
PubMed Link to Article
Neuzil  KMHohlbein  CZhu  Y Illness among schoolchildren during influenza season: effect on school absenteeism, parental absenteeism from work, and secondary illness in families. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156 (10) 986- 991
PubMed Link to Article
Fox  JPHall  CECooney  MKFoy  HM Influenzavirus infections in Seattle families, 1975-1979, I: study design, methods and the occurrence of infections by time and age. Am J Epidemiol 1982;116 (2) 212- 227
PubMed
Glezen  WPCouch  RB Interpandemic influenza in the Houston area, 1974-76. N Engl J Med 1978;298 (11) 587- 592
PubMed Link to Article
King  JC  JrStoddard  JJGaglani  MJ  et al.  Effectiveness of school-based influenza vaccination. N Engl J Med 2006;355 (24) 2523- 2532
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  SDemicheli  VDi Pietrantonj  C  et al.  Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children [update in Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD004879]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (1) CD004879
PubMed
Jefferson  TSmith  SDemicheli  VHarnden  ARivetti  ADi Pietrantonj  C Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review. Lancet 2005;365 (9461) 773- 780
PubMed Link to Article
Weycker  DEdelsberg  JHalloran  ME  et al.  Population-wide benefits of routine vaccination of children against influenza. Vaccine 2005;23 (10) 1284- 1293
PubMed Link to Article
Halloran  MELongini  IM  Jr Public health: community studies for vaccinating schoolchildren against influenza. Science 2006;311 (5761) 615- 616
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  NMBresee  JSShay  DKUyeki  TMCox  NJStrikas  RA Prevention and Control of Influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2006;55 ((RR-10)) 1- 42
PubMed
 CDC's Advisory Committee Recommends Influenza Vaccination for Children 6 months through 18 years of age. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2008/r080227.htm. Published February 27, 2008. Accessed March 11, 2008
 Calendar section, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey questionnaire section. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site. http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey_results_ques_sections.jsp?Section=CA&Year1=AllYear&Submit1=Search. Accessed January 23, 2008
Cohen  SB Sample Design of the 1997 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component.  Rockville, MD Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality2000;AHRQ Pub 01-0001
 MEPS HC-079: 2003 full year consolidated data file. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site. http://meps.ahrq.org/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data/pufs/h79/h79doc.pdf. Published November 2005. Accessed January 31, 2008
Smith  PJSantoli  JMChu  SYOchoa  DQRodewald  LE The association between having a medical home and vaccination coverage among children eligible for the vaccines for children program. Pediatrics 2005;116 (1) 130- 139
PubMed Link to Article
 Prevention of influenza: recommendations for influenza immunization of children, 2006-2007. Pediatrics 2007;119 (4) 846- 851
PubMed Link to Article
 Influenza vaccination coverage among children with asthma—United States, 2004-05 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56 (9) 193- 196
PubMed
 Estimated influenza vaccination coverage among adults and children—United States, September 1, 2004-January 31, 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54 (12) 304- 307
PubMed
 Influenza vaccination coverage among children aged 6-59 months—six immunization information system sentinel sites, United States, 2006-07 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56 (37) 963- 965
PubMed
Shah  BVBarnwell  BVBieler  GS SUDAAN User's Manual and Software. Release 9.0.  Research Triangle Park, NC Research Triangle Institute2004;
Szilagyi  PGRodewald  LEHumiston  SG  et al.  Reducing missed opportunities for immunizations: easier said than done. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996;150 (11) 1193- 1200
PubMed Link to Article
Santoli  JMSzilagyi  PGRodewald  LE Barriers to immunization and missed opportunities. Pediatr Ann 1998;27 (6) 366- 374
PubMed Link to Article
Dombkowski  KJDavis  MMCohn  LMClark  SJ Effect of missed opportunities on influenza vaccination rates among children with asthma. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160 (9) 966- 971
PubMed Link to Article
Szilagyi  PGRodewald  LEHumiston  SG  et al.  Missed opportunities for childhood vaccinations in office practices and the effect on vaccination status. Pediatrics 1993;91 (1) 1- 7
PubMed
Szilagyi  PGRodewald  LE Missed opportunities for immunizations: a review of the evidence. J Public Health Manag Pract 1996;2 (1) 18- 25
PubMed Link to Article
Szilagyi  PGRodewald  LE Missed opportunities for influenza vaccination among children with asthma. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1992;11 (9) 705- 708
PubMed Link to Article
Szilagyi  PGIwane  MKHumiston  SE  et al.  Time spent by primary care practices on pediatric influenza vaccination visits: implications for universal influenza vaccination. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157 (2) 191- 195
PubMed Link to Article
Hemingway  COPoehling  KA Change in recommendation affects influenza vaccinations among children 6 to 59 months of age. Pediatrics 2004;114 (4) 948- 952
PubMed Link to Article
Daley  MFCrane  LAChandramouli  V  et al.  Influenza among healthy young children: changes in parental attitudes and predictors of immunization during the 2003 to 2004 influenza season. Pediatrics 2006;117 (2) e268- e277http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/2/e268. Accessed. December 18, 2006
PubMed Link to Article
Szilagyi  PGBordley  CVann  JC  et al.  Effect of patient reminder/recall interventions on immunization rates: a review. JAMA 2000;284 (14) 1820- 1827
PubMed Link to Article
Kempe  ADaley  MFBarrow  J  et al.  Implementation of universal influenza immunization recommendations for healthy young children: results of a randomized, controlled trial with registry-based recall. Pediatrics 2005;115 (1) 146- 154
PubMed Link to Article
Daley  MFBarrow  JPearson  K  et al.  Identification and recall of children with chronic medical conditions for influenza vaccination. Pediatrics 2004;113 (1, pt 1) e26- e33
PubMed Link to Article
Szilagyi  PGSchaffer  SShone  L  et al.  Reducing geographic, racial, and ethnic disparities in childhood immunization rates by using reminder/recall interventions in urban primary care practices. Pediatrics 2002;110 (5) e58http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/110/5/e58. Accessed December 18, 2006
PubMed Link to Article
Schwartz  BHinman  AAbramson  J  et al.  Universal influenza vaccination in the United States: are we ready? Report of a meeting. J Infect Dis 2006;194 ((suppl 2)) S147- S154
PubMed Link to Article
Briss  PARodewald  LEHinman  AR  et al.  Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to improve vaccination coverage in children, adolescents, and adults: the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000;18 (1) ((suppl)) 97- 140
PubMed Link to Article
Wood  DL Increasing immunization coverage: American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Community Health Services. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine. Pediatrics 2003;112 (4) 993- 996
PubMed Link to Article
King  JC  JrCummings  GEStoddard  J  et al.  A pilot study of the effectiveness of a school-based influenza vaccination program. Pediatrics 2005;116 (6) e868- e873.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/6/e868. Accessed December 18, 2006
PubMed Link to Article
Reichert  TASugaya  NFedson  DSGlezen  WPSimonsen  LTashiro  M The Japanese experience with vaccinating schoolchildren against influenza. N Engl J Med 2001;344 (12) 889- 896
PubMed Link to Article
Dobson  SScheifele  DBell  A Assessment of a universal, school-based hepatitis B vaccination program. JAMA 1995;274 (15) 1209- 1213
PubMed Link to Article
Dilraj  AStrait-Jones  JNagao  MCui  KTerrell-Perica  SEffler  PV A statewide hepatitis B vaccination program for school children in Hawaii: vaccination series completion and participation rates over consecutive school years. Public Health Rep 2003;118 (2) 127- 133
PubMed Link to Article
Ndiaye  SMMadhavan  SWashington  ML  et al.  The use of pharmacy immunization services in rural communities. Public Health 2003;117 (2) 88- 97
PubMed Link to Article
Lindley  MCBoyer-Chu  LFishbein  DB  et al.  The role of schools in strengthening delivery of new adolescent vaccinations. Pediatrics 2008;121 ((suppl 1)) S46- S54
PubMed Link to Article
Schaffer  SJFontanesi  JRickert  D  et al.  How effectively can health care settings beyond the traditional medical home provide vaccines to adolescents? Pediatrics 2008;121 ((suppl 1)) S35- S45
PubMed Link to Article
Neuzil  KMMellen  BGWright  PFMitchel  EF  JrGriffin  MR The effect of influenza on hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and courses of antibiotics in children. N Engl J Med 2000;342 (4) 225- 231
PubMed Link to Article
Meltzer  MINeuzil  KMGriffin  MRFukuda  K An economic analysis of annual influenza vaccination of children. Vaccine 2005;23 (8) 1004- 1014
PubMed Link to Article
Macek  MDManski  RJVargas  CMMoeller  JF Comparing oral health care utilization estimates in the United States across three nationally representative surveys. Health Serv Res 2002;37 (2) 499- 521
PubMed Link to Article
Elster  AJarosik  JVanGeest  JFleming  M Racial and ethnic disparities in health care for adolescents: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157 (9) 867- 874
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Proportion of children 5 to 8 years of age needing 0, 1, or 2 additional visits for influenza vaccination in both scenarios, first vaccination at well-child care (WCC) visits and vaccination at all visits.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Percentage of adolescents 9 to 18 years of age needing 0 or 1 additional visits for influenza vaccination in both scenarios, vaccination only at well-child care (WCC) visits and vaccination at all visits.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Percentage of Children 5 to 18 Years of Age in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2003-2004 Panela
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Percentage of Children 5 to 18 Years of Age Who Would Need Additional Visits During a 4-Month Influenza Season Intervala

References

Thompson  WWShay  DKWeintraub  E  et al.  Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 2003;289 (2) 179- 186
PubMed Link to Article
Thompson  WWShay  DKWeintraub  E  et al.  Influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States. JAMA 2004;292 (11) 1333- 1340
PubMed Link to Article
Fiore  AEShay  DKHaber  P  et al.  Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2007. MMWR Recomm Rep 2007;56 ((RR-6)) 1- 54
PubMed
Poehling  KAEdwards  KMWeinberg  GA  et al.  The underrecognized burden of influenza in young children. N Engl J Med 2006;355 (1) 31- 40
PubMed Link to Article
Bourgeois  FTValim  CWei  JC McAdam  AJMandl  KD Influenza and other respiratory virus-related emergency department visits among young children. Pediatrics 2006;118 (1) e1- e8.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e1. Accessed December 18, 2006
PubMed Link to Article
Neuzil  KMHohlbein  CZhu  Y Illness among schoolchildren during influenza season: effect on school absenteeism, parental absenteeism from work, and secondary illness in families. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156 (10) 986- 991
PubMed Link to Article
Fox  JPHall  CECooney  MKFoy  HM Influenzavirus infections in Seattle families, 1975-1979, I: study design, methods and the occurrence of infections by time and age. Am J Epidemiol 1982;116 (2) 212- 227
PubMed
Glezen  WPCouch  RB Interpandemic influenza in the Houston area, 1974-76. N Engl J Med 1978;298 (11) 587- 592
PubMed Link to Article
King  JC  JrStoddard  JJGaglani  MJ  et al.  Effectiveness of school-based influenza vaccination. N Engl J Med 2006;355 (24) 2523- 2532
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  SDemicheli  VDi Pietrantonj  C  et al.  Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children [update in Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD004879]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (1) CD004879
PubMed
Jefferson  TSmith  SDemicheli  VHarnden  ARivetti  ADi Pietrantonj  C Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review. Lancet 2005;365 (9461) 773- 780
PubMed Link to Article
Weycker  DEdelsberg  JHalloran  ME  et al.  Population-wide benefits of routine vaccination of children against influenza. Vaccine 2005;23 (10) 1284- 1293
PubMed Link to Article
Halloran  MELongini  IM  Jr Public health: community studies for vaccinating schoolchildren against influenza. Science 2006;311 (5761) 615- 616
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  NMBresee  JSShay  DKUyeki  TMCox  NJStrikas  RA Prevention and Control of Influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2006;55 ((RR-10)) 1- 42
PubMed
 CDC's Advisory Committee Recommends Influenza Vaccination for Children 6 months through 18 years of age. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2008/r080227.htm. Published February 27, 2008. Accessed March 11, 2008
 Calendar section, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey questionnaire section. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site. http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey_results_ques_sections.jsp?Section=CA&Year1=AllYear&Submit1=Search. Accessed January 23, 2008
Cohen  SB Sample Design of the 1997 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component.  Rockville, MD Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality2000;AHRQ Pub 01-0001
 MEPS HC-079: 2003 full year consolidated data file. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site. http://meps.ahrq.org/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data/pufs/h79/h79doc.pdf. Published November 2005. Accessed January 31, 2008
Smith  PJSantoli  JMChu  SYOchoa  DQRodewald  LE The association between having a medical home and vaccination coverage among children eligible for the vaccines for children program. Pediatrics 2005;116 (1) 130- 139
PubMed Link to Article
 Prevention of influenza: recommendations for influenza immunization of children, 2006-2007. Pediatrics 2007;119 (4) 846- 851
PubMed Link to Article
 Influenza vaccination coverage among children with asthma—United States, 2004-05 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56 (9) 193- 196
PubMed
 Estimated influenza vaccination coverage among adults and children—United States, September 1, 2004-January 31, 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54 (12) 304- 307
PubMed
 Influenza vaccination coverage among children aged 6-59 months—six immunization information system sentinel sites, United States, 2006-07 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56 (37) 963- 965
PubMed
Shah  BVBarnwell  BVBieler  GS SUDAAN User's Manual and Software. Release 9.0.  Research Triangle Park, NC Research Triangle Institute2004;
Szilagyi  PGRodewald  LEHumiston  SG  et al.  Reducing missed opportunities for immunizations: easier said than done. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996;150 (11) 1193- 1200
PubMed Link to Article
Santoli  JMSzilagyi  PGRodewald  LE Barriers to immunization and missed opportunities. Pediatr Ann 1998;27 (6) 366- 374
PubMed Link to Article
Dombkowski  KJDavis  MMCohn  LMClark  SJ Effect of missed opportunities on influenza vaccination rates among children with asthma. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160 (9) 966- 971
PubMed Link to Article
Szilagyi  PGRodewald  LEHumiston  SG  et al.  Missed opportunities for childhood vaccinations in office practices and the effect on vaccination status. Pediatrics 1993;91 (1) 1- 7
PubMed
Szilagyi  PGRodewald  LE Missed opportunities for immunizations: a review of the evidence. J Public Health Manag Pract 1996;2 (1) 18- 25
PubMed Link to Article
Szilagyi  PGRodewald  LE Missed opportunities for influenza vaccination among children with asthma. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1992;11 (9) 705- 708
PubMed Link to Article
Szilagyi  PGIwane  MKHumiston  SE  et al.  Time spent by primary care practices on pediatric influenza vaccination visits: implications for universal influenza vaccination. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157 (2) 191- 195
PubMed Link to Article
Hemingway  COPoehling  KA Change in recommendation affects influenza vaccinations among children 6 to 59 months of age. Pediatrics 2004;114 (4) 948- 952
PubMed Link to Article
Daley  MFCrane  LAChandramouli  V  et al.  Influenza among healthy young children: changes in parental attitudes and predictors of immunization during the 2003 to 2004 influenza season. Pediatrics 2006;117 (2) e268- e277http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/2/e268. Accessed. December 18, 2006
PubMed Link to Article
Szilagyi  PGBordley  CVann  JC  et al.  Effect of patient reminder/recall interventions on immunization rates: a review. JAMA 2000;284 (14) 1820- 1827
PubMed Link to Article
Kempe  ADaley  MFBarrow  J  et al.  Implementation of universal influenza immunization recommendations for healthy young children: results of a randomized, controlled trial with registry-based recall. Pediatrics 2005;115 (1) 146- 154
PubMed Link to Article
Daley  MFBarrow  JPearson  K  et al.  Identification and recall of children with chronic medical conditions for influenza vaccination. Pediatrics 2004;113 (1, pt 1) e26- e33
PubMed Link to Article
Szilagyi  PGSchaffer  SShone  L  et al.  Reducing geographic, racial, and ethnic disparities in childhood immunization rates by using reminder/recall interventions in urban primary care practices. Pediatrics 2002;110 (5) e58http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/110/5/e58. Accessed December 18, 2006
PubMed Link to Article
Schwartz  BHinman  AAbramson  J  et al.  Universal influenza vaccination in the United States: are we ready? Report of a meeting. J Infect Dis 2006;194 ((suppl 2)) S147- S154
PubMed Link to Article
Briss  PARodewald  LEHinman  AR  et al.  Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to improve vaccination coverage in children, adolescents, and adults: the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000;18 (1) ((suppl)) 97- 140
PubMed Link to Article
Wood  DL Increasing immunization coverage: American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Community Health Services. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine. Pediatrics 2003;112 (4) 993- 996
PubMed Link to Article
King  JC  JrCummings  GEStoddard  J  et al.  A pilot study of the effectiveness of a school-based influenza vaccination program. Pediatrics 2005;116 (6) e868- e873.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/6/e868. Accessed December 18, 2006
PubMed Link to Article
Reichert  TASugaya  NFedson  DSGlezen  WPSimonsen  LTashiro  M The Japanese experience with vaccinating schoolchildren against influenza. N Engl J Med 2001;344 (12) 889- 896
PubMed Link to Article
Dobson  SScheifele  DBell  A Assessment of a universal, school-based hepatitis B vaccination program. JAMA 1995;274 (15) 1209- 1213
PubMed Link to Article
Dilraj  AStrait-Jones  JNagao  MCui  KTerrell-Perica  SEffler  PV A statewide hepatitis B vaccination program for school children in Hawaii: vaccination series completion and participation rates over consecutive school years. Public Health Rep 2003;118 (2) 127- 133
PubMed Link to Article
Ndiaye  SMMadhavan  SWashington  ML  et al.  The use of pharmacy immunization services in rural communities. Public Health 2003;117 (2) 88- 97
PubMed Link to Article
Lindley  MCBoyer-Chu  LFishbein  DB  et al.  The role of schools in strengthening delivery of new adolescent vaccinations. Pediatrics 2008;121 ((suppl 1)) S46- S54
PubMed Link to Article
Schaffer  SJFontanesi  JRickert  D  et al.  How effectively can health care settings beyond the traditional medical home provide vaccines to adolescents? Pediatrics 2008;121 ((suppl 1)) S35- S45
PubMed Link to Article
Neuzil  KMMellen  BGWright  PFMitchel  EF  JrGriffin  MR The effect of influenza on hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and courses of antibiotics in children. N Engl J Med 2000;342 (4) 225- 231
PubMed Link to Article
Meltzer  MINeuzil  KMGriffin  MRFukuda  K An economic analysis of annual influenza vaccination of children. Vaccine 2005;23 (8) 1004- 1014
PubMed Link to Article
Macek  MDManski  RJVargas  CMMoeller  JF Comparing oral health care utilization estimates in the United States across three nationally representative surveys. Health Serv Res 2002;37 (2) 499- 521
PubMed Link to Article
Elster  AJarosik  JVanGeest  JFleming  M Racial and ethnic disparities in health care for adolescents: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157 (9) 867- 874
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 33

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
OAE: The Ontology of Adverse Events. J Biomed Semantics 2014;5():29.