Cargando…

Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage

BACKGROUND: The vaccine system in England underwent radical changes in 2013 following the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act. There have since been multi-year decreases in coverage of many vaccines. Healthcare professionals have reported finding the new system fragmented and challengin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crocker-Buque, Tim, Mounier-Jack, Sandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6282278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30522459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6228-5
_version_ 1783378956993429504
author Crocker-Buque, Tim
Mounier-Jack, Sandra
author_facet Crocker-Buque, Tim
Mounier-Jack, Sandra
author_sort Crocker-Buque, Tim
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The vaccine system in England underwent radical changes in 2013 following the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act. There have since been multi-year decreases in coverage of many vaccines. Healthcare professionals have reported finding the new system fragmented and challenging. This study aims to produce a logic model of the new system and evaluate the available evidence for interventions to improve coverage. METHODS: We undertook qualitative document analysis to develop the logic model using process evaluation methods. We performed a systematic review by searching 12 databases with a broad search strategy to identify interventions studied in England conducted between 2006 and 2016 and evaluated their effectiveness. We then compared the evidence base to the logic model. RESULTS: We analysed 83 documents and developed a logic model describing the core inputs, processes, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of the new vaccination system alongside the programmatic assumptions for each stage. Of 9,615 unique articles, we screened 624 abstracts, 45 full-text articles, and included 16 studies: 8 randomised controlled trials and 8 quasi-experimental studies. Four studies suggest that modifications to the contracting and incentive systems can increase coverage, but changes to other programme inputs (e.g. human or capital resources) were not evaluated. Four multi-component intervention studies modified activities and outputs from within a GP practice to increase coverage, but were part of campaigns or projects. Thus, many potentially modifiable factors relating to routine programme implementation remain unexplored. Reminder/recall systems are under-studied in England; incentive payments to adolescents may be effective; and only two studies evaluated carer information. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for interventions to increase immunisation coverage in the new system in England are limited by a small number of studies and by significant risk of bias. Several areas important to primary care remain unexplored as targets for interventions, especially modification to organisational management. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6228-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6282278
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62822782018-12-10 Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage Crocker-Buque, Tim Mounier-Jack, Sandra BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: The vaccine system in England underwent radical changes in 2013 following the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act. There have since been multi-year decreases in coverage of many vaccines. Healthcare professionals have reported finding the new system fragmented and challenging. This study aims to produce a logic model of the new system and evaluate the available evidence for interventions to improve coverage. METHODS: We undertook qualitative document analysis to develop the logic model using process evaluation methods. We performed a systematic review by searching 12 databases with a broad search strategy to identify interventions studied in England conducted between 2006 and 2016 and evaluated their effectiveness. We then compared the evidence base to the logic model. RESULTS: We analysed 83 documents and developed a logic model describing the core inputs, processes, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of the new vaccination system alongside the programmatic assumptions for each stage. Of 9,615 unique articles, we screened 624 abstracts, 45 full-text articles, and included 16 studies: 8 randomised controlled trials and 8 quasi-experimental studies. Four studies suggest that modifications to the contracting and incentive systems can increase coverage, but changes to other programme inputs (e.g. human or capital resources) were not evaluated. Four multi-component intervention studies modified activities and outputs from within a GP practice to increase coverage, but were part of campaigns or projects. Thus, many potentially modifiable factors relating to routine programme implementation remain unexplored. Reminder/recall systems are under-studied in England; incentive payments to adolescents may be effective; and only two studies evaluated carer information. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for interventions to increase immunisation coverage in the new system in England are limited by a small number of studies and by significant risk of bias. Several areas important to primary care remain unexplored as targets for interventions, especially modification to organisational management. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6228-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-12-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6282278/ /pubmed/30522459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6228-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Crocker-Buque, Tim
Mounier-Jack, Sandra
Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage
title Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage
title_full Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage
title_fullStr Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage
title_full_unstemmed Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage
title_short Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage
title_sort vaccination in england: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6282278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30522459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6228-5
work_keys_str_mv AT crockerbuquetim vaccinationinenglandareviewofwhybusinessasusualisnotenoughtomaintaincoverage
AT mounierjacksandra vaccinationinenglandareviewofwhybusinessasusualisnotenoughtomaintaincoverage