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.
RCT Entities:
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: P A Briss; L E Rodewald; A R Hinman; A M Shefer; R A Strikas; R R Bernier; V G Carande-Kulis; H R Yusuf; S M Ndiaye; S M Williams Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Scott J N McNabb; Ruth Ann Jajosky; Patsy A Hall-Baker; Deborah A Adams; Pearl Sharp; Willie J Anderson; Aponte J Javier; Gerald J Jones; David A Nitschke; Carol A Worshams; Roland A Richard Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2007-03-30 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Kevin E Thorpe; Merrick Zwarenstein; Andrew D Oxman; Shaun Treweek; Curt D Furberg; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Eduardo Bergel; Ian Harvey; David J Magid; Kalipso Chalkidou Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Rosanna W Setse; Gary L Euler; Amparo G Gonzalez-Feliciano; Leah N Bryan; Carolyn Furlow; Cindy M Weinbaum; James A Singleton Journal: MMWR Suppl Date: 2011-01-14
Authors: T A Lieu; G T Ray; S B Black; J C Butler; J O Klein; R F Breiman; M A Miller; H R Shinefield Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-03-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Fangjun Zhou; Jeanne Santoli; Mark L Messonnier; Hussain R Yusuf; Abigail Shefer; Susan Y Chu; Lance Rodewald; Rafael Harpaz Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2005-12
Authors: Allison Kempe; Laura P Hurley; Cristina V Cardemil; Mandy A Allison; Lori A Crane; Michaela Brtnikova; Brenda L Beaty; Laura J Pabst; Megan C Lindley Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Allison Kempe; Sean T O'Leary; Jo Ann Shoup; Shannon Stokley; Steven Lockhart; Anna Furniss; L Miriam Dickinson; Juliana Barnard; Matthew F Daley Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Allison Kempe; Alison W Saville; Christina Albertin; Laura Helmkamp; Xinkai Zhou; Sitaram Vangela; L Miriam Dickinson; Chi-Hong Tseng; Jonathan D Campbell; Melanie Whittington; Dennis Gurfinkel; Heather Roth; Dina Hoefer; Peter Szilagyi Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Peter G Szilagyi; Christina S Albertin; Alison W Saville; Rebecca Valderrama; Abigail Breck; Laura Helmkamp; Xinkai Zhou; Sitaram Vangala; L Miriam Dickinson; Chi-Hong Tseng; Jonathan D Campbell; Melanie D Whittington; Heather Roth; Cynthia M Rand; Sharon G Humiston; Dina Hoefer; Allison Kempe Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Peter Szilagyi; Christina Albertin; Dennis Gurfinkel; Brenda Beaty; Xinkai Zhou; Sitaram Vangala; John Rice; Jonathan D Campbell; Melanie D Whittington; Rebecca Valderrama; Abigail Breck; Heather Roth; Megan Meldrum; Chi-Hong Tseng; Cynthia Rand; Sharon G Humiston; Stanley Schaffer; Allison Kempe Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 7.124