Linda Sanftenberg1, Flora Kuehne2, Charlotte Anraad3, Caroline Jung-Sievers4, Tobias Dreischulte2, Jochen Gensichen2. 1. Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany. Electronic address: http://www.allgemeinmedizin.klinikum.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, 80336 Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Work and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience Maastricht University, 6211 LK Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is a promising approach, to bridge major barriers concerning vaccination by patient education and personal interaction of health care provider (HCP) and patient. SDM affects patient adherence, enhances patient knowledge, decreases decisional conflict and improves trust in the physician in most areas of health care. The shared decision making process (SDM process) is characterised by three key components: patient activation, bi-directional exchange of information and bi-directional deliberation of options. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of SDM processes on influenza vaccination rates in outpatient care patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC was conducted (2020-02-05). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs, that aimed to improve influenza vaccination rates in adult patients in outpatient care were included. We examined effects of SDM processes on influenza vaccination rates by meta-analysis, and considered the extent of SDM processes in the analysed interventions and possible effect modifiers in subgroup analyses. RESULTS: We included 21 studies, with interventions including face-to-face sessions, telephone outreach, home visits, Health Care Practitioner (HCP) trainings and supporting educational material. In 12 studies, interventions included all elements of a SDM process. A meta-analysis of 15 studies showed a positive effect on vaccination rates (OR of 1.96 (95% CI: 1.31 to 2.95)). Findings further suggest that interventions are effective across different patients groups and could increase effectiveness when the interaction is facilitated by multidisciplinary teams of HCP in comparison to interventions delivered by individual HCP. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence that SDM processes can be an effective strategy to increase influenza vaccination rates. Further research with more detailed descriptions of SDM implementation modalities is necessary to better understand which components of SDM are most effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020175555.
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is a promising approach, to bridge major barriers concerning vaccination by patient education and personal interaction of health care provider (HCP) and patient. SDM affects patient adherence, enhances patient knowledge, decreases decisional conflict and improves trust in the physician in most areas of health care. The shared decision making process (SDM process) is characterised by three key components: patient activation, bi-directional exchange of information and bi-directional deliberation of options. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of SDM processes on influenza vaccination rates in outpatient care patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC was conducted (2020-02-05). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs, that aimed to improve influenza vaccination rates in adult patients in outpatient care were included. We examined effects of SDM processes on influenza vaccination rates by meta-analysis, and considered the extent of SDM processes in the analysed interventions and possible effect modifiers in subgroup analyses. RESULTS: We included 21 studies, with interventions including face-to-face sessions, telephone outreach, home visits, Health Care Practitioner (HCP) trainings and supporting educational material. In 12 studies, interventions included all elements of a SDM process. A meta-analysis of 15 studies showed a positive effect on vaccination rates (OR of 1.96 (95% CI: 1.31 to 2.95)). Findings further suggest that interventions are effective across different patients groups and could increase effectiveness when the interaction is facilitated by multidisciplinary teams of HCP in comparison to interventions delivered by individual HCP. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence that SDM processes can be an effective strategy to increase influenza vaccination rates. Further research with more detailed descriptions of SDM implementation modalities is necessary to better understand which components of SDM are most effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020175555.
Authors: Anna Carolina Faria Moreira Gomes Tavares; Ana Karla Guedes de Melo; Vítor Alves Cruz; Viviane Angelina de Souza; Joana Starling de Carvalho; Ketty Lysie Libardi Lira Machado; Lilian David de Azevedo Valadares; Edgard Torres Dos Reis Neto; Rodrigo Poubel Vieira de Rezende; Maria Fernanda Brandão de Resende Guimarães; Gilda Aparecida Ferreira; Alessandra de Sousa Braz; Rejane Maria Rodrigues de Abreu Vieira; Marcelo de Medeiros Pinheiro; Sandra Lúcia Euzébio Ribeiro; Blanca Elena Gomes Rios Bica; Kátia Lino Baptista; Izaias Pereira da Costa; Claudia Diniz Lopes Marques; Maria Lúcia Lemos Lopes; José Eduardo Martinez; Rina Dalva Neubarth Giorgi; Lícia Maria Henrique da Mota; Marcos Antônio Araújo da Rocha Loures; Eduardo Dos Santos Paiva; Odirlei André Monticielo; Ricardo Machado Xavier; Adriana Maria Kakehasi; Gecilmara Cristina Salviato Pileggi Journal: Adv Rheumatol Date: 2022-01-17
Authors: Léna G Dietrich; Alyssa Lüthy; Pia Lucas Ramanathan; Nadja Baldesberger; Andrea Buhl; Lisa Schmid Thurneysen; Lisa C Hug; L Suzanne Suggs; Camilla Speranza; Benedikt M Huber; Philip E Tarr; Michael J Deml Journal: Vaccine Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.641