Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Oct;43(5):1163-1172.
doi: 10.1007/s11096-021-01250-1. Epub 2021 May 28.

Impact of pharmacy intervention on influenza vaccination acceptance: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Impact of pharmacy intervention on influenza vaccination acceptance: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Erin Murray et al. Int J Clin Pharm. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Background Vaccination plays an important role in the prevention of influenza. Channels that improve vaccination adherence can play a vital part in improving patient care. This study seeks to inform the design and implementation of pharmacy interventions at scale on improving influenza vaccination rates. Aim of the review The aim of this study was to identify key success factors for effective pharmacy intervention design and implementation to improve vaccination acceptance rates in influenza. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to find literature on influenza vaccinations delivered at pharmacies, pharmacist-delivered influenza vaccinations, or influenza vaccination campaigns originating in the pharmacy setting. A meta-analysis using a random effects model estimated the impact of pharmacy intervention on vaccination rates (assessed as relative risk [RR] and 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]). Results A total of 1221 studies were found that met the search criteria, of which 12 were selected for the literature review following eligibility screening. A meta-analysis of studies that contained binary total population and vaccination rate data was conducted on 6 studies, including 3182 participants, the vaccination rate was 24% higher in those who used the pharmacy-based intervention compared with those who used standard care [RR (95% CI) 1.24 (1.05, 1.47)]. Two separate sensitivity analyses were run for the vaccination rate. In participants aged ≥ 65 years, the vaccination rate was 3% higher in those who received the pharmacy-based intervention compared with those who received standard care; however, this change was not significant [RR (95% CI) 1.03 (0.86, 1.24)]. Additionally, a qualitative review showed that more successful pharmacy-based interventions were those with the more active involvement of pharmacists in routine care. This included regular checkup of vaccine status, proactive conversations and recommendations about vaccination, and pharmacy-based immunization programs, with specific vaccination days. In-pharmacy communication rather than passive information, such as through leaflets and posters was also more effective. Conclusion Pharmacists can play a significant role to improve patient treatment, adherence, and outcomes associated with influenza vaccines. Once pharmacy-based immunization is established, proactive involvement of is key to ensure successful program implementation and results. Expanding access for pharmacists and pharmacy intervention to provide vaccinations may increase vaccination acceptance and could be a valuable intervention in patient care. Additional studies should consider high-risk populations to inform optimal design and implementation strategies.

Keywords: Acceptance; Influenza; Pharmacist; Vaccine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram (PRISMA)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Base case and Subgroup Meta-Analysis of Vaccination Rates Results favoring pharmacist intervention vs standard care are to the right of the figure a Base-case analysis of vaccination rate by study design Klassing 2018 study was specific to a cohort of participants with asthma and/or COPD, and therefore may have had a more rigorous standard of care regarding vaccinations leading to less influence of pharmacist intervention. b ≥ 65 year subgroup analysis of vaccination rates c No prior history of ion subgroup analysis of vaccination rates

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Iuliano AD, Roguski KM, Chang HH, Muscatello DJ, Palekar R, Tempia S, et al. Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: a modelling study. Lancet. 2018;391:1285–300. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33293-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Global Burden of Disease Influenza Collaborators Mortality, morbidity, and hospitalisations due to influenza lower respiratory tract infections, 2017: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:69–89. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30496-X. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD). People 65 Years and Older & Influenza. [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 March 20]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/65over.htm.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What are the benefits of flu vaccination? [Internet].2019 [cited 2019 March 20]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-benefits.htm.
    1. Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C, Lidolt G, Denker ML. Barriers of influenza vaccination intention and behaviour—a systematic review of influenza vaccine hesitancy, 2005–2016. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0170550. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170550. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances