As dozens of new National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) were established worldwide in the past decade, and as existing NITAGs continued to play an important role in vaccine policy, global NITAG partners recognized a need for a standardized assessment tool to evaluate and strengthen their functions. This article describes the development of the NITAG Maturity Assessment Tool (NMAT), a stepwise evaluation tool that assesses NITAGs on seven key indicators of structure and process. A draft tool was developed through an iterative, consensus-based process with an expert working group before it was piloted with an economically and geographically diverse convenience sample of NITAGs. The final NMAT is a flexible tool that can be used by in-country or external evaluators to understand NITAG maturity, identify priorities for optimization, and measure the impact of strengthening efforts.

Increasing opportunities for prevention of infectious diseases by new, effective vaccines and the expansion of global immunization programs across the life course highlight the importance and value of evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) by National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Task Force for Global Health (TFGH) have developed and made available new tools to support NITAGs in EIDM. These include a toolkit for conducting facilitated training of NITAGs, Secretariats, or work groups on the use of the Evidence to Recommendations (EtR) approach to advise Ministries of Health (MoH) on specific vaccine policies, and an eLearning module on the EtR approach for NITAG members, Secretariat and others. The CDC and TFGH have also supported final development and implementation of the NITAG Maturity Assessment Tool (NMAT) for assessing maturity of NITAG capabilities in seven functional domains. The EtR toolkit and eLearning have been widely promoted in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Headquarters and Regional Offices through workshops engaging over 30 countries to date, and the NMAT assessment tool used in most countries in 3 WHO regions (Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, African). Important lessons have been learned regarding planning and conducting trainings for multiple countries and additional ways to support countries in applying the EtR approach to complete vaccine recommendations. Priorities for future work include the need to evaluate the impact of EtR training and NMAT assessments, working with partners to expand and adapt these tools for wider use, synergizing with other approaches for NITAG strengthening, and developing the best approaches to empower NITAGs to use the EtR approach.

This report updates the previously published summary of recommendations for vaccinating health-care personnel (HCP) in the United States (CDC. Immunization of health-care workers: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] and the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee [HICPAC]. MMWR 1997;46[No. RR-18]). This report was reviewed by and includes input from the Healthcare (formerly Hospital) Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. These updated recommendations can assist hospital administrators, infection-control practitioners, employee health clinicians, and HCP in optimizing infection prevention and control programs. The recommendations for vaccinating HCP are presented by disease in two categories: 1) those diseases for which vaccination or documentation of immunity is recommended because of risks to HCP in their work settings for acquiring disease or transmitting to patients and 2) those for which vaccination might be indicated in certain circumstances. Background information for each vaccine-preventable disease and specific recommendations for use of each vaccine are presented. Certain infection-control measures that relate to vaccination also are included in this report. In addition, ACIP recommendations for the remaining vaccines that are recommended for certain or all adults are summarized, as are considerations for catch-up and travel vaccinations and for work restrictions. This report summarizes all current ACIP recommendations for vaccination of HCP and does not contain any new recommendations or policies. The recommendations provided in this report apply, but are not limited, to HCP in acute-care hospitals; long-term-care facilities (e.g., nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities); physician's offices; rehabilitation centers; urgent care centers, and outpatient clinics as well as to persons who provide home health care and emergency medical services.

Background: Competing priorities make using a transparent and evidence-based approach important when deciding to recommend new vaccines. We conducted a literature review to document the processes and frameworks for national decision-making on new vaccine introductions and explored which key features have evolved since 2010. Methods: We searched literature published on policymaking related to vaccine introduction from March 2010 to August 2020 in six databases. We screened articles for eligibility with the following exclusion criteria: non-human or hypothetical vaccines, the sole focus on economic evaluation or decision to adopt rather than policy decision-making. We employed nine broad categories of criteria from the 2012 review for categorization and abstracted data on the country, income level, vaccine, and other relevant criteria. Results: Of the 3808 unique references screened, 116 met eligibility criteria and were classified as: a) framework of vaccine adoption decision-making (27), b) studies that analyse empirical data on or examples of vaccine adoption decision-making (45), c) theoretical and empirical articles that provide insights into the vaccine policymaking process (44 + 17 already included in the previous categories). Commonly reported criteria for decision-making were the burden of disease; vaccine efficacy/effectiveness, safety; impact on health and non-health outcomes; economic evaluation and cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions. Programmatic and acceptability aspects were not as often considered. Most (50; 82%) of the 61 articles describing the process of vaccine introduction policymaking highlighted the role of country, regional, or global evidence-informed recommendations and a robust national governance as enabling factors for vaccine adoption. Conclusions: The literature on vaccine adoption decision-making has expanded since 2010. We found that policymakers and expert advisory committee members (e.g., National Immunization Technical Advisory Group [NITAG]) increasingly value the interventions based on economic evaluations. The results of this review could guide discussions on evidence-informed immunization decision-making among country, sub-regional, and regional stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Countries are transitioning assets and functions from polio eradication to integrated immunization and surveillance activities. We assessed the extent of linkages between and perceptions of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) and National Certification Committees (NCCs) for polio eradication to understand how linkages can be leveraged to improve efficiencies of these expert bodies. METHODS: During May 2017 to May 2018, we administered a 15-question survey to a NITAG chair or member and an NCC counterpart in all countries of the WHO Regions for Africa (AFR) and for the Eastern Mediterranean (EMR) that had both a NITAG and an NCC. Data were analysed using frequency distributions. RESULTS: Of countries with both a NITAG and an NCC (n = 44), the response rate was 92% (22/24) in AFR and 75% (15/20) in EMR. Some respondents reported being very familiar with the functions of the other technical bodies, 36% (8/22) for NITAG members and 38% (14/37) for NCC members. Over 85% (51/59) of respondents felt it was somewhat useful or very useful to strengthen ties between bodies. Nearly all respondents (98%, 58/59) felt that NCC expertise could inform measles and rubella elimination programmes. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a broad consensus that human resource assets of NCCs may serve an important technical role to support national immunization policy-making. At this stage of the polio eradication initiative, countries should consider how to integrate the technical expertise of NCC members to reinforce NITAGs and maintain the polio essential functions, beginning in countries that have been polio-free for several years.

A National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) is a multi-disciplinary body of national experts that provides evidence-based recommendations to policy-makers, assisting them in making sound immunization policy and programme decisions. The World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe is working to strengthen the capacity of newly-established NITAGs and has targeted efforts on low- and middle-income countries. The Regional Office, in collaboration with WHO Headquarters and USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), developed a new training strategy and held training workshops to improve NITAGs' functioning and ability to make evidence-based recommendations. Feedback from countries that participated in trainings indicated that the updated training materials and interactive approach with follow-up technical support enabled them to align their NITAG charters and processes with WHO recommendations. To ensure continued progress, global and regional partners such as WHO and CDC should continue providing technical support to recently established NITAGs.

School-based vaccination (SBV) and checking students' vaccination records at school have the potential to optimize vaccination coverage among school-aged children. The primary aim of this paper is to describe adoption of SBV by countries from 2008 to 2017, including target age groups and vaccines delivered in 2017, as reported annually through the World Health Organization (WHO)-United Nations Children's fund (UNICEF) Joint Reporting Form (JRF). Expanding upon previous analyses, country-specific rates of primary school enrollment and home-based record (HBR) ownership were linked to the WHO-UNICEF JRF data, to identify countries with high potential to implement vaccination record checks at school. The proportion of countries reporting delivery of at least one routinely recommended vaccine dose in school settings increased from 95 (of 163 reporting; 58%) in 2008 to 108 (of 181 reporting; 60%) in 2017. The 13 additional countries that reported using SBV in 2017 were among 31 countries for which SBV data from the JRF were unavailable in 2017. The most common antigens delivered through SBV in 2017 were tetanus (94 countries), diphtheria (89 countries), and human papillomavirus (52 countries). Among 93 countries with data available for net primary school enrollment and HBR ownership, 52 (56%) countries had both >/=80% net primary school enrollment and >/=80% of children aged 12-23months ever owning an HBR; 33 (63%) of these used SBV. If not already doing so, these 33 countries represent an opportunity to introduce routine checking of vaccination status at entry to, or during primary school. With the growing number of new vaccines and booster doses of childhood vaccines targeting school-age children, implementation of SBV and checking of student vaccination records at school may help improve vaccination coverage; however, additional data are needed to assess global prevalence of checking vaccination status at school and to identify factors facilitating optimal implementation of this strategy.

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) are multidisciplinary national experts who provide independent, evidence-informed vaccine policy recommendations to national health authorities. An essential NITAG function is to ensure that these decisions are grounded in the best available evidence generated through a systematic, transparent process. However, in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), experience with this decision making method is limited. The Task Force for Global Health manages the Partnership for Influenza Vaccine Introduction (PIVI) program in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ministries of Health, corporate partners and others. During 2017, PIVI worked with its country partners and the World Health Organization regional and local offices to assess NITAG strengthening needs and to provide technical assistance in 7 LMIC countries (Laos Peoples Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Vietnam, Armenia, Cote d'Ivoire; Moldova and the Republic of Georgia). Our workshops supported general NITAG capacity building and the evidence-based review process using vaccines of interest to the country. For NITAGs reviewing evidence on seasonal influenza, we developed an influenza resource package to support their review and provide country-relevant information in an easy to use format. Of the seven NITAGs trained, six have applied some of the concepts learnt: revision or development of formal transparent, systematic procedures for their operations; preparation of recommendations on seasonal influenza vaccination using quality-assessed data from systematic searches and local data; and have applied the principles learned for making other new vaccine recommendations. Our experience confirms that LMIC NITAGs are considerably under-resourced without adequate technical support or access to global peer-reviewed literature. Ongoing support from NITAG partners must be secured and creative approaches might be needed to help countries achieve the GVAP 2020 target and support development of sustainable vaccine policies and programs.

The Measles & Rubella Initiative (M&RI) identified five key strategies to achieve measles and rubella elimination, including research and innovation to support cost-effective operations and improve vaccination and diagnostic tools. In 2016, the M&RI Research and Innovation Working Group (R&IWG) completed a research prioritization process to identify key research questions and update the global research agenda. The R&IWG reviewed meeting reports and strategic planning documents and solicited programmatic inputs from vaccination experts at the program operational level through a web survey, to identify previous research priorities and new research questions. The R&IWG then convened a meeting of experts to prioritize the identified research questions in four strategic areas: (1) epidemiology and economics, (2) surveillance and laboratory, (3) immunization strategies, and (4) demand creation and communications. The experts identified 19 priority research questions in the four strategic areas to address key areas of work necessary to further progress toward elimination. Future commitments from partners will be needed to develop a platform for improved coordination with adequate and predictable resources for research implementation and innovation to address these identified priorities.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the World Health Assembly endorsed the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) that set a target to eliminate measles and rubella in five of the six World Health Organization (WHO) regions by 2020. Significant progress has been made toward achieving this goal through intensive efforts by countries and Measles & Rubella Initiative (M&RI) partners. Accelerating progress will require evidence-based approaches to improve implementation of the core strategies in the Global Measles and Rubella Strategic Plan. The M&RI Research and Innovation Working Group (R&IWG) conducted a web-based survey as part of a process to identify measles and rubella research priorities. Survey findings were used to inform discussions during a meeting of experts convened by the M&RI at the Pan American Health Organization in November 2016. METHODS: The cross-sectional web-based survey of scientific and programmatic experts included questions in four main topic areas: (1) epidemiology and economics (epidemiology); (2) new tools for surveillance, vaccine delivery, and laboratory testing (new tools); (3) immunization strategies and outbreak response (strategies); and (4) vaccine demand and communications (demand). Analyses were stratified by the six WHO regions and by global, regional, or national/sub-national level of respondents. RESULTS: The six highest priority research questions selected by survey respondents from the four topic areas were the following: (1) What are the causes of outbreaks in settings with high reported vaccination coverage? (epidemiology); (2) Can affordable diagnostic tests be developed to confirm measles and rubella cases rapidly and accurately at the point of care? (new tools); (3) What are effective strategies for increasing coverage of the routine first dose of measles vaccine administered at 9 or 12months? (strategies); (4) What are effective strategies for increasing coverage of the second dose given after the first year of life? (strategies); (5) How can communities best be engaged in planning, implementing and monitoring health services including vaccinations? (demand); (6) What capacity building is needed for health workers to be able to identify and work more effectively with community leaders? (demand). Research priorities varied by region and by global/regional/national levels for all topic areas. CONCLUSIONS: Research and innovation will be critical to make further progress toward achieving the GVAP measles and rubella elimination goals. The results of this survey can be used to inform decision-making for investments in research activities at the global, regional, and national levels.

All countries in the World Health Organization European Region committed to eliminating endemic transmission of measles and rubella by 2015, and disease incidence has decreased dramatically. However, there was little progress between 2012 and 2013, and the goal will likely not be achieved on time. Genuine political commitment, increased technical capacity, and greater public awareness are urgently needed, especially in Western Europe.

All six World Health Organization (WHO) regions have now set goals for measles elimination by or before 2020. To prioritize measles elimination efforts and use available resources efficiently, there is a need to identify at-risk areas that are offtrack from meeting performance targets and require strengthening of programmatic efforts. This article describes the development of a WHO measles programmatic risk assessment tool to be used for monitoring, guiding, and sustaining measles elimination efforts at the subnational level. We outline the tool development process; the tool specifications and requirements for data inputs; the framework of risk categories, indicators, and scoring; and the risk category assignment. Overall risk was assessed as a function of indicator scores that fall into four main categories: population immunity, surveillance quality, program performance, and threat assessment. On the basis of the overall score, the tool assigns each district a risk of either low, medium, high, or very high. The cut-off criteria for the risk assignment categories were based on the distribution of scores from all possible combinations of individual indicator cutoffs. The results may be used for advocacy to communicate risk to policymakers, mobilize resources for corrective actions, manage population immunity, and prioritize programmatic activities. Ongoing evaluation of indicators will be needed to evaluate programmatic performance and plan risk mitigation activities effectively. The availability of a comprehensive tool that can identify at-risk districts will enhance efforts to prioritize resources and implement strategies for achieving the Global Vaccine Action Plan goals for measles elimination.

BACKGROUND: The European region, certified as polio free in 2002, had recent wild poliovirus (WPV) introductions, resulting in a major outbreak in Central Asian countries and Russia in 2010 and in current widespread WPV type 1 circulation in Israel, which endangered the polio-free status of the region. METHODS: We assessed the data on the major determinants of poliovirus transmission risk (population immunity, surveillance, and outbreak preparedness) and reviewed current threats and measures implemented in response to recent WPV introductions. RESULTS: Despite high regional vaccination coverage and functioning surveillance, several countries in the region are at high or intermediate risk of poliovirus transmission. Coverage remains suboptimal in some countries, subnational geographic areas, and population groups, and surveillance (acute flaccid paralysis, enterovirus, and environmental) needs further strengthening. Supplementary immunization activities, which were instrumental in the rapid interruption of WPV1 circulation in 2010, should be implemented in high-risk countries to close population immunity gaps. National polio outbreak preparedness plans need strengthening. Immunization efforts to interrupt WPV transmission in Israel should continue. CONCLUSIONS: The European region has successfully maintained its polio-free status since 2002, but numerous challenges remain. Staying polio free will require continued coordinated efforts, political commitment and financial support from all countries.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination promotion strategies are recommended in Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) settings for eligible children at risk for under-immunization due to their low-income status. PURPOSE: To determine coverage levels of WIC and non-WIC participants and assess effectiveness of immunization intervention strategies. METHODS: The 2007-2011 National Immunization Surveys were used to analyze vaccination histories and WIC participation among children aged 24-35 months. Grantee data on immunization activities in WIC settings were collected from the 2010 WIC Linkage Annual Report Survey. Coverage by WIC eligibility and participation status and grantee-specific coverage by intervention strategy were determined at 24 months for select antigens. Data were collected 2007-2011 and analyzed in 2013. RESULTS: Of 13,183 age-eligible children, 5,699 (61%, weighted) had participated in WIC, of which 3,404 (62%, weighted) were current participants. In 2011, differences in four or more doses of the diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine by WIC participation status were observed: 86% (ineligible); 84% (current); 77% (previous); and 69% (never-eligible). Children in WIC exposed to an immunization intervention strategy had higher coverage levels than WIC-eligible children who never participated, with differences as great as 15% (DTaP). CONCLUSIONS: Children who never participated in WIC, but were eligible, had the lowest vaccination coverage. Current WIC participants had vaccination coverage comparable to more affluent children, and higher coverage than previous WIC participants.

CONTEXT: Immunizations are the most effective way to reduce incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases. Immunization information systems (IISs) are confidential, population-based, computerized databases that record all vaccination doses administered by participating providers to people residing within a given geopolitical area. They facilitate consolidation of vaccination histories for use by health care providers in determining appropriate client vaccinations. Immunization information systems also provide aggregate data on immunizations for use in monitoring coverage and program operations and to guide public health action. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Methods for conducting systematic reviews for the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used to assess the effectiveness of IISs. Reviewed evidence examined changes in vaccination rates in client populations or described expanded IIS capabilities related to improving vaccinations. The literature search identified 108 published articles and 132 conference abstracts describing or evaluating the use of IISs in different assessment categories. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Studies described or evaluated IIS capabilities to (1) create or support effective interventions to increase vaccination rates, such as client reminder and recall, provider assessment and feedback, and provider reminders; (2) determine client vaccination status to inform decisions by clinicians, health care systems, and schools; (3) guide public health responses to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease; (4) inform assessments of vaccination coverage, missed vaccination opportunities, invalid dose administration, and disparities; and (5) facilitate vaccine management and accountability. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from 240 articles and abstracts demonstrate IIS capabilities and actions in increasing vaccination rates with the goal of reducing vaccine-preventable disease.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the economic impact of the 2009 routine US childhood immunization schedule, including diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate, inactivated poliovirus, measles/mumps/rubella, hepatitis B, varicella, 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate, hepatitis A, and rotavirus vaccines; influenza vaccine was not included. METHODS: Decision analysis was conducted using population-based vaccination coverage, published vaccine efficacies, historical data on disease incidence before vaccination, and disease incidence reported during 2005 to 2009. Costs were estimated using the direct cost and societal (direct and indirect costs) perspectives. Program costs included vaccine, administration, vaccine-associated adverse events, and parent travel and work time lost. All costs were inflated to 2009 dollars, and all costs and benefits in the future were discounted at a 3% annual rate. A hypothetical 2009 US birth cohort of 4 261 494 infants over their lifetime was followed up from birth through death. Net present value (net savings) and benefit-cost ratios of routine childhood immunization were calculated. RESULTS: Analyses showed that routine childhood immunization among members of the 2009 US birth cohort will prevent approximately 42 000 early deaths and 20 million cases of disease, with net savings of $13.5 billion in direct costs and $68.8 billion in total societal costs, respectively. The direct and societal benefit-cost ratios for routine childhood vaccination with these 9 vaccines were 3.0 and 10.1. CONCLUSIONS: From both direct cost and societal perspectives, vaccinating children as recommended with these vaccines results in substantial cost savings.

OBJECTIVE: To examine preventive care visit patterns among commercially insured adolescents during 2003-2010. In 2005-2007, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended 3 vaccines targeted at adolescents. We also investigate the relationship between preventive care visits and immunization. STUDY DESIGN: Data were drawn from the MarketScan database. Adolescents aged 11-21 continuously enrolled in the same insurance plan during the calendar year were included. We calculated the annual proportion of adolescents with at least 1 preventive and 1 vaccination-related visit. Longitudinal analyses were conducted by following the 1992 birth cohort for 8 consecutive years. RESULTS: The proportion of adolescents making at least 1 preventive visit increased from 24.6%-41.1% during 2003-2010. The rate of vaccination-related visits increased from 12.9%-26.3%. The magnitude of the increase in preventive and vaccination-related visits was greater during the years in which ACIP issued recommendations. The rates of preventive and vaccination-related visits were considerably higher among female and early adolescents and adolescents in managed care plans. Longitudinal analyses indicated that only 2.4% of adolescents had an annual preventive visit during the 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Yearly improvements in preventive care visits by adolescents were substantial. ACIP recommendations may be associated with this improvement. However, ongoing efforts are needed to improve the use and delivery of preventive care services.

OBJECTIVES: Nationwide among nursing home residents, receipt of the influenza vaccine is 8 to 9 percentage points lower among blacks than among whites. The objective of this study was to determine if the national inequity in vaccination is because of the characteristics of facilities and/or residents. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with multilevel modeling. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: States in which 1% or more of nursing home residents were black and the difference in influenza vaccination coverage between white and black nursing home residents was 1 percentage point or higher (n = 39 states and the District of Columbia). Data on residents (n = 2,359,321) were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's Minimum Data Set for October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. MEASUREMENTS: Residents' influenza vaccination status (vaccinated, refused vaccine, or not offered vaccination). RESULTS: States with higher overall influenza vaccination coverage among nursing home residents had smaller racial inequities. In nursing homes with higher proportions of black residents, vaccination coverage was lower for both blacks and whites. The most dramatic inequities existed between whites in nursing homes with 0% blacks (L1) and blacks in nursing homes with 50% or more blacks (L5) in states with overall racial inequities of 10 percentage points or more. In these states, more black nursing home residents lived in nursing homes with 50% or more blacks (L5); in general, the same homes with low overall coverage. CONCLUSION: Inequities in influenza vaccination coverage among nursing home residents are largely because of low vaccination coverage in nursing homes with a high proportion of black residents. Findings indicate that implementation of culturally appropriate interventions to increase vaccination in facilities with larger proportions of black residents may reduce the racial gap in influenza vaccination as well as increase overall state-level vaccination.

Many adults are susceptible to vaccine-preventable diseases | (VPDs) because they have never received protection from | vaccination, because of waning immunity from vaccination, | or because of lack of immunity due to never having been | infected.1 | Influenza is unique among VPDs in that frequent | changes in circulating influenza viruses and limited duration | of immunity after vaccination require annual vaccination for | optimal protection. Other VPDs can also cause significant | morbidity and mortality. Ensuring that as many healthcare | personnel (HCP) as possible are immune to VPDs is important, given those individuals' increased risk of exposure | to and infection with VPDs and their risk of transmitting | VPDs to vulnerable patients.2

BACKGROUND: A shortage of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine that occurred in the United States during December 2007 to September 2009 resulted in an interim recommendation to defer the booster dose, but to continue to vaccinate as recommended with the primary series during the first year of life. OBJECTIVES: To quantify effects of the Hib shortage on vaccination coverage and to determine if any demographic subgroups were disproportionately affected. METHODS: Data from the 2009 National Immunization Survey (NIS) were divided based on child's age at the onset of the shortage. Comparisons were made in primary series coverage by 9 months between children <7 months versus ≥7 months at the start of the shortage. Comparisons in primary series plus booster dose completion by 19 months were made between children who were <12 months versus ≥12 months at the start of the shortage. RESULTS: Nationally, there was a difference in Hib primary series completion by 9 months among children age <7 months versus ≥7 months at the start of the shortage (73.9% versus 81.2%, P<0.001). There was a large difference in the percentage of children fully vaccinated with the primary series plus booster dose by 19 months among children age <12 months versus ≥12 months at the start of the shortage (39.5% versus 66.0%, P<.001). There were differential effects of the shortage on primary series coverage among states and for some demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: As expected booster dose coverage was reduced consistent with interim recommendations, but primary series coverage was also reduced by 7 percentage points nationally.

Between 2005 and 2007, the recommended vaccination schedule for adolescents expanded to include vaccines to protect against pertussis, meningitis (MCV4), and for girls, human papillomavirus (HPV).1-3 The most recent data available from the 2009 National Immunization Survey-Teen show that, while coverage among 13- to 17-year-old adolescents has been increasing for each of these vaccines, it remains suboptimal: 55.6% received pertussis, 53.6% received MCV4, and 26.7% (females only) received all 3 doses of the HPV vaccine series.4 Evidenced-based strategies to increase vaccination coverage among adolescents are needed. | In this issue of the Archives, Szilagyi et al5 describe the results of a primary care, practice-based, randomized clinical trial designed to assess the effectiveness of an intervention to increase coverage of pertussis, MCV4, and HPV vaccinations among urban adolescents. The intervention was carried out by trained immunization navigators who implemented a tiered approach that included tracking immunizations, telephone or mailed patient reminder/recall, and outreach via a home visit. By the end of the study period, 44.7% of adolescents in the intervention group and 32.4% in the control group had received all 3 recommended vaccines, and vaccination coverage levels for each individual vaccine were 12% to 16% higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. An additional intervention benefit was that the rate of preventive health visits also increased.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the racial inequity between African Americans and Caucasians in receipt of influenza vaccine is narrower in residents of nursing homes with facility-wide vaccination strategies than in residents of facilities without vaccination strategies. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis using the National Nursing Home Survey 2004, a nationally representative survey. SETTING: One thousand one hundred seventy-four participating nursing homes sampled systematically with probability proportional to bed size. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen thousand five hundred seven randomly sampled residents of nursing homes between August and December 2004. MEASUREMENTS: Receipt of influenza vaccine within the last year. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between facility-level influenza immunization strategy and racial inequity in receipt of vaccination, adjusted for characteristics at the resident, facility, state, and regional levels. RESULTS: Overall in the Untied States, vaccination coverage was higher for Caucasian and African-American residents; the racial vaccination gaps were smaller (<6 percentage points) and nonsignificant in residents of homes with standing orders for influenza vaccinations (P=.14), verbal consent allowed for vaccinations(P=.39), and routine review of facility-wide vaccination rates (P=.61) than for residents of homes without these strategies. The racial vaccination gap in residents of homes without these strategies were two to three times as high (P=.009, P=.002, and P=.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: The presence of several immunization strategies in nursing homes is associated with higher vaccination coverage for Caucasian and African-American residents, narrowing the national vaccination racial gap.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination coverage among nursing home residents has consistently been reported well below the Healthy People goals. We sought to determine if standing order programs (SOPs) in long-term care facilities are associated with greater influenza vaccination coverage among residents. METHODS: The National Nursing Home Survey (2004) is cross-sectional. A total of 1152 US long-term care facilities were systematically sampled with probability proportional to number of beds. A total of 11,939 people aged 65 years or older residing in sampled long-term care facilities between August and December 2004 were randomly sampled. Influenza vaccination coverage of residents was obtained from facility records. Facility's immunization program included standing orders versus other (preprinted admission order, advance physician order, personal physician order, and no program). Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between type of influenza immunization program and receipt of vaccination, adjusted for resident and facility confounders. RESULTS: The proportion of residents aged 65 years or older who received influenza vaccination was 64%; 41% of residents lived in a facility with an SOP. Influenza vaccination coverage among residents residing in facilities with standing orders was 68% compared with 59% to 63% of residents in facilities with other program types. Logistic regression showed that standing order programs were independently associated with greater influenza vaccination coverage (66.7% versus 62.0%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that residents in long-term care facilities having standing order programs for influenza were more likely to be immunized. More research needs to be done to understand how to facilitate adoption of these programs.

BACKGROUND: In October 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) required that long-term care (LTC) facilities certified by CMS offer each resident annual influenza vaccination. Subsequently, vaccination status was added to resident assessments collected beginning in the influenza season, 2005-2006. This is the first year immunization coverage can be reported based on a census of LTC residents. OBJECTIVES: Report influenza immunization coverage for LTC residents by state, resident, and facility characteristics. Identify uses of the data and areas in need of improvement. METHODS: Analysis of CMS' Minimum Data Set of 1,851,676 residents in nursing homes from October 1 through December 31 but who could have been discharged between January 1 and March 31 merged with data for 14,493 non-hospital-based facilities from the Online Survey and Certification Assessment Reporting System. RESULTS: Overall, 83% of residents were offered the vaccine and 72% had received the vaccine. Almost 10% refused to receive the vaccine, 14% were not offered the vaccine, 1% were ineligible, and 3% were missing vaccination status. Vaccination coverage varied significantly among states (range: 49% to 87%). Fewer African Americans and Hispanics than whites were offered the vaccine (79% and 79% versus 84%, respectively) and received it (65% and 66% versus 73%, respectively); more African Americans refused the vaccine (12%) than residents of other races and/or ethnicities. Residents of Medicaid-certified-only facilities had higher levels of vaccination than residents of other facilities (82% versus ≤73%). CONCLUSION: MDS immunization data can be used as surveillance to work with states to improve coverage. Further research to examine racial disparities in vaccination among LTC residents is needed.

OBJECTIVE: The goal was to explore the association of being underinsured and receiving doses at a health department clinic (HDC) with not receiving all recommended adolescent vaccine doses. METHODS: A total of 5657 adolescents, 13 to 17 years of age, were sampled in the National Immunization Survey-Teen in 2006-2007. RESULTS: A total of 63.9% of all adolescents were covered by private health insurance. Among privately insured adolescents, [similar to]31.3% were underinsured. Compared with fully insured adolescents, underinsured adolescents were more likely to receive doses at an HDC for tetanus-diphtheria toxoids/tetanus toxoids-reduced diphtheria toxoids-acellular pertussis vaccine (25.1% vs 6.2%; P < .05), tetravalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (11.5% vs 2.5%; P < .05), and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (16.2% vs 3.4%; P < .05). Also, compared with fully insured adolescents, underinsured adolescents who received doses at an HDC had lower estimated rates of vaccination coverage for tetanus-diphtheria toxoids/tetanus toxoids-reduced diphtheria toxoids-acellular pertussis vaccine (58.5% vs 70.9%; P < .05), tetravalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (10.8% vs 25.8%; P < .05), and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (7.8% vs 14.3%; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Underinsured adolescents who receive doses at an HDC have lower rates of vaccination coverage than do fully insured adolescents. Copyright copyright 2009 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.