Comparing in-person and webinar delivery of an immunization quality improvement program: a process evaluation of the adolescent AFIX trial

Implementation Science

Noel T Brewer³  Amy H Grimshaw²  Amanda M Dayton²  Alyssa J Roberts²  Jennifer L Moss³  Melissa B Gilkey¹ 

[1] Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, CB 7440, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA;Immunization Branch, North Carolina Division of Public Health, 5601 Six Forks Rd, Raleigh, NC 27609, USA;Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, CB 7440, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA

关键词: Process assessment;    Quality improvement;    Health care quality, access, and evaluation;    Immunization programs;    Adolescent health services;   

Others  :  810310
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-9-21

 received in 2013-08-21, accepted in 2014-02-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Immunization quality improvement programs are often limited by the cost and inconvenience associated with delivering face-to-face consultations to primary care providers. To investigate a more efficient mode of intervention delivery, we conducted a process evaluation that compared in-person consultations to those delivered via interactive webinar.

Methods

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Assessment, Feedback, Incentives, and eXchange (AFIX) Program is an immunization quality improvement program implemented in all 50 states. In 2011, we randomly assigned 61 high-volume primary care clinics in North Carolina to receive an in-person or webinar AFIX consultation focused on adolescent immunization. We used surveys of participating vaccine providers and expense tracking logs to evaluate delivery modes on participation, satisfaction, and cost. Clinics served 71,874 patients, ages 11 to 18.

Results

Clinics that received in-person and webinar consultations reported similar levels of participation on key programmatic activities with one exception: more webinar clinics reported improving documentation of previously administered, ‘historical’ vaccine doses. Both in-person and webinar clinics showed sustained improvement in confidence to use reminder/recall systems (both p < 0.05). Participants rated delivery modes equally highly on satisfaction measures such as convenience (mean = 4.6 of 5.0). Delivery cost per clinic was $152 for in-person consultations versus $100 for webinar consultations.

Conclusions

In-person and webinar delivery modes were both well received, but webinar AFIX consultations cost substantially less. Interactive webinar delivery shows promise for considerably extending the reach of immunization quality improvement programs.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01544764

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gilkey et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National and state vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13–17 years--United States, 2012. MMWR 2013, 62:685-693.
• [2]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National, state, and local area vaccination coverage among children aged 19–35 months--United States, 2011. MMWR 2012, 61:689.
• [3]Dorell C, Yankey D, Strasser S: Parent-reported reasons for nonreceipt of recommended adolescent vaccinations, National Immunization Survey: teen, 2009. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2011, 50:1116-1124.
• [4]Vadaparampil ST, Kahn JA, Salmon D, Lee JH, Quinn GP, Roetzheim R, Bruder K, Malo TL, Proveaux T, Zhao X, Halsey N, Giuliano AR: Missed clinical opportunities: provider recommendations for HPV vaccination for 11–12 year old girls are limited. Vaccine 2001, 29:8634-8641.
• [5]Darden PM, Thompson DM, Roberts JR, Hale JJ, Pope C, Naifeh M, Jacobson RM: Reasons for not vaccinating adolescents: National Immunization Survey of Teens, 2008–2010. Pediatrics 2013, 131:645-651.
• [6]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Immunization information systems. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/iis/about.html webcite
• [7]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: AFIX (Assessment, Feedback, Incentives, and eXchange). http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/afix/index.html webcite
• [8]LeBaron CW, Mercer JT, Massoudi MS, Dini E, Stevenson J, Fischer WM, Loy H, Quick LS, Warming JC, Tormey P, DesVignes-Kendrick M: Changes in clinical vaccination coverage after institution of measurement and feedback in 4 states and 2 cities. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999, 153:879-886.
• [9]Fairbrother G, Hanson KL, Friedman S, Butts GC: The impact of physician bonuses, enhanced fees, and feedback on childhood immunization coverage rates. Am J Public Health 1999, 89:171-175.
• [10]Community Preventive Services Task Force: Universally recommended vaccinations: provider assessment and feedback. http://www.thecommunityguide.org/vaccines/providerassessment.html webcite
• [11]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 2011 ISSAR data participation rates: adolescent participation table and map. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/iis/annual-report-IISAR/2011-data.html#adolescent webcite
• [12]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Vaccines for children program. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html webcite
• [13]U.S. Census Bureau: Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. http://www.census.gov/population/metro webcite
• [14]Chipps J, Brysiewicz P, Mars M: A systematic review of the effectiveness of videoconferencing-based tele-education for medical and nursing education. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2012, 9:78-87.
• [15]Fordis M, King JE, Ballantyne CM, Jones PH, Schneider KH, Spann SJ, Greenberg SB, Greisinger AJ: Comparison of the instructional efficacy of internet-based CME with live interactive CME workshops. JAMA 2005, 294:1043-1051.
• [16]Lam-Antoniades M, Ratnapalan S, Tait G: Electronic continuing education in the health professions: an update on evidence from RCTs. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2009, 29:44-51.
• [17]Kempe A, Saville A, Dickinson M, Eisert S, Reynolds J, Herrero D, Beaty B, Albright K, Dibert E, Koehler V, Lockhart S, Calonge N: Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial. Am J Public Health 2013, 103:1116-1123.
• [18]Szilagyi PG, Bordley C, Vann JC, Chelminski A, Kraus RM, Margolis PA, Rodewald LE: Effect of patient reminder/recall interventions on immunization rates: a review. JAMA 2000, 284:1820-1827.
• [19]Szilagyi PG, Albertin C, Humiston SG, Rand CM, Schaffer S, Brill H, Stankaitis J, Yoo BK, Blumkin A, Stokley S: A randomized trial of the effect of centralized reminder/recall on immunizations and preventive care visits for adolescents. Acad Pediatr 2013, 13:204-213.