Strategies to Increase Vaccinations in Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

IF 5.2 3区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
Vaccines Pub Date : 2025-09-11 DOI:10.3390/vaccines13090964
Giuseppina Lo Moro, Federica Golzio, Sara Claudia Calabrese, Giacomo Scaioli, Alessandro Basile, Roberta Siliquini, Fabrizio Bert
{"title":"Strategies to Increase Vaccinations in Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Giuseppina Lo Moro, Federica Golzio, Sara Claudia Calabrese, Giacomo Scaioli, Alessandro Basile, Roberta Siliquini, Fabrizio Bert","doi":"10.3390/vaccines13090964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>Although vaccinations are a priority for patients with cancer, achieving high coverage remains challenging. Evidence on effective strategies in oncology settings is still limited. This systematic review aimed to identify interventions to improve vaccination uptake or reduce hesitancy among cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, including studies published up to the end of 2023. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024511008).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 10,927 non-duplicate records, 15 studies describing unique interventions were included. All studies were published between 2011 and 2022, primarily conducted in Europe/UK (40%) and in North America (40%). The most common study design was pre-post (60%), and 33.3% included a control group. Most interventions were multi-component (60%) and were classified into three main categories: educational materials/campaigns (46.7%), reminders (40%), and patient counselling (33.3%). Additional components included guideline development in two studies. Some studies also highlighted the importance of specific key figures, such as dedicated professionals, general practitioners, and pharmacists. Interventions mainly targeted patients (40%), with 33.3% addressing both healthcare professionals and patients and 26.7% professionals only. They most frequently concerned vaccinations against influenza and pneumococcal disease (26.7%), pneumococcal disease alone (26.7%), or Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (26.7%). Vaccination uptake was the primary outcome in 86.7% of studies, with 66.7% reporting significant improvements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review identified a variety of strategies, with education, reminders, and counselling as key components. Multicomponent interventions and those involving both patients and providers were most promising. However, methodological limitations and limited generalizability highlighted the need for more rigorous research.</p>","PeriodicalId":23634,"journal":{"name":"Vaccines","volume":"13 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12474426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccines","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines13090964","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objectives: Although vaccinations are a priority for patients with cancer, achieving high coverage remains challenging. Evidence on effective strategies in oncology settings is still limited. This systematic review aimed to identify interventions to improve vaccination uptake or reduce hesitancy among cancer patients.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, including studies published up to the end of 2023. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024511008).

Results: Out of 10,927 non-duplicate records, 15 studies describing unique interventions were included. All studies were published between 2011 and 2022, primarily conducted in Europe/UK (40%) and in North America (40%). The most common study design was pre-post (60%), and 33.3% included a control group. Most interventions were multi-component (60%) and were classified into three main categories: educational materials/campaigns (46.7%), reminders (40%), and patient counselling (33.3%). Additional components included guideline development in two studies. Some studies also highlighted the importance of specific key figures, such as dedicated professionals, general practitioners, and pharmacists. Interventions mainly targeted patients (40%), with 33.3% addressing both healthcare professionals and patients and 26.7% professionals only. They most frequently concerned vaccinations against influenza and pneumococcal disease (26.7%), pneumococcal disease alone (26.7%), or Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (26.7%). Vaccination uptake was the primary outcome in 86.7% of studies, with 66.7% reporting significant improvements.

Conclusions: This review identified a variety of strategies, with education, reminders, and counselling as key components. Multicomponent interventions and those involving both patients and providers were most promising. However, methodological limitations and limited generalizability highlighted the need for more rigorous research.

Abstract Image

增加成人癌症患者疫苗接种的策略:系统综述。
背景/目的:虽然疫苗接种是癌症患者的优先事项,但实现高覆盖率仍然具有挑战性。关于肿瘤环境中有效策略的证据仍然有限。本系统综述旨在确定干预措施,以提高疫苗接种率或减少癌症患者的犹豫。方法:在PubMed、Embase和Scopus中进行系统检索,包括截至2023年底发表的研究。该协议在PROSPERO (CRD42024511008)中注册。结果:在10927份非重复记录中,有15项研究描述了独特的干预措施。所有研究发表于2011年至2022年之间,主要在欧洲/英国(40%)和北美(40%)进行。最常见的研究设计是前后(60%),33.3%包括对照组。大多数干预措施是多成分的(60%),分为三大类:教材/活动(46.7%)、提醒(40%)和患者咨询(33.3%)。其他组成部分包括两项研究的指南制定。一些研究还强调了特定关键人物的重要性,如专业人士、全科医生和药剂师。干预措施主要针对患者(40%),其中33.3%针对医护专业人员和患者,26.7%仅针对专业人员。他们最常涉及流感和肺炎球菌病(26.7%)、肺炎球菌病(26.7%)或2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)(26.7%)的疫苗接种。在86.7%的研究中,接种疫苗是主要结局,66.7%的研究报告有显著改善。结论:本综述确定了多种策略,其中教育、提醒和咨询是关键组成部分。多组分干预和涉及患者和提供者的干预是最有希望的。然而,方法上的局限性和有限的概括性突出表明需要进行更严格的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Vaccines
Vaccines Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
1853
审稿时长
18.06 days
期刊介绍: Vaccines (ISSN 2076-393X) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal focused on laboratory and clinical vaccine research, utilization and immunization. Vaccines publishes high quality reviews, regular research papers, communications and case reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信