疫苗教育干预对老年人疫苗摄取和疫苗知识的影响:一项系统综述和荟萃分析

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Yee Tang Chan , Sek Ying Chair , Rui Tong Gao , Ming Him Ng , Vivian Wing Yan Lee
{"title":"疫苗教育干预对老年人疫苗摄取和疫苗知识的影响:一项系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Yee Tang Chan ,&nbsp;Sek Ying Chair ,&nbsp;Rui Tong Gao ,&nbsp;Ming Him Ng ,&nbsp;Vivian Wing Yan Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Educational intervention is one approach for providing vaccine knowledge and encouraging vaccine uptake. However, up till now, no systematic review reporting the effectiveness of vaccine educational intervention on vaccine uptake and/or knowledge enhancement for disease preventeable by the vaccine of interest, compared to conventional/standard or no intervention, for older adults aged 60 or above was found.</div><div>Six databases, including PubMed, OVID, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the British Nursing Index, were searched. Vaccine educational interventions in this study were interventions that encourage vaccine uptake and/or provide knowledge enhancement on diseases prevented by the vaccine. Conventional/standard or no intervention refers to vaccine educational intervention that existed prior to the commencement of the intervention or no vaccine educational intervention was performed at all. All included studies were randomized control trials. The appraisal was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Version 1 (RoB 1). Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan Web. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a sample size of 419,523. This review demonstrated that vaccine educational intervention improves vaccine uptake (Relative Risk: 1.19, <em>p</em> = 0.008, 95 % confidence interval: 1.05–1.35). Furthermore, interactive vaccine educational intervention had a statistically significant effect on improving vaccine uptake among older adults (Relative Risk = 1.33, 95 % confidence interval: 1.08–1.62, <em>p</em> = 0.006). Neither continuous nor conducted once only intervention were found to have statistically significant improvement in vaccine uptake in the subgroup analysis. Vaccine educational interventions were found to have statistically significant effects on vaccine knowledge enhancement (Mean Difference: 0.42, 95 % confidence interval: 0.11–0.74, <em>p</em> = 0.008). The findings demonstrate that educational interventions significantly encourage vaccine uptake and knowledge enhancement in older adults. However, the limited amount of included literature and the high heterogeneity observed may limit the generalizability of the findings of this study. Further RCTs are recommended to bring more assertive results.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23491,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine","volume":"56 ","pages":"Article 127182"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of vaccine education intervention on vaccine uptake and vaccine knowledge among older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Yee Tang Chan ,&nbsp;Sek Ying Chair ,&nbsp;Rui Tong Gao ,&nbsp;Ming Him Ng ,&nbsp;Vivian Wing Yan Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127182\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Educational intervention is one approach for providing vaccine knowledge and encouraging vaccine uptake. However, up till now, no systematic review reporting the effectiveness of vaccine educational intervention on vaccine uptake and/or knowledge enhancement for disease preventeable by the vaccine of interest, compared to conventional/standard or no intervention, for older adults aged 60 or above was found.</div><div>Six databases, including PubMed, OVID, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the British Nursing Index, were searched. Vaccine educational interventions in this study were interventions that encourage vaccine uptake and/or provide knowledge enhancement on diseases prevented by the vaccine. Conventional/standard or no intervention refers to vaccine educational intervention that existed prior to the commencement of the intervention or no vaccine educational intervention was performed at all. All included studies were randomized control trials. The appraisal was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Version 1 (RoB 1). Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan Web. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a sample size of 419,523. This review demonstrated that vaccine educational intervention improves vaccine uptake (Relative Risk: 1.19, <em>p</em> = 0.008, 95 % confidence interval: 1.05–1.35). Furthermore, interactive vaccine educational intervention had a statistically significant effect on improving vaccine uptake among older adults (Relative Risk = 1.33, 95 % confidence interval: 1.08–1.62, <em>p</em> = 0.006). Neither continuous nor conducted once only intervention were found to have statistically significant improvement in vaccine uptake in the subgroup analysis. Vaccine educational interventions were found to have statistically significant effects on vaccine knowledge enhancement (Mean Difference: 0.42, 95 % confidence interval: 0.11–0.74, <em>p</em> = 0.008). The findings demonstrate that educational interventions significantly encourage vaccine uptake and knowledge enhancement in older adults. However, the limited amount of included literature and the high heterogeneity observed may limit the generalizability of the findings of this study. Further RCTs are recommended to bring more assertive results.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vaccine\",\"volume\":\"56 \",\"pages\":\"Article 127182\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vaccine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25004797\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25004797","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

教育干预是提供疫苗知识和鼓励接种疫苗的一种方法。然而,与常规/标准或不干预相比,目前尚未发现针对60岁及以上老年人,疫苗教育干预对疫苗摄取和/或对目标疫苗可预防疾病知识增强的有效性。检索了六个数据库,包括PubMed、OVID、CINAHL、Web of Science、Cochrane Library和British Nursing Index。本研究中的疫苗教育干预措施是指鼓励接种疫苗和/或提供有关疫苗预防疾病知识的干预措施。常规/标准或无干预是指在干预开始之前已经存在的疫苗教育干预或根本没有进行疫苗教育干预。所有纳入的研究均为随机对照试验。评估采用Cochrane风险偏倚工具版本1 (RoB 1)。采用RevMan Web进行meta分析。荟萃分析纳入了10项研究,样本量为419,523。本综述表明,疫苗教育干预可提高疫苗吸收率(相对危险度:1.19,p = 0.008, 95%可信区间:1.05-1.35)。此外,互动式疫苗教育干预对提高老年人疫苗接种率有统计学意义(相对危险度= 1.33,95%可信区间:1.08-1.62,p = 0.006)。在亚组分析中,无论是连续干预还是只进行一次干预,都没有发现在疫苗摄取方面有统计学上显著的改善。疫苗教育干预对提高疫苗知识有统计学意义(平均差异:0.42,95%可信区间:0.11-0.74,p = 0.008)。研究结果表明,教育干预措施显著鼓励老年人接种疫苗和提高知识。然而,纳入文献的数量有限和观察到的高度异质性可能限制了本研究结果的推广。建议进一步的随机对照试验带来更坚定的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of vaccine education intervention on vaccine uptake and vaccine knowledge among older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Educational intervention is one approach for providing vaccine knowledge and encouraging vaccine uptake. However, up till now, no systematic review reporting the effectiveness of vaccine educational intervention on vaccine uptake and/or knowledge enhancement for disease preventeable by the vaccine of interest, compared to conventional/standard or no intervention, for older adults aged 60 or above was found.
Six databases, including PubMed, OVID, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the British Nursing Index, were searched. Vaccine educational interventions in this study were interventions that encourage vaccine uptake and/or provide knowledge enhancement on diseases prevented by the vaccine. Conventional/standard or no intervention refers to vaccine educational intervention that existed prior to the commencement of the intervention or no vaccine educational intervention was performed at all. All included studies were randomized control trials. The appraisal was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Version 1 (RoB 1). Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan Web. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a sample size of 419,523. This review demonstrated that vaccine educational intervention improves vaccine uptake (Relative Risk: 1.19, p = 0.008, 95 % confidence interval: 1.05–1.35). Furthermore, interactive vaccine educational intervention had a statistically significant effect on improving vaccine uptake among older adults (Relative Risk = 1.33, 95 % confidence interval: 1.08–1.62, p = 0.006). Neither continuous nor conducted once only intervention were found to have statistically significant improvement in vaccine uptake in the subgroup analysis. Vaccine educational interventions were found to have statistically significant effects on vaccine knowledge enhancement (Mean Difference: 0.42, 95 % confidence interval: 0.11–0.74, p = 0.008). The findings demonstrate that educational interventions significantly encourage vaccine uptake and knowledge enhancement in older adults. However, the limited amount of included literature and the high heterogeneity observed may limit the generalizability of the findings of this study. Further RCTs are recommended to bring more assertive results.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Vaccine
Vaccine 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
5.50%
发文量
992
审稿时长
131 days
期刊介绍: Vaccine is unique in publishing the highest quality science across all disciplines relevant to the field of vaccinology - all original article submissions across basic and clinical research, vaccine manufacturing, history, public policy, behavioral science and ethics, social sciences, safety, and many other related areas are welcomed. The submission categories as given in the Guide for Authors indicate where we receive the most papers. Papers outside these major areas are also welcome and authors are encouraged to contact us with specific questions.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信