探索提高卫生保健工作者麻疹疫苗接种的干预措施的有效性：一项系统综述

IF 4.5 3区医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY

Vaccine Pub Date : 2025-10-09 DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127808

Nikki Heinze , Alex F. Martin , Anna S.C. Tirion , Riinu Pae , Jasmin Islam , Louise E. Smith , Dale Weston , G. James Rubin

{"title":"探索提高卫生保健工作者麻疹疫苗接种的干预措施的有效性：一项系统综述","authors":"Nikki Heinze , Alex F. Martin , Anna S.C. Tirion , Riinu Pae , Jasmin Islam , Louise E. Smith , Dale Weston , G. James Rubin","doi":"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Healthcare workers (HCW) have an increased risk of measles relative to the general population. Yet, immunity and vaccination rates among this group remain suboptimal. Inaccessible vaccination services, complacency, and a lack of confidence in vaccines can drive vaccine hesitancy among HCW and in the general population. This systematic review aimed to explore the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase measles vaccination among HCW. Due to the similarity in the factors that impact vaccine hesitancy, the scope of this review was extended to interventions assessed in non-HCW adults from whom valuable lessons may be learnt.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42024582349). Embase, Medline, Global Health, APA PsycINFO, HMIC Health management, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and trial registers (<span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, ISRCTN, ICTRP) were searched up to 17 March 2025. Articles reporting vaccine uptake or comparing vaccination rates among HCW or adults following an intervention were included.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 13,457 academic and 585 trial register records, seven articles relating to HCW and eight to non-HCW adults were included. Twelve of the 15 included studies were observational and only two reported inferential statistics for the outcomes of interest. Risk of bias was high for all but one article, which scored fair. Active identification and invitation to vaccination were the most common interventions for HCW and adults. In both populations, this strategy showed some success, but, due to the observational and descriptive nature of most studies, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Moreover, few studies included educational and policy interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>High-quality research is needed to develop our understanding of the effectiveness of different interventions. This will help healthcare providers and policymakers identify appropriate interventions to increase measles vaccination among HCW and, thus, reduce their risk of infection and contain outbreaks in healthcare facilities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23491,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine","volume":"66 ","pages":"Article 127808"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake of measles vaccination among healthcare workers: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Nikki Heinze , Alex F. Martin , Anna S.C. Tirion , Riinu Pae , Jasmin Islam , Louise E. Smith , Dale Weston , G. James Rubin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127808\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Healthcare workers (HCW) have an increased risk of measles relative to the general population. Yet, immunity and vaccination rates among this group remain suboptimal. Inaccessible vaccination services, complacency, and a lack of confidence in vaccines can drive vaccine hesitancy among HCW and in the general population. This systematic review aimed to explore the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase measles vaccination among HCW. Due to the similarity in the factors that impact vaccine hesitancy, the scope of this review was extended to interventions assessed in non-HCW adults from whom valuable lessons may be learnt.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42024582349). Embase, Medline, Global Health, APA PsycINFO, HMIC Health management, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and trial registers (<span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, ISRCTN, ICTRP) were searched up to 17 March 2025. Articles reporting vaccine uptake or comparing vaccination rates among HCW or adults following an intervention were included.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 13,457 academic and 585 trial register records, seven articles relating to HCW and eight to non-HCW adults were included. Twelve of the 15 included studies were observational and only two reported inferential statistics for the outcomes of interest. Risk of bias was high for all but one article, which scored fair. Active identification and invitation to vaccination were the most common interventions for HCW and adults. In both populations, this strategy showed some success, but, due to the observational and descriptive nature of most studies, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Moreover, few studies included educational and policy interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>High-quality research is needed to develop our understanding of the effectiveness of different interventions. This will help healthcare providers and policymakers identify appropriate interventions to increase measles vaccination among HCW and, thus, reduce their risk of infection and contain outbreaks in healthcare facilities.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vaccine\",\"volume\":\"66 \",\"pages\":\"Article 127808\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-09\",\"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/S0264410X25011053\",\"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/S0264410X25011053","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

背景：与一般人群相比，卫生保健工作者（HCW）患麻疹的风险更高。然而，这一群体的免疫力和疫苗接种率仍然不理想。难以获得的疫苗接种服务、自满和对疫苗缺乏信心可能导致儿童和普通人群对疫苗犹豫不决。本系统综述旨在探讨旨在增加儿童儿童麻疹疫苗接种的干预措施的有效性。由于影响疫苗犹豫的因素相似，本综述的范围扩展到对非hcw成人进行评估的干预措施，从中可以吸取宝贵的经验教训。方法进行系统评价（PROSPERO: CRD42024582349）。Embase, Medline, Global Health, APA PsycINFO, HMIC Health management， CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science， Cochrane Library和试验注册（ClinicalTrials.gov， ISRCTN， ICTRP）被检索到2025年3月17日。研究纳入了报道HCW或干预后成人接种疫苗或比较疫苗接种率的文章。结果在13457篇学术文献和585篇临床文献中，7篇与HCW相关，8篇与非HCW相关。纳入的15项研究中有12项是观察性的，只有2项报告了相关结果的推断统计数据。除了一篇文章外，所有文章的偏倚风险都很高，这篇文章得分一般。积极识别和邀请接种疫苗是HCW和成人最常见的干预措施。在这两个人群中，这一策略显示出一些成功，但是，由于大多数研究的观察性和描述性，无法得出确定的结论。此外，很少有研究包括教育和政策干预。结论需要高质量的研究来加深我们对不同干预措施有效性的认识。这将有助于卫生保健提供者和决策者确定适当的干预措施，以增加卫生保健儿童的麻疹疫苗接种，从而降低其感染风险并控制卫生保健设施中的疫情。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Exploring the effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake of measles vaccination among healthcare workers: a systematic review

Background

Healthcare workers (HCW) have an increased risk of measles relative to the general population. Yet, immunity and vaccination rates among this group remain suboptimal. Inaccessible vaccination services, complacency, and a lack of confidence in vaccines can drive vaccine hesitancy among HCW and in the general population. This systematic review aimed to explore the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase measles vaccination among HCW. Due to the similarity in the factors that impact vaccine hesitancy, the scope of this review was extended to interventions assessed in non-HCW adults from whom valuable lessons may be learnt.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42024582349). Embase, Medline, Global Health, APA PsycINFO, HMIC Health management, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ICTRP) were searched up to 17 March 2025. Articles reporting vaccine uptake or comparing vaccination rates among HCW or adults following an intervention were included.

Results

Of the 13,457 academic and 585 trial register records, seven articles relating to HCW and eight to non-HCW adults were included. Twelve of the 15 included studies were observational and only two reported inferential statistics for the outcomes of interest. Risk of bias was high for all but one article, which scored fair. Active identification and invitation to vaccination were the most common interventions for HCW and adults. In both populations, this strategy showed some success, but, due to the observational and descriptive nature of most studies, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Moreover, few studies included educational and policy interventions.

Conclusion

High-quality research is needed to develop our understanding of the effectiveness of different interventions. This will help healthcare providers and policymakers identify appropriate interventions to increase measles vaccination among HCW and, thus, reduce their risk of infection and contain outbreaks in healthcare facilities.

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 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.