Back to Annual Meeting

Back to Annual Meeting

APHA Scientific Session and Event Listing

Recorded presentation

L. Rand Carpenter, DVM¹, Timothy F. Jones, MD¹, John Lott, RN, MS², Stephanie Hall, MD, MPH², and William Schaffner, MD³. (1) Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tennessee Department of Health, 425 5th Ave. North, 4th Floor, Cordell Hull Building, Nashville, TN 37247, 615-741-3738, l.rand.carpenter@state.tn.us, (2) Knox County Health Department, 140 Dameron Ave., Knoxville, TN 37917, (3) Preventive Medicine Department, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, A-1124 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232-2637

Background: Influenza vaccination of children has been shown to provide protection to the larger community. Implementation of a comprehensive campaign for influenza vaccination of schoolchildren has not been evaluated previously.

Methods: We evaluated a school-based influenza vaccination campaign by collecting data on student population, vaccination levels, and resources expended. Physicians and parents were surveyed regarding campaign participation and barriers.

Results: Live-attenuated intranasal influenza vaccine (LAIV) was offered free-of-charge to all students in grades K–12 in a Tennessee metropolitan school system. Of 53,178 public school students, 24,281 (46%) were vaccinated. Of 5,841 school staff, 3,626 (62%) were vaccinated. Proportion vaccinated was 56% among elementary, 45% among middle, and 30% among high school students. Schools with higher proportions of black or low-income families had lower vaccine coverage levels. The health department and school system expended 6,900 person-hours during planning and execution of the campaign, and health department clinics were closed for a combined 84 half-days. Community physicians were supportive of the campaign and frequently advised participation for eligible patients. Some misunderstanding of LAIV contraindications occurred among community physicians. Concern about side effects, having asthma, being vaccinated elsewhere, physician advice, and nonparticipation in any vaccination were common reasons for students not participating.

Conclusions: This school-based vaccination effort achieved high vaccine coverage levels, but required a substantial resource commitment from the health department. This evaluation has critical implications for the ongoing discussion regarding national immunization policies, prioritization of distribution of limited vaccine supplies, and preparedness plans for avian influenza.

Learning Objectives:

• Describe the factors to be considered and the resources required in designing a school-based influenza vaccination campaign.
• Evaluate the factors associated with varying vaccination levels in this school-based vaccintion campaign.
• Identify possible barriers to success in a school-based vaccination campaign.

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Any relevant financial relationships? No

Recorded presentation