Suppr超能文献

为向父母宣传或教育有关幼儿疫苗接种的面对面干预措施。

Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination.

作者信息

Kaufman Jessica, Synnot Anneliese, Ryan Rebecca, Hill Sophie, Horey Dell, Willis Natalie, Lin Vivian, Robinson Priscilla

机构信息

Centre forHealth Communication and Participation, Australian Institute for Primary Care&Ageing, La Trobe University, Bundoora,Australia.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31(5):CD010038. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010038.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on immunisation uptake and parental knowledge.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to July 2012); EMBASE + Embase Classic (OvidSP) (1947 to July 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to July 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2012); Global Health (CAB) (1910 to July 2012); Global Health Library (WHO) (searched July 2012); Google Scholar (searched September 2012), ISI Web of Science (searched September 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles. We searched for ongoing trials in The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched August 2012) and for grey literature in The Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (searched August 2012). We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs evaluating the effects of face to face interventions delivered to individual parents or groups of parents to inform or educate about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face to face intervention. Early childhood vaccines are all recommended routine childhood vaccines outlined by the World Health Organization, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) which is delivered to adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed database search results for inclusion. Grey literature searches were conducted and reviewed by a single author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs and one cluster RCT involving a total of 2978 participants. Three studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries and four were conducted in high-income countries. The cluster RCT did not contribute usable data to the review. The interventions comprised a mix of single-session and multi-session strategies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low and the studies were at moderate risk of bias overall. All these trials compared face to face interventions directed to individual parents with control.The three studies assessing the effect of a single-session intervention on immunisation status could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. The overall result is uncertain because the individual study results ranged from no evidence of effect to a significant increase in immunisation.Two studies assessed the effect of a multi-session intervention on immunisation status. These studies were also not pooled due to heterogeneity and the result was very uncertain, ranging from a non-significant decrease in immunisation to no evidence of effect.The two studies assessing the effect of a face to face intervention on knowledge or understanding of vaccination were very uncertain and were not pooled as data from one study were skewed. However, neither study showed evidence of an effect on knowledge scores in the intervention group. Only one study measured the cost of a case management intervention. The estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care.The review also considered the following secondary outcomes: intention to vaccinate child, parent experience of intervention, and adverse effects. No adverse effects related to the intervention were measured by any of the included studies, and there were no data on the other outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence available is low quality and suggests that face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about childhood vaccination have little to no impact on immunisation status, or knowledge or understanding of vaccination. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the cost of implementing the intervention, parent intention to vaccinate, parent experience of the intervention, or adverse effects. Given the apparently limited effect of such interventions, it may be feasible and appropriate to incorporate communication about vaccination into a healthcare encounter, rather than conduct it as a separate activity.

摘要

背景

儿童疫苗接种(也称为免疫接种)是减少儿童疾病和死亡的重要且有效方式。然而,许多儿童未接种推荐疫苗,原因包括其父母不知道疫苗接种为何重要、不了解如何、在何处或何时为孩子接种疫苗、不同意将疫苗接种作为一项公共卫生措施,或对疫苗安全性存在担忧。针对父母开展面对面干预,以告知或教育他们关于儿童常规疫苗接种的相关信息,可能会提高疫苗接种率,并增进父母对疫苗接种的知识或理解。此类干预可以描述或解释与疫苗接种相关的实际和后勤因素,并使父母理解疫苗接种对其家庭或社区的意义及相关性。

目的

评估针对父母开展的面对面干预,以告知或教育他们关于幼儿疫苗接种的相关信息,对疫苗接种率和父母知识的影响。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2012年第7期);MEDLINE(OvidSP)(1946年至2012年7月);EMBASE + Embase经典版(OvidSP)(1947年至2012年7月);护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)(EbscoHOST)(1981年至2012年7月);心理学文摘数据库(PsycINFO)(OvidSP)(1806年至2012年7月);全球健康数据库(CAB)(1910年至2012年7月);全球健康图书馆(世界卫生组织)(2012年7月检索);谷歌学术(2012年9月检索)、科学引文索引(2012年9月检索)以及相关文章的参考文献列表。我们在国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(2012年8月检索)中检索正在进行的试验,并在灰色文献报告和OpenGrey(2012年8月检索)中检索灰色文献。我们还联系了纳入研究的作者以及该领域的专家。没有语言或日期限制。

选择标准

随机对照试验(RCT)和整群随机对照试验,评估针对个体父母或父母群体开展的面对面干预,以告知或教育他们关于幼儿疫苗接种的相关信息,并与对照组或另一种面对面干预进行比较。幼儿疫苗是世界卫生组织概述的所有推荐的儿童常规疫苗,但人乳头瘤病毒疫苗(HPV)除外,该疫苗针对青少年接种。

数据收集与分析

两位作者独立审查数据库检索结果以确定是否纳入。灰色文献检索由一位作者进行并审查。两位作者独立提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们联系研究作者以获取更多信息。

主要结果

我们纳入了6项随机对照试验和1项整群随机对照试验,共涉及2978名参与者。3项研究在低收入或中等收入国家开展,4项在高收入国家开展。整群随机对照试验未为该综述提供可用数据。干预措施包括单节次和多节次策略的组合。每个结局的证据质量低至极低,且研究总体存在中度偏倚风险。所有这些试验均将针对个体父母的面对面干预与对照组进行比较。评估单节次干预对免疫接种状况影响的3项研究由于异质性高而无法合并。总体结果不确定,因为个体研究结果从无效果证据到免疫接种显著增加不等。两项研究评估了多节次干预对免疫接种状况的影响。由于异质性,这些研究也未合并,结果非常不确定,范围从免疫接种无显著下降到无效果证据。评估面对面干预对疫苗接种知识或理解影响的两项研究结果非常不确定,且未合并,因为一项研究的数据存在偏倚。然而,两项研究均未显示干预组在知识得分上有效果证据。只有一项研究测量了病例管理干预的成本。干预措施使每个完全免疫儿童的估计额外成本比常规护理高出约8倍。该综述还考虑了以下次要结局:给孩子接种疫苗的意愿、父母对干预的体验以及不良反应。纳入的任何研究均未测量与干预相关的不良反应,且没有关于其他感兴趣结局的数据。

作者结论

现有有限证据质量低,表明针对父母开展的面对面干预,以告知或教育他们关于儿童疫苗接种的相关信息,对免疫接种状况、疫苗接种知识或理解几乎没有影响。没有足够证据对实施干预的成本、父母给孩子接种疫苗的意愿、父母对干预的体验或不良反应进行评论。鉴于此类干预的效果明显有限,将疫苗接种相关沟通纳入医疗保健服务过程,而非作为一项单独活动进行,可能是可行且合适的。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验