Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health (Li), McGill University; CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center (Li, Laghdir, Boucoiran, Tapiéro), Montréal, Que.; Direction des risques biologiques et de la santé au travail (Brousseau, Dubé), Institut national de la santé publique du Québec; CHU de Quebec Research Center (Brousseau, Dubé), Université Laval, Québec City, Que.; Research Center (Guay), Hôpital Charles-Lemoyne, Longueuil, Que.; Département des sciences de la santé communautaire (Guay), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Que.; Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology (Boucoiran), School of Public Health, Université de Montréal; Infectious Diseases Division (Tapiéro), Department of Pediatrics, CHU Sainte-Justine; Department of Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and Immunology (Quach), Université de Montréal; Infection Prevention and Control (Quach), Clinical Department of Laboratory Medicine, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montréal, Que.
CMAJ Open. 2022 Feb 1;10(1):E56-E63. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20210011. Print 2022 Jan-Mar.
Vaccination of pregnant people with a vaccine containing acellular pertussis (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis [Tdap]) has been recommended in Canada since 2018, and the evaluation of delivery models for efficient maternal Tdap administration is a priority for the Quebec Ministry of Health. We implemented 3 vaccine delivery models, in addition to the existing standard of practice model, and compared the vaccine coverage achieved by the 4 models in Quebec.
In this quasiexperimental, multicentre observational study, we recruited pregnant people at less than 21 weeks' gestation in 4 Quebec regions from April to October 2019. We compared 4 vaccine delivery models: local community service centres (centre local de services communautaires [CLSCs], baseline), family medicine groups (FMGs), obstetrics clinic and the oral glucose challenge test (OGCT). In addition to the CLSCs, 3 FMGs, 1 obstetric clinic and a hospital-based OGCT screening program participated. We determined vaccination status from a self-reported questionnaire, the Quebec Immunization Registry or medical charts. We compared model-specific (for participants recruited to a model and subsequently vaccinated within that model) and overall vaccine coverage (considering all vaccine delivery pathways) and used logistic regression to adjust for sociodemographic variables.
Overall, 946 of 1000 recruited pregnant people were eligible for analyses. Vaccination via the FMGs achieved the highest model-specific vaccine coverage (67.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 60.5%-74.4%), but coverage was not significantly different from the CLSCs (63.8%, 95% CI 57.6%-69.6%). For overall vaccine coverage, the FMG (86.5%, 95% CI 80.6%-90.9%) and obstetrics models (85.9%, 95% CI 80.9%-89.7%) achieved significantly higher vaccine coverage than the CLSCs (66.3%, 95% CI 60.1%-71.9%). The OGCT model did not improve overall vaccine coverage (61.8%, 95% CI 56.1%-67.2%).
Compared with CLSCs, overall vaccine coverage was higher when Tdap was offered in FMGs or an obstetrics clinic providing prenatal care. Health professionals involved in pregnancy follow-up recommending and offering the vaccine may be a key factor in optimizing vaccine coverage.
自 2018 年以来,加拿大已建议为孕妇接种含非细胞百日咳(破伤风-白喉-非细胞百日咳[Tdap])的疫苗,评估有效进行母体 Tdap 给药的分娩模式是魁北克省卫生部的当务之急。我们实施了 3 种疫苗接种模式,除了现有的标准实践模式外,还比较了魁北克省 4 种模式所达到的疫苗覆盖率。
在这项准实验性、多中心观察性研究中,我们于 2019 年 4 月至 10 月在魁北克的 4 个地区招募了妊娠不到 21 周的孕妇。我们比较了 4 种疫苗接种模式:社区服务中心(社区服务中心[CLSCs],基线)、家庭医学组(FMG)、妇产科诊所和口服葡萄糖挑战试验(OGCT)。除 CLSCs 外,还参与了 3 个 FMG、1 个妇产科诊所和 1 个基于医院的 OGCT 筛查项目。我们通过自我报告的问卷、魁北克免疫登记处或病历确定接种状态。我们比较了特定模式(招募到特定模式并随后在该模式下接种疫苗的参与者)和总体疫苗覆盖率(考虑所有疫苗接种途径),并使用逻辑回归调整了社会人口统计学变量。
共有 1000 名招募的孕妇中有 946 名符合分析条件。FMG 途径的疫苗接种实现了最高的特定模式疫苗覆盖率(67.8%,95%置信区间[CI]60.5%-74.4%),但与 CLSCs(63.8%,95%CI 57.6%-69.6%)并无显著差异。对于总体疫苗覆盖率,FMG(86.5%,95%CI 80.6%-90.9%)和妇产科模式(85.9%,95%CI 80.9%-89.7%)的疫苗覆盖率显著高于 CLSCs(66.3%,95%CI 60.1%-71.9%)。OGCT 模式并未提高总体疫苗覆盖率(61.8%,95%CI 56.1%-67.2%)。
与 CLSCs 相比,在提供产前护理的 FMG 或妇产科诊所提供 Tdap 时,总体疫苗覆盖率更高。参与妊娠随访的卫生专业人员推荐和提供疫苗可能是优化疫苗覆盖率的关键因素。