JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024 May 24;10:e39297. doi: 10.2196/39297.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Innovation in seasonal influenza vaccine development has resulted in a wider range of formulations becoming available. Understanding vaccine coverage across populations including the timing of administration is important when evaluating vaccine benefits and risks.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report the representativeness, uptake of influenza vaccines, different formulations of influenza vaccines, and timing of administration within the English Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC).
METHODS: We used the PCSC of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. We included patients of all ages registered with PCSC member general practices, reporting influenza vaccine coverage between September 1, 2019, and January 29, 2020. We identified influenza vaccination recipients and characterized them by age, clinical risk groups, and vaccine type. We reported the date of influenza vaccination within the PCSC by International Standard Organization (ISO) week. The representativeness of the PCSC population was compared with population data provided by the Office for National Statistics. PCSC influenza vaccine coverage was compared with published UK Health Security Agency’s national data. We used paired t tests to compare populations, reported with 95% CI.
RESULTS: The PCSC comprised 7,010,627 people from 693 general practices. The study population included a greater proportion of people aged 18-49 years (2,982,390/7,010,627, 42.5%; 95% CI 42.5%-42.6%) compared with the Office for National Statistics 2019 midyear population estimates (23,219,730/56,286,961, 41.3%; 95% CI 4.12%-41.3%; P<.001). People who are more deprived were underrepresented and those in the least deprived quintile were overrepresented. Within the study population, 24.7% (1,731,062/7,010,627; 95% CI 24.7%-24.7%) of people of all ages received an influenza vaccine compared with 24.2% (14,468,665/59,764,928; 95% CI 24.2%-24.2%; P<.001) in national data. The highest coverage was in people aged ≥65 years (913,695/1,264,700, 72.3%; 95% CI 72.2%-72.3%). The proportion of people in risk groups who received an influenza vaccine was also higher; for example, 69.8% (284,280/407,228; 95% CI 69.7%-70%) of people with diabetes in the PCSC received an influenza vaccine compared with 61.2% (983,727/1,607,996; 95% CI 61.1%-61.3%; P<.001) in national data. In the PCSC, vaccine type and brand information were available for 71.8% (358,365/498,923; 95% CI 71.7%-72%) of people aged 16-64 years and 81.9% (748,312/913,695; 95% CI 81.8%-82%) of people aged ≥65 years, compared with 23.6% (696,880/2,900,000) and 17.8% (1,385,888/7,700,000), respectively, of the same age groups in national data. Vaccination commenced during ISO week 35, continued until ISO week 3, and peaked during ISO week 41. The in-week peak in vaccination administration was on Saturdays.
CONCLUSIONS: The PCSC’s sociodemographic profile was similar to the national population and captured more data about risk groups, vaccine brands, and batches. This may reflect higher data quality. Its capabilities included reporting precise dates of administration. The PCSC is suitable for undertaking studies of influenza vaccine coverage.
PMID:38787605 | DOI:10.2196/39297
