NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].
Show detailsCRD summary
This review concluded that there was limited evidence that influenza vaccination may reduce incidence of laboratory-confirmed infection in healthcare workers, but no evidence for any effect on influenza-like illness outcomes or working days lost. Data were insufficient to assess vaccine-related adverse events or to draw firm overall conclusions. The conclusions presented were appropriately cautious.
Authors' objectives
To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in health care workers and to assess vaccine-related adverse events.
Searching
Twenty-two bibliographic databases and Internet resources were searched from inception to March 2011; search terms were reported. The bibliographies of all retrieved articles were screened for additional studies. Only articles written in English or Chinese were included.
Study selection
Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) compared the effectiveness of any kind of influenza vaccine, in health care workers in all healthcare settings, with a placebo/vaccine other than the influenza vaccine/no intervention. Outcomes of interest were laboratory-confirmed influenza infections, influenza-like illness, working days lost and vaccine-related adverse events.
All included studies used the trivalent inactivated parenteral seasonal influenza vaccine and were conducted in hospital settings in Europe or the USA. Control groups received intramuscular saline or control vaccine (meningococcal or pneumococcal vaccine). Study participants were generally healthy. Studies were conducted between 1985 and 1997. Outcomes were generally self-reported using diaries, questionnaires or telephone interviews.
Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and any disagreements were resolved by consensus.
Assessment of study quality
The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the following criteria: randomisation process; allocation concealment; blinding of participants, investigator, and outcome assessors; completeness of outcome data; selective outcome reporting; other potential threats to quality.
Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and any disagreements were resolved by consensus.
Data extraction
The incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection, influenza-like illness and adverse events after influenza vaccination in vaccine and control groups were extracted for each study and relative risks (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated. Number of days with influenza-like illness and work days lost was extracted to calculate mean differences. Absolute vaccine efficiency was expressed as a percentage using the formula: vaccine efficiency=1-RR whenever the outcome of the laboratory-confirmed influenza infection and the incidence of influenza-like illness was statistically significant.
Two reviewers independently extracted data and any disagreements were resolved by consensus.
Methods of synthesis
Studies were summarised in a narrative synthesis due to different methods of reporting and missing data. A fixed-effect model was used to calculate a pooled estimate of mean difference in the number of working days lost between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers.
Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using Ι².
Results of the review
Three RCTs, with a total of 967 participants (488 in the influenza vaccination group and 479 in the control group), were included in the review. Methodological quality of included studies was rated as high for two studies and moderate for the remaining study. No studies used intention-to-treat analysis. The moderate quality study had a relatively high drop-out rate (22%) and did not provide adequate information on sequence generation, allocation concealment and the blinding of investigators and outcome assessors.
One study reported laboratory-confirmed influenza infections. The risk of infection was significantly lower in the vaccination group, RR 0.12 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.41) and vaccine efficiency 88% (95% CI 59 to 96%).
One study reported incidence of influenza-like illness and showed no significant difference between the vaccine and control groups. A second study reported the number of influenza-like illness episodes and found no significant difference between the vaccine and control groups. The third study reported no significant difference in days with influenza-like illness symptoms between the vaccine and control groups.
There was no significant difference in the mean number of working days lost between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers (two studies, Ι²=0%).
All three included studies reported absenteeism and other adverse effects after the receipt of an influenza vaccination. Adverse effects were mainly localised, including pain at the site of the injection to erythema with or without induration, and were mild and transitory. There were no reports of life-threatening or persistent adverse reactions.
Authors' conclusions
There was limited evidence that influenza vaccination reduced laboratory-confirmed infections in health care workers. Influenza vaccinations had no effect on the incidence of influenza-like illness, number of influenza-like illness episodes, days with influenza-like illness symptoms or amount of sick leave taken. There were insufficient data to assess adverse effects after vaccination. Data were insufficient to draw firm conclusions and further research was needed.
CRD commentary
The review provided a clear objective and inclusion criteria. A large number of sources were searched for relevant studies, but the restriction to studies in English or Chinese raised the possibility of language bias and may have resulted in relevant studies being missed. Measures to minimise error and bias were applied throughout the review process. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed and incorporated into the reporting of results. The largely narrative synthesis was appropriate.
The authors noted that results may not be generalisible to workers in other healthcare settings. The authors' conclusions were suitably cautious and reflected the limited data available. It should be noted that the authors recommended that promotion of influenza vaccination amongst healthcare workers should focus on patient protection, but no evidence of the effects of healthcare worker vaccination upon influenza outcomes in patients was presented
Implications of the review for practice and research
Practice: The authors stated that promotion of influenza vaccination amongst healthcare workers should focus on patient protection, with accurate information to address concerns and misconceptions.
Research: The authors stated that further well-designed multicentre RCTs were needed to assess the effectiveness of annual vaccination in protecting health care workers against infection. Research should be conducted in diverse healthcare settings and should include laboratory confirmation of influenza as an outcome measure.
Funding
The authors stated that the review was unfunded.
Bibliographic details
Ng AN, Lai CK. Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: a systematic review. Journal of Hospital Infection 2011; 79(4): 279-286. [PubMed: 21978606]
Indexing Status
Subject indexing assigned by NLM
MeSH
Health Personnel; Humans; Incidence; Influenza Vaccines /administration & dosage /immunology; Influenza, Human /epidemiology /prevention & control; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccination /utilization
AccessionNumber
Database entry date
30/05/2012
Record Status
This is a critical abstract of a systematic review that meets the criteria for inclusion on DARE. Each critical abstract contains a brief summary of the review methods, results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the review and the conclusions drawn.
- CRD summary
- Authors' objectives
- Searching
- Study selection
- Assessment of study quality
- Data extraction
- Methods of synthesis
- Results of the review
- Authors' conclusions
- CRD commentary
- Implications of the review for practice and research
- Funding
- Bibliographic details
- Original Paper URL
- Indexing Status
- MeSH
- AccessionNumber
- Database entry date
- Record Status
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the direct epidemiological and economic effects of seasonal influenza vaccination on healthcare workers.[PLoS One. 2018]A systematic review and meta-analysis of the direct epidemiological and economic effects of seasonal influenza vaccination on healthcare workers.Imai C, Toizumi M, Hall L, Lambert S, Halton K, Merollini K. PLoS One. 2018; 13(6):e0198685. Epub 2018 Jun 7.
- Review Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly.[Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010]Review Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly.Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17; (2):CD005187. Epub 2010 Feb 17.
- Review Seasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: systematic review of qualitative evidence.[BMC Health Serv Res. 2017]Review Seasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: systematic review of qualitative evidence.Lorenc T, Marshall D, Wright K, Sutcliffe K, Sowden A. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Nov 15; 17(1):732. Epub 2017 Nov 15.
- Review Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly: systematic review.[Vaccine. 2010]Review Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly: systematic review.Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ. Vaccine. 2010 Dec 16; 29(2):344-56. Epub 2010 Nov 18.
- The efficacy of influenza vaccination in healthcare workers in a tropical setting: a prospective investigator blinded observational study.[Ann Acad Med Singap. 2008]The efficacy of influenza vaccination in healthcare workers in a tropical setting: a prospective investigator blinded observational study.Kheok SW, Chong CY, McCarthy G, Lim WY, Goh KT, Razak L, Tee NW, Tambyah PA. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2008 Jun; 37(6):465-9.
- Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: a systema...Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: a systematic review - Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...