Synopsis
The review is based on the studies conducted by different scholars at various periods of time. The independence of each research helps us draw objective unprejudiced conclusions about CDC program relevance and cost effectiveness.
Background
CDC program on Seasonal Influenza is aimed at informing people about cases, treatment, protection issues and complications of flu (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). CDC program on Seasonal Influenza is costly and the objective review may be helpful in understanding whether the affair is worthy or not.
Objectives
The main purpose of this program review is to consider the efficiency of the seasonal influenza vaccination program CDC promotes with the understanding cost effectiveness of the affair.
Selection criteria
The criteria for program review are considered on the basis of randomized selection of studies devoted to CDC program on Seasonal Influenza. Generally, the cases of the seasonal influenza have reduced since the program implementation, therefore, many research studies evaluate different sides of the program and point at various groups of people who are at risk.
Search strategy for identification of studies
The Internet research is the most complicated as much data is placed at the databases with restricted access. The Internet is full of repetitive research and irrelevant data, that is why much time was spend on selection of the studies which can be trusted. Each study was considered in detail before being chosen. The main criteria for selecting research were the presence of the purpose of the study aimed at evaluating CDC program on Seasonal Influenza, the availability of the results, and trustworthy research methodology.
Methods of the review
Research studies have been used for analysis of the CDC program on Seasonal Influenza to draw unprejudiced conclusion about program efficiency and cost effectiveness.
Description of studies
Fairbrother et al. study
The results of the Fairbrother et al. (2000) study have shown that local and state government is a guarantee of successful implementation of seasonal flu prevention programs which are conducted successfully and appropriately financed. Strategic planning and programming is not used as the part of annual analysis as the infrastructure is unstable. Still, more attention should be paid to experienced staff and articulated authority as well as the collaboration between different agencies which promote vaccination.
Furlow et al. study
Furlow et al. (2011) has proven that the consideration of the problem from different angles gives an opportunity to understand the vaccination spread better. Thus, thanks to CDC program promotion the number of vaccinated people in 2010-2011 was higher (49.0%) in comparison with 2009-210 national coverage (42.3%). The coverage in the ethical relation can be explained as follows, non-Hispanic whites were rated as 44.0%, while the ratio of vaccinated non-Hispanic blacks was 38.8%. Hispanics vaccinated people reached 40.6% having almost the same coverage with non-Hispanic others, 42.8%. January is a peak of immunization. Thus, the research is profound and lengthy that helps to conclude that results of positive impact of CDC promotion of Seasonal Influenza and immunization are seen.
Madjid et al.study
The study by Madjid et al. (2009) is rather extended. 1,202 adults (age, ≥18 yr) were interviewed on the subject of their attitude to vaccination. 11.1% of respondents either suffered from heart disease or smoked. The research showed that CDC promotion of vaccination influences more aged people, thus, only 48% of 18-19-year-old people were interested in vaccination, while 75% of ≥65-aged people were immunized. The research also showed that people with heart diseases did not want to be vaccinated from seasonal influenza on the basis of the restrictions to the pandemic flu immunization.
Kiviniemi, Ram, Kozlowski, & Smith CDC informed people about the recommendations aimed at reducing flu spread. One of the recommendations was vaccination, however, CDC also recommended to wash hands more frequent, cover mouth when coughing, limit cases of presence in one room with sick people, and follow the recommendations for social distance. Kiviniemi, Ram, Kozlowski, & Smith (2011) interviewed 807 people over the telephone with the request on their understanding of CDC recommendations. The results are confusing. The recommendations are understood in different ways, however, the vaccination prescription is not followed. CDC program should pay more attention to clarifying instructions for human behavior while seasonal influenza.
Hood, & Smith
Basing research on the recommendation provided by CDC program of seasonal Influenza, Hood and Smith (2009) conducted a research among healthcare works with the purpose to identify the rate of vaccinated employees and implement the program for increasing healthcare worker’s vaccination rates. The expected prognosis of the researches is as follows, during the first year of program implementation the vaccinated employees’ rate is going to increase from 66% up to 77%, and during the second year of program functioning the rate of vaccinated people is going to increase from 77% up to 84%.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009) report points at the update of the prevention and control measures for seasonal influenza taken by the citizens. The information covers the recommendations for vaccinating children from 6 months. The recommendations also highlight the information devoted to safety data for the licensed vaccines. The CDC report provides different recommendations for children aged from 6 months up to 18 years and adults. The importance of this report is that it covers three main updated points never discussed before. First, the vaccination should be provided from 6 months age, second, A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)-like, A/Brisbane/10/2007(H3N2)-like, and B/Brisbane 60/2008-like antigens should be used for immunization, and third, the virus has become persistent to oseltamivir, that is why the vaccine should be carefully selected. Special attention is paid to children and adults aged ≥65, people with chronic diseases and those which are considered to be restricted from pandemic flu vaccination. This detailed reports shows that CDC program on Seasonal Influenza works. Each year more and more ideas are offered to battle the virus and reduce the cases of infection and deaths.
New York State Department of Health (2010) report has covered the corrections to CDC program. Much attention is paid to second doses of influenza vaccine, especially for children under 3, and to multi-dose vials.
Methodological quality of included studies
Casual limitations of telephone surveys should be considered as the influential factors on research quality conducted by Kiviniemi, Ram, Kozlowski, & Smith (2011). Moreover, the study is cross-sectional that influences the relations between variables. The virus spread was not considered, either the responded infected a person or he/she was infected. The research by Hood and Smith (2009) appeared to be successful, however, the restricted resources in some healthcare establishments are not included in the research limitations. Having implemented the research in one of the non-profit organizations, the researchers have not counted the complications which may appear while implementing the program nation widely in practice.
Results
Having considered of the information presented in the studies and reports presented above, it may be concluded that CDC program on Seasonal Influenza is one of the most spread programs in the USA. Many people follow the vaccination requirements of this program and recommendations for flu prevention and control.
Discussion
Being the first program which has differentiated seasonal influenza from pandemic one, CDC continues to improve its recommendations. Much attention should be paid to preventive measures and clarification of the received information. Therefore, CDC program on Seasonal Influenza is not ideal and needs more corrections and specifications in the future. Recommended adult immunization schedule: United States, 2010, complete summary (2010) is a report which covers some corrections to the vaccination program. The information for this report is taken from CDC program of Seasonal Influenza. The main specification of the differences between pandemic and seasonal influenza is stated due to the promotional program of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The information presented by Pickering, & Smith (2010, June) points at the importance of providing recommendations to the population. The article under consideration states that all the recommendations made by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are based on data provided by Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Each new recommendation is based on research and deep consideration of the results of the previous research.
Conclusion
A research should be conducted annually with the purpose to follow the increase of the vaccinated people. More attention should be paid to the population which appears at risk of being infected, healthcare workers, people with immune deficiency, etc. The program is cost efficient as according to the considered data more and more people are vaccinated each year that reduces the possibility of pandemic flu.
Reference List
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines. MMWR, 58(RR-8). Web.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Seasonal Flu. Web.
Fairbrother, G., Kuttner, H., Miller, W., Hogan, R., McPhillips, H., Johnson, K. A., & Alexander, E. R. (2000). Findings from case studies of state and local immunization programs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(3), 54-77.
Furlow, C., Gonzalez-Feliciano, A. G., Bryan, L. N., Euler, G. L., Ding, H., Singleton, J. A., & Balluz, L. S. (2011). Interim Results: State-Specific Influenza Vaccination Coverage — United States, August 2010-February 2011. MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 60(22), 737-743.
Hood, J., & Smith, A. (2009). Developing a “best practice” influenza vaccination program for health care workers — an evidence-based, leadership-modeled program. AAOHN Journal, 57(8), 308-312.
Kiviniemi, M., Ram, P., Kozlowski, L., & Smith, K. (2011). Perceptions of and willingness to engage in public health precautions to prevent 2009 H1N1 influenza transmission. BMC Public Health, 11(152).
Madjid, M., Alfred, A., Sahai, A., Conyers, J. & Casscells, S. (2009). Factors contributing to suboptimal vaccination against influenza. Texas Heart Institute Journal, 26(6), 546-552.
New York State Department of Health. (2010). Immunize NY! Seasonal Influenza, Special Edition, 2(4). Web.
Pickering, L. K., & Smith, C. (2010, June). Update on recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Infectious Diseases in Children. pp. 3-4.
Recommended adult immunization schedule: United States, 2010: complete summary. (2010). US National Guideline Clearinghouse.