Comparing in-person and webinar delivery of an immunization quality improvement program

A process evaluation of the adolescent AFIX trial

Melissa B. Gilkey, Jennifer Moss, Alyssa J. Roberts, Amanda M. Dayton, Amy H. Grimshaw, Noel T. Brewer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Immunization quality improvement programs are often limited by the cost and inconvenience associated with delivering face-to-face consultations to primary care providers. To investigate a more efficient mode of intervention delivery, we conducted a process evaluation that compared in-person consultations to those delivered via interactive webinar. Methods: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Assessment, Feedback, Incentives, and eXchange (AFIX) Program is an immunization quality improvement program implemented in all 50 states. In 2011, we randomly assigned 61 high-volume primary care clinics in North Carolina to receive an in-person or webinar AFIX consultation focused on adolescent immunization. We used surveys of participating vaccine providers and expense tracking logs to evaluate delivery modes on participation, satisfaction, and cost. Clinics served 71,874 patients, ages 11 to 18.Results: Clinics that received in-person and webinar consultations reported similar levels of participation on key programmatic activities with one exception: more webinar clinics reported improving documentation of previously administered, 'historical' vaccine doses. Both in-person and webinar clinics showed sustained improvement in confidence to use reminder/recall systems (both p < 0.05). Participants rated delivery modes equally highly on satisfaction measures such as convenience (mean = 4.6 of 5.0). Delivery cost per clinic was $152 for in-person consultations versus $100 for webinar consultations.Conclusions: In-person and webinar delivery modes were both well received, but webinar AFIX consultations cost substantially less. Interactive webinar delivery shows promise for considerably extending the reach of immunization quality improvement programs.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01544764.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number21
JournalImplementation Science
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 18 2014

Fingerprint

Quality Improvement
Motivation
Immunization
Referral and Consultation
Costs and Cost Analysis
Primary Health Care
Vaccines
Reminder Systems
Immunization Programs
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Documentation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health Policy
  • Health Informatics
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Gilkey, Melissa B. ; Moss, Jennifer ; Roberts, Alyssa J. ; Dayton, Amanda M. ; Grimshaw, Amy H. ; Brewer, Noel T. / Comparing in-person and webinar delivery of an immunization quality improvement program : A process evaluation of the adolescent AFIX trial. In: Implementation Science. 2014 ; Vol. 9, No. 1.
@article{e3818eafd07b410faa5fe29446d19268,
title = "Comparing in-person and webinar delivery of an immunization quality improvement program: A process evaluation of the adolescent AFIX trial",
abstract = "Background: Immunization quality improvement programs are often limited by the cost and inconvenience associated with delivering face-to-face consultations to primary care providers. To investigate a more efficient mode of intervention delivery, we conducted a process evaluation that compared in-person consultations to those delivered via interactive webinar. Methods: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Assessment, Feedback, Incentives, and eXchange (AFIX) Program is an immunization quality improvement program implemented in all 50 states. In 2011, we randomly assigned 61 high-volume primary care clinics in North Carolina to receive an in-person or webinar AFIX consultation focused on adolescent immunization. We used surveys of participating vaccine providers and expense tracking logs to evaluate delivery modes on participation, satisfaction, and cost. Clinics served 71,874 patients, ages 11 to 18.Results: Clinics that received in-person and webinar consultations reported similar levels of participation on key programmatic activities with one exception: more webinar clinics reported improving documentation of previously administered, 'historical' vaccine doses. Both in-person and webinar clinics showed sustained improvement in confidence to use reminder/recall systems (both p < 0.05). Participants rated delivery modes equally highly on satisfaction measures such as convenience (mean = 4.6 of 5.0). Delivery cost per clinic was $152 for in-person consultations versus $100 for webinar consultations.Conclusions: In-person and webinar delivery modes were both well received, but webinar AFIX consultations cost substantially less. Interactive webinar delivery shows promise for considerably extending the reach of immunization quality improvement programs.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01544764.",
author = "Gilkey, {Melissa B.} and Jennifer Moss and Roberts, {Alyssa J.} and Dayton, {Amanda M.} and Grimshaw, {Amy H.} and Brewer, {Noel T.}",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1186/1748-5908-9-21",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "Implementation Science",
issn = "1748-5908",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

Comparing in-person and webinar delivery of an immunization quality improvement program : A process evaluation of the adolescent AFIX trial. / Gilkey, Melissa B.; Moss, Jennifer; Roberts, Alyssa J.; Dayton, Amanda M.; Grimshaw, Amy H.; Brewer, Noel T.

In: Implementation Science, Vol. 9, No. 1, 21, 18.02.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing in-person and webinar delivery of an immunization quality improvement program

T2 - A process evaluation of the adolescent AFIX trial

AU - Gilkey, Melissa B.

AU - Moss, Jennifer

AU - Roberts, Alyssa J.

AU - Dayton, Amanda M.

AU - Grimshaw, Amy H.

AU - Brewer, Noel T.

PY - 2014/2/18

Y1 - 2014/2/18

N2 - Background: Immunization quality improvement programs are often limited by the cost and inconvenience associated with delivering face-to-face consultations to primary care providers. To investigate a more efficient mode of intervention delivery, we conducted a process evaluation that compared in-person consultations to those delivered via interactive webinar. Methods: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Assessment, Feedback, Incentives, and eXchange (AFIX) Program is an immunization quality improvement program implemented in all 50 states. In 2011, we randomly assigned 61 high-volume primary care clinics in North Carolina to receive an in-person or webinar AFIX consultation focused on adolescent immunization. We used surveys of participating vaccine providers and expense tracking logs to evaluate delivery modes on participation, satisfaction, and cost. Clinics served 71,874 patients, ages 11 to 18.Results: Clinics that received in-person and webinar consultations reported similar levels of participation on key programmatic activities with one exception: more webinar clinics reported improving documentation of previously administered, 'historical' vaccine doses. Both in-person and webinar clinics showed sustained improvement in confidence to use reminder/recall systems (both p < 0.05). Participants rated delivery modes equally highly on satisfaction measures such as convenience (mean = 4.6 of 5.0). Delivery cost per clinic was $152 for in-person consultations versus $100 for webinar consultations.Conclusions: In-person and webinar delivery modes were both well received, but webinar AFIX consultations cost substantially less. Interactive webinar delivery shows promise for considerably extending the reach of immunization quality improvement programs.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01544764.

AB - Background: Immunization quality improvement programs are often limited by the cost and inconvenience associated with delivering face-to-face consultations to primary care providers. To investigate a more efficient mode of intervention delivery, we conducted a process evaluation that compared in-person consultations to those delivered via interactive webinar. Methods: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Assessment, Feedback, Incentives, and eXchange (AFIX) Program is an immunization quality improvement program implemented in all 50 states. In 2011, we randomly assigned 61 high-volume primary care clinics in North Carolina to receive an in-person or webinar AFIX consultation focused on adolescent immunization. We used surveys of participating vaccine providers and expense tracking logs to evaluate delivery modes on participation, satisfaction, and cost. Clinics served 71,874 patients, ages 11 to 18.Results: Clinics that received in-person and webinar consultations reported similar levels of participation on key programmatic activities with one exception: more webinar clinics reported improving documentation of previously administered, 'historical' vaccine doses. Both in-person and webinar clinics showed sustained improvement in confidence to use reminder/recall systems (both p < 0.05). Participants rated delivery modes equally highly on satisfaction measures such as convenience (mean = 4.6 of 5.0). Delivery cost per clinic was $152 for in-person consultations versus $100 for webinar consultations.Conclusions: In-person and webinar delivery modes were both well received, but webinar AFIX consultations cost substantially less. Interactive webinar delivery shows promise for considerably extending the reach of immunization quality improvement programs.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01544764.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897726557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897726557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1748-5908-9-21

DO - 10.1186/1748-5908-9-21

M3 - Article

VL - 9

JO - Implementation Science

JF - Implementation Science

SN - 1748-5908

IS - 1

M1 - 21

ER -