August 2026 | Enterprise evidence brief
National Immunization Awareness Month 2026: Turn Awareness into a Reliable Safety System
For healthcare executives, immunization reliability is an end-to-end operating capability: identify an eligible person, support an informed decision, deliver safely, document accurately, and keep the next step visible across settings.
The observance name, timing, and purpose were verified with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This leadership brief does not reproduce or replace current immunization schedules, product information, clinical guidance, or individualized professional judgment.
Leadership mandate
Manage immunization as a safety-critical service across the lifespan
National Immunization Awareness Month highlights vaccination for people of all ages. For executives, the observance is an opportunity to examine the system behind that message. A health system may publish accurate educational content and still miss eligible people because records are incomplete, recommendations do not reach the encounter, a product is unavailable, staff roles are unclear, language support is delayed, or a referral disappears after discharge. Reliability depends on the chain, not the campaign.
The chain begins before a clinician enters the room. The organization must reconcile information from the electronic health record, patient report, prior organizations, pharmacies, and an immunization information system when available. It must apply current guidance to the person’s age, history, risks, preferences, and clinical context. The team must communicate clearly, answer questions without coercion, confirm consent, verify the correct product and conditions, administer under approved procedures, monitor and respond appropriately, document the event, report required information, and make the next step visible. A defect at any point can become a missed opportunity, a safety event, or a loss of trust.
This is enterprise work. Primary care, pediatrics, obstetrics, specialty clinics, emergency departments, inpatient units, occupational health, pharmacies, supply chain, infection prevention, informatics, patient safety, language services, communications, and community partners all influence whether the pathway works. No single department controls the full sequence. Executive governance is needed to define the service promise, resolve ownership, align data, fund coverage, and keep exceptions visible.
Leaders should resist two unhelpful shortcuts. The first is to equate awareness with uptake. A reminder or recommendation may identify a next step, but the system has not succeeded until the person receives the service or has a documented, understood plan consistent with choice and clinical guidance. The second is to treat vaccination status as a simple binary field. Records may be incomplete, duplicated, delayed, or inconsistent across products and settings. A trustworthy status requires source, date, provenance, and reconciliation.
Executive question
Can the organization show who owns identification, recommendation, supply, safe administration, registry exchange, follow-up, and learning when an eligible person moves between a clinic, hospital, pharmacy, and community setting?
What the evidence changes
Multicomponent pathways outperform isolated reminders, but implementation determines reach
The strongest recent evidence in this review shows that coordinated changes can improve vaccination during routine care. The 2026 BE IMMUNE pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 80,039 patients aged 50 years or older across 47 primary care clinics. The intervention combined previsit text reminders, an automatically pended order, and clinician peer comparisons. Influenza vaccination during the visit was 31.4% in intervention clinics and 26.4% under usual care, an adjusted risk difference of 5.1 percentage points with a 97.5% confidence interval from 2.6 to 7.5 points. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.28. Among patients identified as high risk for noncompletion, bidirectional text messaging did not improve completion beyond a standard reminder.7
| Study group | Completed vaccination during visit | Adjusted comparison | Interpretive limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Usual care | 26.4% | Risk difference 5.1 percentage points, 97.5% CI 2.6–7.5; aOR 1.28, 97.5% CI 1.13–1.45. | A bundled intervention; individual component effects cannot be separated. |
| Intervention | 31.4% |
The trial offers two executive lessons. First, the system acted on both sides of the encounter: patients received an advance signal, clinicians received an actionable order, and performance was made visible. Second, a more conversational text function did not add benefit for the high-risk subgroup. Additional technology is not automatically additional value. Leaders should test whether a feature removes a real barrier and should stop or redesign it when it does not.
A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 hospital-based studies found that multicomponent strategies produced the most consistent improvements among older adults and other high-risk patients. Random-effects pooled odds ratios were 2.47 for patient education and 3.12 for multicomponent strategies. Heterogeneity was very high, with I² values above 97% in the reported pooled analyses.9 The direction is encouraging, but the variation matters. Different vaccines, populations, designs, and settings were combined. The result supports building pathways and testing locally; it does not supply a universal expected improvement.
Hospitalization can become an access point when the pathway is explicit. A 2026 mixed-methods implementation study at a pediatric tertiary hospital in Italy reported that only 67.6% of surveyed professionals systematically collected vaccination history and 14.4% always mentioned vaccination in discharge letters at baseline. After staff sensitization and creation of a hospital vaccination center, recorded vaccine administrations increased from 361 in the 2022–2023 season to 752 in 2024–2025.4 The study was observational and single-site. It demonstrates feasibility and a strong process association, not a randomized causal effect.
Digital tools also show mixed results. An Australian pilot reported influenza vaccination coverage of 31.2% in eight practices using an eligibility-identification app and 27.3% in eight control practices, an absolute difference of 3.9 percentage points.12 In contrast, a UK clinical decision support evaluation identified no recorded immunizations for all 99 migrant participants, yet catch-up vaccination uptake was only 2%.11 Identification can illuminate need. It cannot replace capacity, trust, workflow, and follow-through.
Evidence-to-action rule
Use reminders, decision support, standing workflows, education, and community partnership as connected components. Measure each link. A flag without an owner is not an intervention, and a recorded recommendation without an accepted or safely deferred next step is not a closed loop.
Reliable pathway
Make every step from status review to registry confirmation observable
A reliable pathway begins with the person, not the product. It should work across age groups and settings while allowing current guidance and clinical judgment to control the decision. The operating design must distinguish three states: what is known, what requires reconciliation, and what action is appropriate now. That distinction prevents a blank field from being treated as “not vaccinated” and prevents an old or duplicate record from becoming an unnecessary order.
- Reconcile statusReview the EHR, registry, pharmacy and external records, and patient report; identify uncertainty.
- Determine current actionApply current guidance, clinical context, precautions, history, and local policy.
- Recommend and listenExplain the recommendation, invite questions, use qualified interpretation, and respect informed choice.
- Verify and prepareConfirm person, product, dose, timing, route, storage history, expiration, consent, and emergency readiness.
- Administer and respondFollow approved technique, observation, documentation, and immediate response procedures.
- Close the loopUpdate the EHR and registry, reconcile inventory, report as required, and schedule or route the next step.
Reconcile before recommending
Record quality is a clinical and operational dependency. If the EHR and an external registry disagree, the system should show the discrepancy rather than silently selecting one source. Define which roles can reconcile, what evidence is acceptable, how duplicate or historical entries are handled, and when a patient-reported history is recorded as unverified. Build a path for records from pharmacies, schools, workplaces, other states, and prior organizations. The goal is not a perfect national record. It is a transparent local decision state.
Interoperability can reduce manual work, but connection alone does not guarantee trustworthy information. A 2024 assessment of Minnesota’s immunization registry included interviews with 28 experts across 12 healthcare systems and public health clinics representing 286 sites. Most reported registry integration in their EHRs, and queries approached six million per month, yet teams still identified vaccine-naming differences, application access problems, limited resources, and public-health informatics shortages.14 Leaders should therefore measure not only connection volume but also match quality, query success, duplicates, latency, and user workflow.
Turn the recommendation into an accountable decision
A recommendation is strongest when it is clear, confident, tailored to the encounter, and open to questions. A systematic review of 46 HPV vaccination studies found the strongest support for strong recommendations and presumptive recommendations, while noting that the small number of randomized trials limited causal conclusions.16 A 2025 national survey of 2,527 primary care health professionals found that 58% reported using presumptive recommendations. Use varied by role, and professionals who had training on introducing HPV vaccination or responding to hesitancy reported higher use.8
Executives should not translate this evidence into a script that suppresses questions. A presumptive opening can normalize preventive care, but a respectful system must recognize uncertainty, invite discussion, use current information, and document informed acceptance or deferral without judgment. Training should include listening, plain language, teach-back, qualified interpretation, culturally responsive communication, and escalation to the appropriate clinical professional. It should also establish a clear boundary between education and coercion.
The pathway should accommodate the person who is ready, the person who needs more information, the person whose records are incomplete, and the person for whom the service is not appropriate today. Each state needs a visible next action. “Deferred” should not become a permanent parking lot. The system should distinguish a patient choice, a clinical delay, a supply constraint, an unresolved record, and a failed handoff because each requires a different response.
Safety, supply, and learning
Protect the product, the person, and the integrity of the record
Immunization safety is a chain of controls. The correct person, product, formulation, dose, timing, route, site, preparation, and documentation must align with current guidance and local procedures. Storage and handling must remain within approved conditions. Emergency supplies, escalation procedures, and staff competencies must be current. Inventory and administration records must reconcile. A weakness in one control can create a clinical risk, wasted product, inaccurate status, or loss of trust.
Cold-chain reliability deserves executive visibility because it crosses procurement, facilities, pharmacy, nursing, transportation, information technology, and quality. A 2026 scoping review of 16 studies in low- and middle-income countries identified variation in centralized and decentralized systems, online and offline capability, longitudinal records, automated inventory monitoring, training, stock management, documentation, and digitization. The review reported that digital logistics systems could improve recordkeeping, reduce wastage, and support supply efficiency while emphasizing uneven implementation and the need for comparative evaluation.6 The settings differ from many U.S. health systems, but the control principles are transferable: validated equipment, continuous monitoring, alert ownership, documented excursions, backup capacity, trained staff, and traceability.
Leaders should ask where the temperature signal goes at 2 a.m., who decides whether product can be used after an excursion, how transport is monitored, and whether a clinic can continue safely during a power or network outage. The policy should name an alternate storage location, responsible roles, contact sequences, and documentation. A dashboard should distinguish equipment uptime from response reliability. An alarm that nobody acknowledges is not a control.
Use a consistent error taxonomy and a learning response
Error learning requires clear categories. A 2024 study demonstrated an automated approach for classifying spontaneous reports involving a recombinant zoster vaccine into potential errors, intercepted errors, errors without reported harm, errors with reported harm, and conflicting cases.15 The study describes a monitoring method, not an incidence estimate. Spontaneous reports lack a reliable denominator and can be affected by reporting behavior, incomplete information, and product-specific context. Its operational contribution is the taxonomy: organizations learn more when near misses, interceptions, no-harm events, and harm events are separated consistently.
A local review should also distinguish prescribing or ordering, selection, storage, preparation, administration, documentation, registry transmission, and follow-up. Capture contributing conditions such as confusing interfaces, similar packaging, workload, interruptions, training gaps, handoffs, and unclear policy. Protect just culture. Staff are more likely to report when the organization uses information to improve system controls rather than treating every event as individual failure.
Safety learning must return to practice. Assign an owner and due date for each accepted corrective action. Verify that the change was implemented and observe whether it works. Update competency, workflow, technology, inventory layout, or policy only when the evidence supports the change. Share learning across sites without disclosing protected details. A recurring event should trigger an enterprise review, not repeated local reminders.
Trust, workforce, and equitable access
Design with communities and remove barriers after the conversation
Trust is often discussed as an attitude to change. Operationally, trust is also an experience of whether the system listens, keeps its promises, communicates uncertainty honestly, protects privacy, and makes the service usable. A person may accept a recommendation and still face an unavailable appointment, transportation limits, a language mismatch, inaccessible digital tools, insurance questions, time away from work, or an incomplete record. Equity work must address the route as well as the message.
A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies across ten Latin American and Caribbean countries found that interventions for Indigenous and hard-to-reach populations were associated with greater completion. The pooled risk ratio was 1.64; effects were larger in the Indigenous subgroup, and community health worker outreach and mobile units showed the largest reported effects.3 The evidence spans heterogeneous programs and national contexts, so leaders should not apply the pooled effect as a local forecast. The implementation lesson is stronger: trusted local relationships, mobile access, and culturally grounded design can address barriers that clinic-centered education cannot.
Community co-design can improve relevance. In rural Washington, English- and Spanish-speaking parents, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers used an adapted Boot Camp Translation process to develop HPV vaccination messages and select channels such as mailers, text outreach, live calls, websites, and clinic materials.5 A Georgia minigrant program used multilevel patient, provider, and practice strategies supported by technical assistance. Four rural health departments reported increased HPV vaccination measures, positive implementation ratings, and barriers involving resources, communication, electronic records, and local conditions.2 Both studies support partnership and implementation support. Neither proves that one message or grant structure will transfer unchanged to every community.
Use a qualitative fishbone before assigning a cause
When an eligible person leaves without a completed or scheduled next step, teams should not assume the reason was hesitancy. The fishbone below is an unranked set of hypotheses informed by the evidence and the operating pathway. It is not a frequency chart. Local interviews, observation, incident review, and denominator-based data are needed to confirm which branches apply.
Unranked branches: policy and eligibility; workforce and communication; data and interoperability; supply and cold chain; workflow and handoffs; access and trust.
Prepare the workforce for changing products and guidance
New products and recommendations create a predictable readiness gap. A 2026 survey of 578 pediatricians across Spain, Italy, and Cyprus or Greece found average-to-low reported knowledge for new RSV immunization products despite broad willingness to support them. The response rate was 19.3%, and most respondents were from Spain and Italy, which limits generalization.1 The study is a reminder that enthusiasm is not competency.
Readiness should include role-specific education, just-in-time reference tools, simulation of high-risk scenarios, product and formulation differentiation, storage and handling, documentation, registry reporting, communication, and escalation. Competency should be observed where appropriate rather than inferred from course completion. The training system must have a rapid update process when guidance changes, including withdrawal of obsolete materials and confirmation that linked tools display the current version.
Digital operating system
Connect decision support, inventory, documentation, and registry exchange
A reliable digital system does four different jobs. It helps identify eligibility, supports the clinician’s current decision, documents what occurred, and exchanges the result with external systems. Those jobs should not be collapsed into one alert. Eligibility logic needs current guidance and trustworthy history. Ordering needs role and workflow design. Documentation needs structured product and administration data. Exchange needs identity matching, standards, acknowledgments, and error handling.
A 2024 mixed-methods study of Vietnam’s transition from paper to a national digital immunization system found faster registration after implementation and major increases in use of system data beyond monthly reporting. In one province, the mean delay from birth to registration fell from 18.6 to 5.7 days; in another it fell from 36.1 to 11.7 days. All 667 facilities used the system for additional activities after the intervention, compared with 34.8% and 29.4% in the two provinces at baseline. Data quality improved in one province and was mixed in the other, and improvements did not translate consistently into program outcomes. Up-front and administrative costs remained.13 Digital transition can improve timeliness and use while still requiring investment and outcome verification.
Decision support should be governed as clinical software. Name the evidence owner, update cadence, approval process, version, affected workflows, test cases, monitoring, and downtime plan. Confirm that the recommendation reaches the correct person at the correct moment and that the user can understand why it appeared. Track overrides and false positives as learning signals. Do not judge clinicians from an alert acceptance rate without reviewing data quality and clinical appropriateness.
A modeled Italian pathway estimated that connecting hospital identification with primary and secondary care vaccination could improve epidemiologic and economic outcomes if coverage rose from 60% to 65% or 70%.10 These were predictive assumptions, not observed implementation results. Leaders should use models to explore scenarios and resource needs, then label projections clearly and validate outcomes after launch.
Close data exceptions instead of hiding them
Every interface produces exceptions: unmatched people, rejected messages, duplicate events, missing product codes, late transmissions, and unavailable services. The operating model should show exception queues, owners, aging, and escalation. A successful send is not the same as a successful registry update. Require acknowledgment and reconciliation. When systems cannot exchange data, provide a documented manual route and measure the burden it creates.
Data governance should also define appropriate secondary use. Access reports, outreach lists, patient messages, performance comparisons, and public dashboards can influence trust. Apply minimum-necessary access, privacy review, role controls, audit logs, retention policy, and communication review. Stratification can reveal inequity, but small numbers and incomplete demographic data require safeguards. Do not publicly rank groups or sites when measurement instability can mislead.
Decision-grade measurement
Measure the pathway, not campaign activity alone
A dashboard should distinguish reach, decision, completion, safety, data quality, experience, and equity. Message impressions, website visits, training attendance, and alerts fired may be useful implementation signals, but they do not establish that the service was delivered. Each measure needs an explicit numerator, denominator, exclusions, source, owner, cadence, and limitation.
| Domain | Candidate measure | Minimum definition | Owner | Cadence | Guardrail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Record quality | Status reconciliation | Eligible encounters with a dated, sourced status or an explicitly unresolved status divided by eligible encounters reviewed. | Clinical informatics | Weekly | A blank record is not proof of no prior vaccination. |
| Reach | Actionable opportunity identified | Encounters meeting locally approved criteria where the opportunity reached an accountable role. | Clinical operations | Weekly | Validate logic and false-positive rate after guidance changes. |
| Decision | Understood next step | Eligible encounters with accepted, clinically deferred, declined, or scheduled status and required explanation documented. | Service line | Weekly | Do not treat every decline or clinical deferral as failure. |
| Completion | Same-visit completion | Administered services divided by eligible, accepted opportunities where same-visit service was appropriate and available. | Clinic or unit leader | Weekly | Report supply and workflow constraints separately. |
| Handoff | Verified external connection | Accepted referrals acknowledged by the receiving location and understood by the person divided by referrals sent. | Care coordination | Weekly | A printed address or unconfirmed order is not a connection. |
| Safety | Errors and interceptions | Events categorized by pathway stage, interception, harm status, denominator where available, and review completion. | Patient safety | Monthly | Spontaneous report counts do not measure incidence without exposure data. |
| Cold chain | Excursion response reliability | Excursions acknowledged, evaluated, documented, and closed within locally defined windows divided by detected excursions. | Pharmacy and supply | Monthly | Alarm volume alone is not a quality measure. |
| Data exchange | Registry acknowledgment | Administration messages accepted and reconciled by the external registry divided by messages sent. | Health IT | Daily or weekly | Track rejects, duplicates, unmatched records, and latency. |
| Experience | Respect and clarity | Responses to defined questions with language availability, response denominator, and nonresponse review. | Patient experience | Monthly | Pair scores with narratives and community review. |
| Equity | Pathway variation | Selected reach and completion measures stratified only when data quality, sample size, and privacy allow. | Equity and quality | Monthly or quarterly | Investigate causes; do not infer individual preference from group differences. |
Separate observed results from projections
Randomized trials, observational comparisons, pre-post programs, implementation studies, and models answer different questions. The BE IMMUNE trial supports a causal inference about the intervention bundle under the study conditions.7 The Italian hospital pathway and Australian app studies show observed changes or differences without random assignment.4, 12 The modeled cross-setting pathway estimates what could happen under assumed coverage changes.10 A leadership dashboard should label these categories so projected savings are not reported as realized results and associations are not presented as causal effects.
Evidence translation table
| Evidence type | What it contributes | What it cannot establish alone | Leadership use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Randomized clinical trial | Comparative effect of a defined intervention bundle. | Effect of each component or identical results in other workflows. | Test an integrated nudge-and-order pathway with local monitoring.7 |
| Systematic reviews | Direction and pattern across settings, plus heterogeneity. | A universal effect size for every population and product. | Choose multicomponent and equity-centered strategies, then validate locally.3, 6, 9, 16 |
| Implementation and mixed-methods studies | Feasibility, workflow, experience, and contextual barriers. | Generalizability or causal effect without stronger design. | Design ownership, training, community partnership, and sustainment.2, 4, 5, 11, 13 |
| Modeling and monitoring methods | Scenario exploration and consistent categorization. | Observed population outcomes or incidence without denominators. | Plan resources and strengthen learning while labeling assumptions.10, 15 |
Public communication
Keep information current, specific, and connected to real access
Immunization communication should link people to current guidance and a usable service. Before publishing, verify the page owner, review date, sources, locations, hours, languages, appointment process, cost or coverage information where applicable, accessibility, privacy notice, and urgent-care boundaries. Avoid copying a schedule into a page that may become outdated. Link to the current authoritative source and state when local eligibility or supply must be confirmed.
Do not treat every question as misinformation. People may be responding to prior healthcare experiences, changing recommendations, uncertainty, logistics, family concerns, or conflicting records. Train staff to distinguish a request for information from a complaint, a safety concern, a clinical question, and a barrier to access. Each route needs an accountable receiver. Public replies should not disclose personal health information or attempt individualized clinical advice in an open channel.
The organization should publish corrections visibly when information changes. Maintain a version and approval process for web pages, portal messages, scripts, posters, and call-center guidance. Remove or archive obsolete materials. Monitor whether third-party scheduling links, maps, and phone numbers still work. A dead link during an observance is an operating defect, not merely a communications issue.
Measure communication by connection quality. Track whether people reached the correct service, received language support, understood what to bring, encountered an unexpected cost or eligibility barrier, and knew the next step when the service could not be completed. Pair digital analytics with call reasons, complaints, community feedback, and observed workflow.
90-day executive agenda
Use August to close one immunization reliability gap
A 90-day agenda should focus on one population, pathway, or setting where the organization can observe the full chain. It might be an inpatient-to-outpatient catch-up route, a primary-care visit workflow, an occupational-health process, an EHR-to-registry reconciliation queue, or a cold-chain response. Choose scope based on risk and strategic value. The phases below are an improvement framework, not a clinical schedule.
Days 1–30: define, observe, and baseline
- Name an executive sponsor, operational owner, clinical authority, safety lead, data owner, and community or patient adviser.
- Select one pathway and define the population, setting, products, time period, and exclusions.
- Observe the current route across normal and after-hours operations, including a downtime or supply-exception scenario.
- Map record sources, decision logic, recommendation, consent, supply, administration, response, documentation, registry exchange, and next-step scheduling.
- Define a balanced baseline with denominators, data-quality checks, privacy safeguards, and clear interpretation limits.
- Identify one failure mode that can be corrected without creating a new safety or access risk.
Days 31–60: co-design, simulate, and pilot
- Co-design the revised workflow with people who use it, frontline staff, pharmacy, informatics, language services, and receiving partners.
- Validate current clinical guidance, decision-support logic, storage requirements, documentation, emergency procedures, and training.
- Simulate an incomplete record, a changed recommendation, a product constraint, a language need, and a registry rejection.
- Pilot in one controlled setting with clinical stop rules and visible exception queues.
- Review false alerts, delays, declined or deferred decisions, workload, near misses, experience, and failed handoffs.
- Correct workflow, staffing, supply, technology, or policy before expanding.
Days 61–90: implement, verify, and govern
- Expand only after clinical, safety, data, and operational readiness criteria are met.
- Monitor reach, understood next step, completion, safety, cold-chain response, registry acknowledgment, and experience.
- Review variation by site, operating period, language, and population when privacy and data quality allow.
- Hold a learning review for unresolved cases and assign corrective actions with owners and dates.
- Publish what changed, what evidence was used, what remains uncertain, and where current guidance can be found.
- Decide whether to sustain, adapt, expand, or stop the change based on evidence, safety, equity, and experience.
The August executive commitment
By the end of National Immunization Awareness Month, leaders should be able to name one pathway owner, one verified reliability gap, one tested correction, one community or patient partner, one balanced measure set, and one date for confirming that the improvement remained safe and effective.
Leadership close
Make the safe next step visible after August ends
National Immunization Awareness Month can draw attention to prevention across the lifespan. Its durable value is operational. The health system should know whose status is uncertain, which recommendation reached the encounter, whether questions were answered respectfully, whether product and storage controls were reliable, whether administration and records matched, and whether the next step remained visible across settings.
The evidence supports multicomponent interventions, strong clinician communication, hospital-based opportunities, community partnership, decision support, and interoperable data. It also shows the limits of isolated tools. Identification without follow-through can produce little uptake; a model is not an observed result; a registry connection can still contain operational defects; and spontaneous reports do not provide incidence without denominators. Executive discipline turns those cautions into better governance.
The goal is not maximum activity. It is a trustworthy service that applies current guidance, respects informed choice, protects safety, removes avoidable barriers, and learns from every broken link. That is how an awareness month becomes a reliable prevention system.
Scholarly foundation
Peer-reviewed references
References are ordered newest first. Each source was individually reviewed for peer-review status, applicability, and limitations.
- Di Chiara C, Piché-Renaud PP, Rigamonti V, et al. Pediatricians’ attitudes and knowledge of RSV immunization products: a multi-country cross-sectional survey. PLoS One. 2026;21(8):e0356233. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0356233
- Escoffery C, Petagna C, Chari R, et al. Evaluation of a minigrant program for multilevel interventions to promote human papillomavirus vaccination in rural communities in Georgia. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2026;23:E30. doi:10.5888/pcd23.250328
- Husaini DC, Morales S, Hung JC, Eck L. Effectiveness and feasibility of vaccination interventions for Indigenous and hard-to-reach populations in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Therapeutic Advances in Vaccines and Immunotherapy. 2026;14. doi:10.1177/25151355261472591
- Sarli WM, Peri M, Canessa C, et al. “Veni, Vidi, Vaccini”: consensus-based vaccination pathway implementation in a paediatric tertiary hospital in Tuscany, Italy. European Journal of Public Health. 2026;36(4):1–7. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckag109
- Thompson JH, Rivelli JS, Gautom P, et al. Co-creating HPV vaccination messages for rural Washington: application of a Boot Camp Translation approach. Health Education & Behavior. 2026;53(4):367–376. doi:10.1177/10901981251399649
- Qadeer AS, Ay N, Paulson W, et al. Vaccine management systems with a focus on cold chain management and delivery of immunization services in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. PLoS One. 2026;21(6):e0350231. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0350231
- Mehta SJ, Waddell KJ, Linn KA, et al. Nudges to clinicians and patients for influenza vaccines during visits: the BE IMMUNE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2026;186(3):304–310. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.7133
- Ilyasova AA, Queen TL, Gilkey M, et al. Use of presumptive recommendations and other strategies to encourage HPV vaccine uptake: results from a national survey of primary care health professionals. PLoS One. 2025;20(8):e0327872. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327872
- Pennisi F, Borlini S, Cuciniello R, et al. Improving vaccine coverage among older adults and high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of hospital-based strategies. Healthcare. 2025;13(14):1667. doi:10.3390/healthcare13141667
- Specchia ML, Beccia F, Cacciuttolo MG, et al. An integrated pathway for influenza vaccination across primary and secondary care using a clinical decision support system: model definition and predictive impact analysis. European Journal of Public Health. 2024;34(6):1117–1124. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckae137
- Carter J, Goldsmith LP, Knights F, et al. Health Catch-UP!: a realist evaluation of an innovative multi-disease screening and vaccination tool in UK primary care for at-risk migrant patients. BMC Medicine. 2024;22(1):497. doi:10.1186/s12916-024-03713-4
- Khandaker G, Chapman G, Khan A, et al. Evaluating pilot implementation of “PenCS Flu Topbar” app in medical practices to improve National Immunisation Program-funded seasonal influenza vaccination in Central Queensland, Australia. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. 2024;18(4):e13280. doi:10.1111/irv.13280
- Dang TTH, Carnahan E, Nguyen L, et al. Outcomes and costs of the transition from a paper-based immunization system to a digital immunization system in Vietnam: mixed methods study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2024;26:e45070. doi:10.2196/45070
- Rajamani S, Jiter N, Leeds M, et al. Evolving interoperability across a state public health immunization registry and electronic health records. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2024;310:23–27. doi:10.3233/SHTI230920
- Dessart C, Tavares-Da-Silva F, Van Holle L, Mahaux O, Stegmann JU. A model for monitoring spontaneously reported medication errors using the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine as an example. Advances in Pharmacological and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2024;2024:6435993. doi:10.1155/2024/6435993
- Constable C, Ferguson K, Nicholson J, Quinn GP. Clinician communication strategies associated with increased uptake of the human papillomavirus vaccine: a systematic review. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2022;72(6):561–569. doi:10.3322/caac.21753