ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Hospital-based vaccination of older adult inpatients: comparison of two delivery models for influenza, COVID-19 and pneumococcal vaccines.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVaccination coverage for influenza, SARS-CoV-2 and pneumococcal disease among older Australians remains suboptimal. Hospital admission is an underutilised opportunity for the vaccination of older adults.
methodsWe conducted a 12-week prospective, single-centre evaluation at a tertiary hospital in Australia (August–November 2024). Inpatients aged ≥ 65 years admitted under cardiology, geriatrics, geriatric rehabilitation, respiratory and infectious diseases were screened for eligibility for National Immunisation Program (NIP)-recommended vaccines (influenza, SARS-CoV-2, conjugate pneumococcal). Stage 1 (weeks 1–6) involved academic detailing of medical officers (including education on the clinical benefit and standard of care for older adult immunisation) and weekly reminders to vaccinate as a part of routine care. During Stage 2 (weeks 7–12), we stopped giving reminders to medical officers, and a part-time vaccine prescriber (5 h/week) screened, consented and prescribed vaccines. Barriers to vaccination were recorded during both stages. We compared vaccination uptake between Stage 1 and Stage 2.
resultsOf the 851 inpatients screened, 649 were eligible for 1,410 vaccines (76.3%), and 73 vaccinations were administered (5.2%). Overall uptake increased from 19/710 (2.7%) vaccinations during Stage 1, to 54/700 (7.7%) vaccinations during Stage 2 (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.75–5.49; p < 0.001). An increase in vaccination uptake was observed for SARS-CoV-2 (Stage 1: 1/286, 0.3%; Stage 2: 12/280, 4.3%; OR 12.7, 95% CI 1.86–546.03) and pneumococcal vaccination (Stage 1: 8/247, 3.2%; Stage 2: 30/253, 11.9%; OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.75–10.34), but not for influenza (Stage 1: 10/177, 5.6%; Stage 2: 12/167, 7.2%; OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.5–3.44).
conclusionsAcademic detailing and regular reminders for medical officers to vaccinate was associated with lower vaccination uptake of older adult inpatients than the use of a part-time vaccine prescriber.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.