Pan-Canadian assessment of pandemic immunization data collection: study methodology.
BACKGROUND
The collection of individual-level pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza immunization data was considered important to facilitate optimal vaccine delivery and accurate assessment of vaccine coverage. These data are also critical for research aimed at evaluating the new vaccine's safety and effectiveness. Systems used to collect immunization data include manual approaches in which data are collected and retained on paper, electronic systems in which data are captured on computer at the point of vaccination and hybrid systems which are comprised of both computerized and manual data collection components. This study's objective was to compare the efficiencies and perceptions of data collection methods employed during Canada's pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccination campaign.


METHODS
A pan-Canadian observational study was conducted in a convenience sample of public health clinics and healthcare institutions during the H1N1 vaccination campaign in the fall of 2009. The study design consisted of three stages: Stage 1 involved passive observation of the site's layout, processes and client flow; Stage 2 entailed timing site staff on 20 clients through five core immunization tasks: i) client registration, ii) medical history collection, iii) medical history review, iv) vaccine administration record keeping and v) preparation of proof of vaccine administration for the client; in Stage 3, site staff completed a questionnaire regarding perceived usability of the site's data collection approach. Before the national study began, a pilot study was conducted in three seasonal influenza vaccination sites in Ontario, to both test that the proposed methodology was logistically feasible and to determine inter-rater reliability in the measurements of the research staff. Comparative analyses will be conducted across the range of data collection methods with respect to time required to collect immunization data, number and type of individual-level data elements collected, and clinic staff perceptions of the usability of the method employed at their site, using analysis of variance (ANOVA).


CONCLUSIONS
Various data collection methods were employed at immunization sites across Canada during the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccination campaign. Our comparison of methods can facilitate planning an efficient, coordinated approach for collecting immunization data in future influenza seasons.
Pereira
Jennifer A
JA
Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, Toronto, Canada. jennifer.pereira@oahpp.ca
Quach
Susan
S
Heidebrecht
Christine
C
Foisy
Julie
J
Quan
Sherman
S
Finkelstein
Michael
M
Sikora
Christopher A
CA
Bettinger
Julie A
JA
Buckeridge
David L
DL
McCarthy
Anne
A
Deeks
Shelley
S
Kwong
Jeffrey C
JC
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002170:Canada; D003625:Data Collection / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D053118:Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; D007251:Influenza, Human / Q000517:prevention & control*; D032541:Mass Vaccination / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008487:Medical History Taking; D058873:Pandemics; D012107:Research Design; D012424:Rural Population; D018401:Sample Size; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013996:Time and Motion Studies; D014505:Urban Population