InfluenzaCollabFluNCT01403649
Collaborative Efforts to Increase Flu Vaccination
A study testing Private/public collaboration to increase flu vaccination in people with Influenza and Collaboration, run by University of Colorado, Denver at 27 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Beginning with the 2009-2010 season, influenza vaccine is universally recommended for children age 6 months to 18 years old, placing extra burden on health care providers across the U.S. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 6 months to 18 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Influenza, Collaboration
- What is being tested?
- Private/public collaboration to increase flu vaccination
- Type of treatment
- Vaccines, Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 117,175 participants
- Where
- 27 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- Aug 2009to Mar 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 6 months to 18 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- Children age 6 mo - 18 yr in up to 20 practices
Who cannot join
- Infants under the age of 6 mo or adults over the age of 18
Trial locations and contacts
27 sites in 1 country.
27 sites in 1 country
United States27 sites
Tri County Health dept
Aurora, Colorado, 80010
Aurora Family Medicine
Aurora, Colorado, 80012
Forum Family Medicine
Aurora, Colorado, 80014
Premier Pediatrics
Brighton, Colorado, 80601
Indian Crest Pediatrics
Broomfield, Colorado, 80021
Centennial Pediatrics
Centennial, Colorado, 80014
Advanced Pediatrics
Centennial, Colorado, 80015
Greenwood Pediatrics
Centennial, Colorado, 80112
Pediatric Pathways
Centennial, Colorado, 80112
Pediatrics 5280
Centennial, Colorado, 80112
CIIS
Denver, Colorado, 80246
Hampden Medical Group
Englewood, Colorado, 80113
Family Practice Clinic
Fort Morgan, Colorado, 80701
Ft. Morgan Medical Group
Fort Morgan, Colorado, 80701
Haxtun Family Medicine
Haxtun, Colorado, 80731
Valley Medical Center
Julesburg, Colorado, 80737
Jefferson County Health dept
Lakewood, Colorado, 80215
Kids First
Lakewood, Colorado, 80226
Denver West Pediatrics
Lakewood, Colorado, 80401
Focus on Kids
Littleton, Colorado, 80123
Lone Tree Family Medicine
Lone Tree, Colorado, 80124
Crown Point Pediatrics
Parker, Colorado, 80138
Northeast County Health Dept
Sterling, Colorado, 80751
Mountain Land Pediatrics
Thornton, Colorado, 80260
Pediatrics West
Wheat Ridge, Colorado, 80033
Wray Clinic
Wray, Colorado, 80758
Yuma Clinic
Yuma, Colorado, 80759
About this study
Official title: Strategies to Vaccinate All Children for Influenza in a Practice Setting
Beginning with the 2009-2010 season, influenza vaccine is universally recommended for children age 6 months to 18 years old, placing extra burden on health care providers across the U.S. The focus of this study is to develop new strategies and implement existing evidence-based strategies to enhance influenza immunization in these children. The intervention will involve collaboration from different types of primary care providers, the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS), public health departments and visiting nursing services (VNA). It will be designed and implemented by those involved with delivery with a focus on sustainability after the completion of the study. Parental input will be gathered during the planning year through focus groups to assist in developing the intervention. Qualitative assessments and examination of processes during the first year of implementation will guide modifications during the second implementation year in order to assure sustainability. Primary outcome measures in the intervention and control groups: 1) increase in the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 mo.-18 yr. and 2) increase in the rate of children 6 mo.-18 yr. who were fully immunized (received all required influenza injections) during the season. 3) measure outcomes by age group (6 mo.-5 yr., 6-8 yr., 9-12 yr., 13-18 yr.) and types of clinical sites (urban Peds, urban FM, rural FM)
Read the detailed description
Specific Aim 1: Within each of three types of clinical sites (urban pediatric, urban family medicine, and rural family medicine) recruit a group of similar practices (Year 1) 1a. Randomize practices within each type of clinical site to either the intervention or the control group
1b. Establish private-public collaborations for influenza vaccination delivery between county public health departments, visiting nursing associations and each of the intervention practices within the three clinical site types
Specific Aim 2: Conduct focus groups among parents of children seen at intervention practices, to assess attitudes and perceived barriers to possible practice-based and collaborative strategies to promote influenza vaccination (Year 1)
Specific Aim 3: Develop (Year 1) and implement (Years 2 and 3) a plan for comprehensive and collaborative delivery of influenza vaccine at intervention practices 3a. Develop practice-based intervention strategies focusing primarily on immunization of high-risk patients 3b. Develop private-public collaborative interventions between the intervention practices, their county public health department and visiting nursing associations focusing primarily on immunization of school-aged children 3c. Implement (Years 2 and 3) both practice-based and private-public collaborative strategies in the intervention practices while monitoring only in the control practices
Specific Aim 4: Conduct a group-randomized trial to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of the comprehensive delivery model in improving influenza vaccination coverage for children 6 months to 18 years in three different types of clinical sites (urban pediatric, urban family medicine, and rural family medicine).
4a. Evaluate effectiveness of the comprehensive delivery model at each of the three types of clinical sites
- Compare the following primary outcome measures in the intervention and control groups: 1) increase in the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years and 2) increase in the rate of children 6 months to 18 years who were fully immunized (received all required influenza injections) during the season.
- Compare the following secondary outcome measures: 1) increase in the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among high-risk children and 2) increase in the rate of high-risk children who were fully immunized during the season.
- Evaluate sustainability of the comprehensive delivery model on the above outcome measures
4b. Compare the effectiveness of the comprehensive delivery model in three different types of clinical sites (urban pediatric private practice, urban family medicine private practice, and rural family medicine private practice)
Specific Aim 5: Evaluate the process of implementation of the comprehensive delivery model for influenza delivery in each of the three types of sites.
5a. Assess process measures relevant to implementation of practice-based interventions and compare by type of clinical site 5b. Assess process measures relevant to implementation of private-public collaborative interventions and compare by type of clinical site 5c. Using key informant interviews, assess perceptions regarding facilitators and barriers to private-public collaborative delivery, alternative methods and means of improving the process among practice providers, administrators and among participating public health and visiting nurse personnel
Specific Aim 6: In two urban pediatric intervention practices and one rural family medicine practice, conduct surveys examining parental attitudes about methods of influenza delivery and their experience with their practice's participation in a comprehensive and collaborative private-public model for influenza delivery
Major Hypotheses:
SA4. Hypothesis 1. Effectiveness on receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine: The increase in the likelihood of receiving ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years will be greater for children in intervention practices than in control practices.
SA4. Hypothesis 2 Effectiveness - fully immunized: The increase in the likelihood of receiving all necessary influenza vaccines during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years will be greater for children in intervention practices than in control practices.
SA4. Hypothesis 3. Effectiveness by age strata: The increase in the likelihood of receiving ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children in each of the following age strata will be greater in intervention than in control practices: 1) 6 months through 5 years; 2) 6 through 8 years; 3) 9 through 12 years; 4) 13 through 18 years.
SA4. Hypothesis 4. Effectiveness in high-risk children: The increase in the likelihood of receiving of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among high-risk children 6 months to 18 years will be greater for high-risk children in intervention practices than in control practices.
SA4. Hypothesis 5. Sustainability: The increase in the likelihood of receiving ≥1 influenza vaccine during the second post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years will be greater for children in intervention practices than in control practices. (Sustainability will also be evaluated for other outcomes above.)
SA4. Hypothesis 6. Differential effectiveness by clinical site type: The increase in the likelihood of receiving of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years for intervention vs. controls will differ by clinical site type
- Conditions
- Influenza, Collaboration
- Being tested
- Private/public collaboration to increase flu vaccination, Usual care
- Medical subject headings
- Influenza, Human
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Private/public collaboration to increase flu vaccinationBehavioural
Intervention practices will develop office-based interventions including methods to identify high-risk patients within their practices and methods of maximizing the immunization of these children within the practice, use of patient reminders, after-hours influenza clinics, walk-in provision of influenza vaccine and increased focus on education regarding the need for immunization. The practices will also collaborate with their county public health departments and visiting nursing associations to develop private-public collaborative interventions that may include large clinics for school-aged children for multiple practices and tracking of influenza supplies and redistribution of influenza vaccine between practices when supplies are delayed or inadequate.
Usual careOther
This group will continue administering influenza vaccine to their patients in their practice as they normally do.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Increasing flu vaccination | Experimental | Collect from billing records in the 10 intervention practice sites to test for an increase in the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years during the season. The interventions include: 1. Develop practice-based intervention strategies (like use of reminder-recall of children due for influenza,2. Develop Private/public collaboration to increase flu vaccination between the intervention practices, their county public health department and visiting nursing associations, and 3. Implement both practice-based and private-public collaborative strategies in the intervention practices while monitoring only in the control practices Receives: Behavioral: Private/public collaboration to increase flu vaccination |
| Usual care | Other | Patients in control practices will continue to receive usual care with no change in practice regarding influenza immunization delivery. Receives: Other: Usual care |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Evaluate the effectiveness of collaborations between public and private entities to increase influenza vaccination in children 6 mos to 18 yrs in 10 intervention sites in 3 counties throughout the state of CO during the '10-11 & '11-12 flu seasons.
Primary outcome measure is to increase the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year(s) compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 mos.-18 yrs in 10 intervention sites. Intervention practices will collaborate with their respective health departments and/or the VNA to help assist with the increase in volume of patients needing to be vaccinated against flu in the 2010-2011 and the 2011-2012 flu seasons. Billing data will be obtained from all 20 sites (intervention+control) and compared to evaluate the effectiveness of this collaboration.
Measured: Up to 4 months post intervention (December 2012)
Secondary outcomes (2)
high-risk children receipt of influenza vaccination
increase in the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among high-risk children
Measured: baseline and intervention years 1 and 2
high-risk children fully immunized during influenza season
increase in the rate of high-risk children who were fully immunized during the season.
Measured: baseline and intervention years 1 and 2
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Jul 2011 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2009
- Primary completionFeb 2015
- Study completionMar 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for InfluenzaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Colorado, DenverThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 117,175 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Colorado, Denver
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Allison Kempe, MD, MPH, Principal investigator, University of Colorado, Children's Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01403649
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 10-0589
- Other IDs
- 1U01IP000320
- Acronym
- CollabFlu
- Status last verified
- May 2015
- First submitted
- 14 Jul 2011
- Last updated
- 2 Jun 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Jun 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Strategies to Vaccinate All Children for Influenza in a Practice Setting
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01403649
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CollabFlu / 10-0589
- Conditions
- Influenza, Collaboration
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 117,175 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Colorado, DenverUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Study start
- Aug 2009
- Primary completion
- Feb 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Jul 2011 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Beginning with the 2009-2010 season, influenza vaccine is universally recommended for children age 6 months to 18 years old, placing extra burden on health care providers across the U.S. The focus of this study is to develop new strategies and implement existing evidence-based strategies to enhance influenza immunization in these children. The intervention will involve collaboration from different types of primary care providers, the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS), public health departments and visiting nursing services (VNA). It will be designed and implemented by those involved with delivery with a focus on sustainability after the completion of the study. Parental input will be gathered during the planning year through focus groups to assist in developing the intervention. Qualitative assessments and examination of processes during the first year of implementation will guide modifications during the second implementation year in order to assure sustainability. Primary outcome measures in the intervention and control groups: 1) increase in the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 mo.-18 yr. and 2) increase in the rate of children 6 mo.-18 yr. who were fully immunized (received all required influenza injections) during the season. 3) measure outcomes by age group (6 mo.-5 yr., 6-8 yr., 9-12 yr., 13-18 yr.) and types of clinical sites (urban Peds, urban FM, rural FM)
Detailed description
Specific Aim 1: Within each of three types of clinical sites (urban pediatric, urban family medicine, and rural family medicine) recruit a group of similar practices (Year 1) 1a. Randomize practices within each type of clinical site to either the intervention or the control group
1b. Establish private-public collaborations for influenza vaccination delivery between county public health departments, visiting nursing associations and each of the intervention practices within the three clinical site types
Specific Aim 2: Conduct focus groups among parents of children seen at intervention practices, to assess attitudes and perceived barriers to possible practice-based and collaborative strategies to promote influenza vaccination (Year 1)
Specific Aim 3: Develop (Year 1) and implement (Years 2 and 3) a plan for comprehensive and collaborative delivery of influenza vaccine at intervention practices 3a. Develop practice-based intervention strategies focusing primarily on immunization of high-risk patients 3b. Develop private-public collaborative interventions between the intervention practices, their county public health department and visiting nursing associations focusing primarily on immunization of school-aged children 3c. Implement (Years 2 and 3) both practice-based and private-public collaborative strategies in the intervention practices while monitoring only in the control practices
Specific Aim 4: Conduct a group-randomized trial to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of the comprehensive delivery model in improving influenza vaccination coverage for children 6 months to 18 years in three different types of clinical sites (urban pediatric, urban family medicine, and rural family medicine).
4a. Evaluate effectiveness of the comprehensive delivery model at each of the three types of clinical sites
- Compare the following primary outcome measures in the intervention and control groups: 1) increase in the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years and 2) increase in the rate of children 6 months to 18 years who were fully immunized (received all required influenza injections) during the season.
- Compare the following secondary outcome measures: 1) increase in the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among high-risk children and 2) increase in the rate of high-risk children who were fully immunized during the season.
- Evaluate sustainability of the comprehensive delivery model on the above outcome measures
4b. Compare the effectiveness of the comprehensive delivery model in three different types of clinical sites (urban pediatric private practice, urban family medicine private practice, and rural family medicine private practice)
Specific Aim 5: Evaluate the process of implementation of the comprehensive delivery model for influenza delivery in each of the three types of sites.
5a. Assess process measures relevant to implementation of practice-based interventions and compare by type of clinical site 5b. Assess process measures relevant to implementation of private-public collaborative interventions and compare by type of clinical site 5c. Using key informant interviews, assess perceptions regarding facilitators and barriers to private-public collaborative delivery, alternative methods and means of improving the process among practice providers, administrators and among participating public health and visiting nurse personnel
Specific Aim 6: In two urban pediatric intervention practices and one rural family medicine practice, conduct surveys examining parental attitudes about methods of influenza delivery and their experience with their practice's participation in a comprehensive and collaborative private-public model for influenza delivery
Major Hypotheses:
SA4. Hypothesis 1. Effectiveness on receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine: The increase in the likelihood of receiving ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years will be greater for children in intervention practices than in control practices.
SA4. Hypothesis 2 Effectiveness - fully immunized: The increase in the likelihood of receiving all necessary influenza vaccines during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years will be greater for children in intervention practices than in control practices.
SA4. Hypothesis 3. Effectiveness by age strata: The increase in the likelihood of receiving ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children in each of the following age strata will be greater in intervention than in control practices: 1) 6 months through 5 years; 2) 6 through 8 years; 3) 9 through 12 years; 4) 13 through 18 years.
SA4. Hypothesis 4. Effectiveness in high-risk children: The increase in the likelihood of receiving of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among high-risk children 6 months to 18 years will be greater for high-risk children in intervention practices than in control practices.
SA4. Hypothesis 5. Sustainability: The increase in the likelihood of receiving ≥1 influenza vaccine during the second post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years will be greater for children in intervention practices than in control practices. (Sustainability will also be evaluated for other outcomes above.)
SA4. Hypothesis 6. Differential effectiveness by clinical site type: The increase in the likelihood of receiving of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years for intervention vs. controls will differ by clinical site type
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Increasing flu vaccination | Experimental | Behavioral: Private/public collaboration to increase flu vaccinationCollect from billing records in the 10 intervention practice sites to test for an increase in the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 months to 18 years during the season. The interventions include: 1. Develop practice-based intervention strategies (like use of reminder-recall of children due for influenza,2. Develop Private/public collaboration to increase flu vaccination between the intervention practices, their county public health department and visiting nursing associations, and 3. Implement both practice-based and private-public collaborative strategies in the intervention practices while monitoring only in the control practices |
| Usual care | Other | Other: Usual carePatients in control practices will continue to receive usual care with no change in practice regarding influenza immunization delivery. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 6 months to 18 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Children age 6 mo - 18 yr in up to 20 practices
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Infants under the age of 6 mo or adults over the age of 18
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Private/public collaboration to increase flu vaccinationIntervention practices will develop office-based interventions including methods to identify high-risk patients within their practices and methods of maximizing the immunization of these children within the practice, use of patient reminders, after-hours influenza clinics, walk-in provision of influenza vaccine and increased focus on education regarding the need for immunization. The practices will also collaborate with their county public health departments and visiting nursing associations to develop private-public collaborative interventions that may include large clinics for school-aged children for multiple practices and tracking of influenza supplies and redistribution of influenza vaccine between practices when supplies are delayed or inadequate. | Behavioural | Increasing flu vaccination |
| Usual careThis group will continue administering influenza vaccine to their patients in their practice as they normally do. | Other | Usual care |
Primary outcome
Evaluate the effectiveness of collaborations between public and private entities to increase influenza vaccination in children 6 mos to 18 yrs in 10 intervention sites in 3 counties throughout the state of CO during the '10-11 & '11-12 flu seasons.
Time frame: Up to 4 months post intervention (December 2012)
Primary outcome measure is to increase the rate of receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine during the post-intervention year(s) compared to the pre-intervention year among children 6 mos.-18 yrs in 10 intervention sites. Intervention practices will collaborate with their respective health departments and/or the VNA to help assist with the increase in volume of patients needing to be vaccinated against flu in the 2010-2011 and the 2011-2012 flu seasons. Billing data will be obtained from all 20 sites (intervention+control) and compared to evaluate the effectiveness of this collaboration.
2 secondary outcomes
high-risk children receipt of influenza vaccination
Time frame: baseline and intervention years 1 and 2
high-risk children fully immunized during influenza season
Time frame: baseline and intervention years 1 and 2
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Jun 2015.
Related trials for Influenza
RecruitingPhase 2
COVID-19 Booster and IIV Schedule in Immunocompromised Hosts
COVID 19, Influenza
RecruitingPhase 2
BPL-1357 Against H1N1 Influenza Virus Challenge
Influenza, Human
Recruiting
Light-based Immunomodulation for Guarding Against Human Respiratory Tract Infections
COVID-19 Respiratory Infection, Influenza
Not yet recruiting
Family Physician Nudges for Influenza Vaccination Among Older Adults
Influenza Vaccination
Not yet recruitingPhase 2/3
Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of 102D-6 in the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Influenza
Influenza, Human
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Allison Kempe, MD, MPH principal investigator
University of Colorado, Children's Hospital
27 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Private/public collaboration to increase flu vaccination in people with Influenza and Collaboration, run by University of Colorado, Denver at 27 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Jun 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 27 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Evaluate the effectiveness of collaborations between public and private entities to increase influenza vaccination in children 6 mos to 18 yrs in 10 intervention sites in 3 counties throughout the state of CO during the '10-11 & '11-12 flu seasons. (time frame: Up to 4 months post intervention (December 2012)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Jun 2015; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 26 Oct 2026.