ArticleBMJ open2021
Active vaccine safety surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccination via a scalable, integrated system in Western Australian pharmacies: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaccination Strategies Against Respiratory Pathogens in the Adult Population: A Narrative Review.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Acceptability of patient-centered digital vaccine safety monitoring: A Canadian Immunization Research Network study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Changes to Public Health Surveillance Methods Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Assessing vaccine safety during a pandemic: Recent experience and lessons learned for the future.Vaccine · 2023Review
- Linking Activity Theory Within User-Centered Design: Novel Framework to Inform Design and Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems in Pharmacy.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Article
- A Mobile App Leveraging Citizenship Engagement to Perform Anonymized Longitudinal Studies in the Context of COVID-19 Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring: Development and Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Barriers and Facilitators Influencing Real-time and Digital-Based Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions by Community Pharmacists: Qualitative Study Using the Task-Technology Fit Framework.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Adverse effect investigation using application software after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for healthcare workers.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2022Article
- Current Approaches to Vaccine Safety Using Observational Data: A Rationale for the EUMAEUS (Evaluating Use of Methods for Adverse Events Under Surveillance-for Vaccines) Study Design.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe integrated an established participant-centred active vaccine safety surveillance system with a cloud-based pharmacy immunisation-recording program in order to measure adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) reported via the new surveillance system in pharmacies, compared with AEFI reported via an existing surveillance system in non-pharmacy sites (general practice and other clinics).
designA prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingIndividuals >10 years receiving influenza immunisations from 22 pharmacies and 90 non-pharmacy (general practice and other clinic) sites between March and October 2020 in Western Australia. Active vaccine safety surveillance was conducted using short message service and smartphone technology, via an opt-out system. OUTCOME MEASURES: Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the primary outcome: differences in proportions of AEFI between participants immunised in pharmacies compared with non-pharmacy sites, adjusting for confounders of age, sex and influenza vaccine brand. A subgroup analysis of participants over 65 years was also performed.
resultsOf 101 440 participants (6992 from pharmacies; 94 448 from non-pharmacy sites), 77 498 (76.4%) responded; 96.1% (n=74 448) within 24 hours. Overall, 4.8% (n=247) pharmacy participants reported any AEFI, compared with 6% (n=4356) non-pharmacy participants (adjusted OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.99; p=0.039). Similar proportions of AEFIs were reported in pharmacy (5.8%; n=31) and non-pharmacy participants (6; n=1617) aged over 65 years (adjusted OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.35; p=0.725). The most common AEFIs in pharmacy were: pain (2%; n=104), tiredness (1.9%; n=95) and headache (1.7%; n=88); and in non-pharmacy sites: pain (2.3%; n=1660), tiredness (1.9%; n=1362) and swelling (1.5%; n=1121).
conclusionsHigh and rapid response rates demonstrate good participant engagement with active surveillance in both pharmacy and non-pharmacy participants. Significantly fewer AEFIs reported after pharmacist immunisations compared with non-pharmacy immunisations, with no difference in older adults, may suggest different cohorts attend pharmacy versus non-pharmacy immunisers. The integrated pharmacy system is rapidly scalable across Australia with global potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.