ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2026
Coverage and appropriateness of influenza vaccination in adults ≥ 60 y: Provider contribution and adherence to Italian national recommendations.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to evaluate the 2023/24 and 2024/25 influenza vaccination campaigns in Liguria (Italy), specifically analyzing how the transition toward a proximity-based model impacted vaccine appropriateness across different age groups (60-64 y, ≥65 y) and providers. Data regarding seasonal influenza vaccine administrations were extracted from the official Local Health Units (LHUs) immunization registries, which aggregate immunization records from different providers [LHUs, General Practitioners (GPs), pediatricians and community pharmacies]. To evaluate prescriptive appropriklateness, administered vaccines were cross-referenced with national guidelines based on the patient's age. A 6% overall decrease in coverage rates between the two seasons was recorded while the provider landscape shifted significantly. Unfortunately, while enhancing proximity (General Practitioners and pharmacies), this evolution introduced wide variability in prescriptive appropriateness. Our analysis reveals a persistent mismatch between national recommendations and real-world clinical practice and only 65% (2023/24 season) and 73% (2024/25 season) among ≥65 y individuals received enhanced vaccines. Strengthening clinical governance and targeted professional training for pharmacists and GPs is essential to ensure that the convenience of proximity-based vaccination does not compromise clinical efficacy through the use of sub-optimal vaccine platforms for high-risk cohorts.
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.