Background
Vaccination against seasonal influenza and pertussis in pregnancy has proven effective in reducing the burden of seasonal influenza among pregnant women and their infants as well as reducing the severity of pertussis in young infants [
1‐
4]. Pregnant women and children particularly those less than 6 months of age are considered to be priority risk groups for influenza since they experience increased rates of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and deaths [
5,
6]. However, influenza vaccination is only recommended from 6 months of age and therefore cannot provide protection to the youngest, most vulnerable infants. Even though the evidence on the burden of pertussis in vulnerable adults is growing, severe pertussis infection mostly affects infants between birth and 6 months of age [
7,
8]. Infants under 6 months of age accounted for 42.3% of all pertussis-related hospitalizations in 2018 among children in the United States (US) [
9]. A modelling study by the World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted that there were 85,900 estimated pertussis-related deaths in infants younger than 1 year in 2014 worldwide [
10]. With no pertussis vaccines licensed to protect new-borns in their first weeks of life, pertussis vaccination in pregnancy remains the most effective method of providing protection during this vulnerable period.
In 2005, the WHO recommended influenza vaccination for all pregnant women. Due to the severity of 2009 H1N1 pandemic infections among pregnant women, this group was recommended as the highest priority group for inclusion in influenza immunisation programmes [
11,
12]. This not only provides protection of the mother from severe disease but also protects the infant in the first months of life, before they are eligible to receive influenza vaccination. However, while influenza vaccination during pregnancy was gradually adopted in most high- and middle-income countries, many low-income countries have yet to include it in their routine immunisation programmes [
13‐
17]. Furthermore, many existing programmes reach an influenza vaccine coverage rate (VCR) that is sub-optimal compared with the WHO target rate of 75% for the elderly and other risk groups [
18‐
21]. In nine EU/EEA Member States, VCR ranged from 0.5 to 59% (median 25%) in 2016–17. The remaining EU/EEA Member States, where influenza vaccination is recommended for pregnant women, reported that vaccination coverage was not monitored for this population [
22].
In 2015, the WHO recommended pertussis vaccination in pregnancy as the most cost-effective additional strategy for preventing disease in infants too young to be vaccinated [
23]. The routine use of combination pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines (Tdap) means that maternal immunity is boosted against these infections in addition to the provision of passive neonatal protection. Currently, pertussis vaccination during pregnancy is recommended by the national or supranational health authorities in more than 55 countries globally [
24,
25]. Yet, despite growing adoption and funding under national immunisation programmes, many countries consistently fail to achieve among pregnant women a VCR as high as in childhood vaccination programmes. Only a few high-income countries successfully vaccinate a majority of pregnant women, such as Spain, the United Kingdom (UK), or the US with respective VCRs of 84%, 71%, and 57% in 2019 [
26‐
29].
The WHO has developed several tools to support countries considering the introduction of pregnancy vaccination programmes or to improve the implementation of existing programmes. These include a toolkit for Influenza Vaccine Post-Introduction Evaluations and a dedicated field guide for the implementation of pregnancy vaccination in Latin America [
30,
31]. However, actionable information for a successful programme of vaccination in pregnancy remains limited.
This study aimed to provide a thorough analysis of the programmatic components that contribute to the success of influenza and Tdap vaccination programmes in pregnancy based on practices in high-income countries achieving high VCR.
Discussion
The Pregnancy VCR framework developed in this study is designed to facilitate the implementation of vaccination programmes for pregnant women by providing a list of possible components structured in five pillars. The onus would remain with an individual country to determine the applicability and relevance of a specific intervention. The significant variability of the results indicates that having a successful programme does not rely on having all components but rather finding the right combinations of components that are tailored to each country’s context and healthcare system architecture.
The US, the UK, and more recently Spain, have monitored VCR following the introduction of their pregnancy vaccination programmes, enabling the analysis of the evolution of vaccine uptake and the components associated with VCR growth. The vaccination programmes analysed owe a large part of their success to proactive health authorities (Pillar 1). Beyond establishing an official vaccination recommendation and reimbursement, supporting programme implementation is critical. In the UK, PHE and the NHS were instrumental in producing HCP training material and information for patients when commissioning the immunisation programme [
78]. In Spain, the proactive development of such communication materials by some regional health authorities is likely to have contributed to the higher performance of some regions such as
Cantabria and
Comunitat Valenciana, both achieving Tdap VCR above 90% among pregnant women [
26,
66]. In the US, given the higher diversity of stakeholders, a multi-stakeholder approach with frequent and coordinated calls to action from the CDC and the leading scientific societies were essential to ensure the continued uptake of pregnancy vaccinations. For instance, the 2020 maternal task force reinforced the importance of a one-voice message from key HCP associations involved in the care of pregnant women [
79,
80]. Another key lever that health authorities can act upon is to include pregnancy vaccination as part of the routine antenatal medical protocol [
81]. Furthermore, continuous and accurate monitoring of VCR is a key element for the evaluation of a programme after its introduction and can be complemented by setting official VCR targets.
Facilitated access to vaccination (Pillar 2) with minimum physical, geographic, and financial barriers stands out as critical. Beyond offering vaccination free of charge, providing pregnant women with the opportunity to be vaccinated in convenient settings including GP clinics, community antenatal clinics, hospitals, or pharmacies, and authorising multiple HCP roles to vaccinate pregnant women was key. In the US, access to influenza vaccination is generally convenient, and pregnant women are often immunised by obstetricians, gynecologists, or pharmacists [
28]. In the UK and Spain, midwives accompany women throughout their pregnancy and therefore play a decisive role in driving awareness of the recommendations for vaccination [
72,
82,
83]. A study in the Greater Manchester area in the UK highlighted the beneficial impact of coordinating GP surgeries with antenatal services, pharmacists, NHS foundation teams, and primary care trusts to maximize uptake among pregnant women. An effective electronic vaccine record and the allocation of adequate training resources to align messages across HCPs were found to be important components [
84]. Initiatives such as
text4baby in the US have also proved to be efficient calls to action to prompt pregnant women to get vaccinated [
85,
86].
Regarding the accountability and engagement of HCPs (Pillar 3), a strong recommendation from an HCP is a clear driver of vaccine uptake for pregnant women as shown in multiple surveys from the US CDC [
28,
38]. The mobilization of antenatal care professionals, such as obstetricians, gynecologists, and midwives is essential, given the importance of their advice for pregnant women and the multiple medical touchpoints during pregnancy. As such, in the US, the active endorsement of the ACIP recommendation by multiple HCP societies was crucial for the adoption of Tdap pregnancy vaccination [
51]. Additionally, specific training and toolkits are produced and disseminated by the CDC and the ACOG to encourage obstetricians and gynecologists to vaccinate pregnant women [
87‐
89]. In the UK, influenza and Tdap pregnancy vaccination is fully part of the contractual agreement between the health authorities and GPs, and includes the financial incentivization of vaccination in pregnancy (£10.06 per immunisation in 2019) as compensation for the obligation to record immunisation status, call and recall eligible individuals, and document active refusals [
90].
Finally, awareness of the disease burden and belief in vaccination benefits are paramount to a successful programme (Pillars 4 and 5). The awareness of the burden of the disease relies on a well-established infectious disease surveillance network, whose epidemiological and clinical data can be used for research, public health decision making, and communication purposes [
82]. The knowledge of the disease severity and vulnerability to the infection have an immediate effect on VCR as illustrated by the impact of the pertussis outbreaks in the UK and Spain at the inception of their respective programmes [
59,
75,
76]. In the US, patient associations such as the California Immunisation Coalition have developed collections of stories to illustrate the burden of vaccine-preventable diseases such as pertussis. Confidence in vaccine safety and vaccine effectiveness can nonetheless vary widely, especially for vaccination in pregnancy, depending on cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic factors [
77]. An active monitoring and responsiveness towards vaccine disinformation complemented by regular attitudinal surveys of the perceptions of both pregnant women and the HCPs who take care of them are essential to address misconceptions and tailor communication strategies [
91‐
94].
While the benefits of pregnancy vaccination programmes are acknowledged by the public health community, increasing VCR remains a complex challenge which can often present an added level of difficulty for the vaccination of pregnant women given the persisting misconceptions on the safety of such interventions [
36,
52,
95]. A large number of studies have gathered quantitative insights on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pregnant women and HCPs with the aim to suggest avenues for improvement [
36,
69,
92,
96,
97]. However, few studies have isolated programmatic and policy directed interventions at the initiation of programmes that lead to high pregnancy vaccination uptakes for influenza or for Tdap [
14,
98]. No previous studies have documented the experience of successful pregnancy vaccination programmes for influenza and pertussis across countries with different healthcare systems.
As such, this is the first study to describe the components of a successful pregnancy programme for both influenza and Tdap vaccinations across all the different stakeholders involved. These components are clustered in 5 pillars, providing a ready-to-use framework to complement the field guide developed by the WHO for Latin America and the WHO manual on the implementation of influenza vaccination of pregnant women [
30,
99].
This analysis also provides a comprehensive framework to perform a situation assessment and identify policy and programmatic gaps hindering high VCR in pregnancy. Given the increasing number of countries issuing recommendations for vaccinating pregnant women, and the room for improvement in several existing programmes, including the three countries covered in this study, this analysis of best-in-class practices highlights key drivers for uptake. In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the key learnings from this study could also be useful for scientific discussions and policy-making regarding COVID-19 VCR in pregnant women [
77].
This study has several limitations. Firstly, the selection of the studied countries could have been widened to include other countries with well-established pregnancy vaccination programmes. For instance, surveys have been performed in Canada and Australia with the objective of identifying challenges regarding vaccination during pregnancy and strategies to overcome these issues [
100,
101]. Moreover, the three countries are examined from national perspective that does not take into account nuances and disparities across their regions or states. VCR estimation methods also vary from country to country with CDC data based on surveys for the US, while PHE data is based on GP reports, and Spanish data from reporting in each region. Furthermore, the adaptability of the framework to low- or middle-income countries is limited since only high-income countries were selected for this analysis. High-performing pregnancy vaccination programmes also exist in upper middle income countries such as Argentina and Mexico [
102‐
104].
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.