Exploring the experiences and perceptions of co-administration of routine vaccines in adults: Findings from an embedded qualitative study with participants and research delivery staff in the ZosterFluCov randomized controlled trial.
Victoria Williams, Sophie Rees, Holly Seale et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This embedded qualitative study within the ZosterFluCov randomized controlled trial explored experiences and views of co-administering routine adult vaccines. Semi-structured interviews involved 20 trial participants and 24 research delivery staff. Participants generally found co-administration acceptable; staff considered it within their practice and many had prior experience. Both groups saw potential time and resource savings and a simpler vaccination process, while emphasizing individual preference and the need for practical adjustments in routine delivery. The study examined perceptions rather than measuring vaccine uptake or clinical outcomes.
Key findings
- Co-administration was highly acceptable to the interviewed trial participants.
- Both participants and staff viewed co-administration as potentially time-efficient for patients and health professionals.
- Participants and staff saw potential to save resources and simplify vaccination, while personal preference about the number of vaccines remained important.
- Staff considered co-administration within their scope of practice, but noted that real-world delivery would require practical adjustments.
Why it matters
Adult vaccination schedules involve multiple routine and seasonal vaccines, and the study suggests that co-administration may be acceptable to patients and familiar to some delivery staff. Understanding preferences and operational needs can inform how services consider offering vaccines together, while recognizing that acceptability alone does not establish effects on uptake, safety, or immunogenicity.
What to keep in mind
The findings are qualitative and based on interviews with trial participants and research delivery staff; they do not establish effects on vaccine uptake or clinical outcomes.