OBJECTIVE: To find the prevalence of flu vaccination and factors affecting the likelihood of being vaccinated. DESIGN: Observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study. SETTING: A district in Health Area III, Asturias, Spain. PARTICIPANTS: People of 65 and over selected by simple random sampling from the health card data base. The size of the sample was 386 users, of whom 326 agreed to take part. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: By means of a survey of our own design, conducted by phone interview, the variables gathered were social and personal details, accessibility, personal view of vaccination and attitude to it. A descriptive analysis and population estimates were made, with logistic regression used to identify associated variables. RESULTS: A 70.6% (95% CI, 65.9-75.2) of the population under study had been vaccinated. The main arguments for non-vaccination were: "don't want to" (35.5%; 95% CI, 25.8-45.2) and enjoyment of good health (34.4%; 95% CI, 24.8-44); 25% (95% CI, 19-30) of the elderly with some chronic pathology were not vaccinated; 92.3% (95% CI, 89.6-95) of those surveyed said they had not been contacted by their Health Centre; 35.7% (95% CI, 30.7-40.7) thought they would catch the flu the same if they were vaccinated; 41.6% (95% CI, 36.6-46.6) did not think so. Logistic regression showed positive association of vaccination and belief in its use (OR=338; 95% CI, 4.48-25084). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination coverage in our health district was higher than that found by other studies and matched the figures stated in the programme record system. Raising awareness of the usefulness of vaccination is a strategy to be assessed in relation to increased coverage. We could not show that active phone recruitment affects vaccination at all.
OBJECTIVE: To find the prevalence of flu vaccination and factors affecting the likelihood of being vaccinated. DESIGN: Observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study. SETTING: A district in Health Area III, Asturias, Spain. PARTICIPANTS: People of 65 and over selected by simple random sampling from the health card data base. The size of the sample was 386 users, of whom 326 agreed to take part. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: By means of a survey of our own design, conducted by phone interview, the variables gathered were social and personal details, accessibility, personal view of vaccination and attitude to it. A descriptive analysis and population estimates were made, with logistic regression used to identify associated variables. RESULTS: A 70.6% (95% CI, 65.9-75.2) of the population under study had been vaccinated. The main arguments for non-vaccination were: "don't want to" (35.5%; 95% CI, 25.8-45.2) and enjoyment of good health (34.4%; 95% CI, 24.8-44); 25% (95% CI, 19-30) of the elderly with some chronic pathology were not vaccinated; 92.3% (95% CI, 89.6-95) of those surveyed said they had not been contacted by their Health Centre; 35.7% (95% CI, 30.7-40.7) thought they would catch the flu the same if they were vaccinated; 41.6% (95% CI, 36.6-46.6) did not think so. Logistic regression showed positive association of vaccination and belief in its use (OR=338; 95% CI, 4.48-25084). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination coverage in our health district was higher than that found by other studies and matched the figures stated in the programme record system. Raising awareness of the usefulness of vaccination is a strategy to be assessed in relation to increased coverage. We could not show that active phone recruitment affects vaccination at all.