Yusuke Inoue1, Kenji Matsui. 1. Department of Public Policy, Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo, Shirokanedai, Minato-ku, Japan. yinoue-kyt@umin.ac.jp
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Striking a balance between the rapid availability of a novel vaccine while ensuring its safety, quality, and efficacy is a major challenge during a pandemic. We aimed to elucidate physicians' attitudes regarding the novel vaccine during the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic of 2009, and to determine factors that affected their vaccination recommendations to patients. METHODS: Of a random sample of 1,000 general practitioners (GPs) in Japan, 515 participated in the cross-sectional anonymous survey conducted just before the novel vaccine was available (between 28 September and 18 October 2009). RESULTS: A total of 453 GPs (88.3%) replied that they intended to receive the new vaccine themselves; however, only 177 GPs (34.6%) intended to proactively recommend it to their patients. The anticipated cost of the vaccine negatively influenced the intention to vaccinate themselves and their recommendations to patients (P < 0.001, χ (2) test). Results of multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that physicians with experience in influenza A/H1N1 patient contacts [1-20 contacts, odds ratio (OR) = 7.49 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.73-32.36), P = 0.007; >20 contacts, OR = 8.03 (95% CI: 1.77-36.50), P = 0.007, compared with no contacts] were more likely to recommend the vaccine to patients, whereas those with knowledge of the fear on the causal association between Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) cases and the 1976 swine flu vaccination in the USA were less likely to recommend the vaccine [OR = 0.66 (95% CI: 0.45-0.97), P = 0.036]. CONCLUSIONS: Results of our survey indicate that physicians experience a moral conflict regarding recommending the novel vaccine to patients, which may be the result of their own experience with the disease, knowledge of vaccine side-effects, and cost.
OBJECTIVES: Striking a balance between the rapid availability of a novel vaccine while ensuring its safety, quality, and efficacy is a major challenge during a pandemic. We aimed to elucidate physicians' attitudes regarding the novel vaccine during the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic of 2009, and to determine factors that affected their vaccination recommendations to patients. METHODS: Of a random sample of 1,000 general practitioners (GPs) in Japan, 515 participated in the cross-sectional anonymous survey conducted just before the novel vaccine was available (between 28 September and 18 October 2009). RESULTS: A total of 453 GPs (88.3%) replied that they intended to receive the new vaccine themselves; however, only 177 GPs (34.6%) intended to proactively recommend it to their patients. The anticipated cost of the vaccine negatively influenced the intention to vaccinate themselves and their recommendations to patients (P < 0.001, χ (2) test). Results of multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that physicians with experience in influenza A/H1N1patient contacts [1-20 contacts, odds ratio (OR) = 7.49 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.73-32.36), P = 0.007; >20 contacts, OR = 8.03 (95% CI: 1.77-36.50), P = 0.007, compared with no contacts] were more likely to recommend the vaccine to patients, whereas those with knowledge of the fear on the causal association between Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) cases and the 1976 swine flu vaccination in the USA were less likely to recommend the vaccine [OR = 0.66 (95% CI: 0.45-0.97), P = 0.036]. CONCLUSIONS: Results of our survey indicate that physicians experience a moral conflict regarding recommending the novel vaccine to patients, which may be the result of their own experience with the disease, knowledge of vaccine side-effects, and cost.
Authors: Holly Seale; Mary-Louise McLaws; Anita E Heywood; Kirsten F Ward; Chris P Lowbridge; Debbie Van; Jan Gralton; C Raina MacIntyre Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2009-09-07 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Matthew F Daley; Lori A Crane; Vijayalaxmi Chandramouli; Brenda L Beaty; Jennifer Barrow; Norma Allred; Stephen Berman; Allison Kempe Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Mary Patricia Nowalk; Chyongchiou J Lin; Richard K Zimmerman; Feng-Shou Ko; Alejandro Hoberman; Lisa Zoffel; Diana H Kearney Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Josette S Y Chor; Karry L K Ngai; William B Goggins; Martin C S Wong; Samuel Y S Wong; Nelson Lee; Ting-fan Leung; Timothy H Rainer; Sian Griffiths; Paul K S Chan Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-08-25
Authors: Pierre Verger; Rémi Flicoteaux; Michael Schwarzinger; Luis Sagaon-Teyssier; Patrick Peretti-Watel; Odile Launay; Remy Sebbah; Jean-Paul Moatti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Zachary J Madewell; Rafael Chacón-Fuentes; Jorge Jara; Homer Mejía-Santos; Ida-Berenice Molina; Juan Pablo Alvis-Estrada; Maria-Renee Ortiz; Rosa Coello-Licona; Belinda Montejo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240