Allen Kraut1, Lesley Graff, Daria McLean. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. akraut@cc.umanitoba.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many health care personnel (HCP) choose not to get vaccinated against influenza despite recommendations to do so. The pH1N1 epidemic gave a unique opportunity to evaluate the attitudes to influenza vaccination of a group of HCP who routinely choose not to get vaccinated, but accepted the pH1N1 vaccine. METHODS: HCP employed at a tertiary care hospital in Winnipeg, Canada who received the pH1N1 vaccine were invited to participate in an online survey asking about attitudes and experiences regarding seasonal and pH1N1 influenza and vaccination. Those eligible included primarily nurses, other clinical staff, and support staff, as few physicians work as employees. RESULTS: Of the 684 respondents (29% return rate), 504 reported routinely getting vaccinated (RV) for seasonal influenza and 180 reported routinely not getting vaccinated (NRV). These two groups had different attitude towards the two strains of influenza, with markedly lower level of concern about seasonal influenza than pH1N1 for the NRV group. The contrast was especially notable regarding the NRV's view of the seriousness of the illness, their sense of exposure risk, and their confidence in the vaccine effectiveness (for all, seasonal<pH1N1, p<0.001). The most common motivators for getting vaccinated for both NRV and RV groups related to concerns about personal or family safety, while the choice to decline seasonal vaccination related primarily to lack concern about the illness and concerns about vaccine effectiveness and safety. Coworkers were influential in the decision to get the pH1N1 vaccine for the NRV group. CONCLUSION: For HCP who do not routinely get the seasonal vaccination, perception of risk outweighing side effect concerns appeared to be a major influence in going ahead with the pH1N1 vaccine. Educational campaigns that focus on personal benefit, engage peer champions, and address concerns about the vaccine may improve influenza vaccine uptake among health care personnel.
BACKGROUND: Many health care personnel (HCP) choose not to get vaccinated against influenza despite recommendations to do so. The pH1N1 epidemic gave a unique opportunity to evaluate the attitudes to influenza vaccination of a group of HCP who routinely choose not to get vaccinated, but accepted the pH1N1 vaccine. METHODS: HCP employed at a tertiary care hospital in Winnipeg, Canada who received the pH1N1 vaccine were invited to participate in an online survey asking about attitudes and experiences regarding seasonal and pH1N1 influenza and vaccination. Those eligible included primarily nurses, other clinical staff, and support staff, as few physicians work as employees. RESULTS: Of the 684 respondents (29% return rate), 504 reported routinely getting vaccinated (RV) for seasonal influenza and 180 reported routinely not getting vaccinated (NRV). These two groups had different attitude towards the two strains of influenza, with markedly lower level of concern about seasonal influenza than pH1N1 for the NRV group. The contrast was especially notable regarding the NRV's view of the seriousness of the illness, their sense of exposure risk, and their confidence in the vaccine effectiveness (for all, seasonal<pH1N1, p<0.001). The most common motivators for getting vaccinated for both NRV and RV groups related to concerns about personal or family safety, while the choice to decline seasonal vaccination related primarily to lack concern about the illness and concerns about vaccine effectiveness and safety. Coworkers were influential in the decision to get the pH1N1 vaccine for the NRV group. CONCLUSION: For HCP who do not routinely get the seasonal vaccination, perception of risk outweighing side effect concerns appeared to be a major influence in going ahead with the pH1N1 vaccine. Educational campaigns that focus on personal benefit, engage peer champions, and address concerns about the vaccine may improve influenza vaccine uptake among health care personnel.
Authors: Stéfano Ivani de Paula; Gustavo Ivani de Paula; Kelly Simone Almeida Cunegundes; Maria Isabel de Moraes-Pinto Journal: Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 1.846
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: Diana Toledo; Nicole Aerny; Núria Soldevila; Maretva Baricot; Pere Godoy; Jesús Castilla; Susana García-Gutierrez; Núria Torner; Jenaro Astray; José María Mayoral; Sonia Tamames; Fernando González-Candelas; Vicente Martín; José Díaz; Angela Domíguez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 3.390