Allison Kempe1, Matthew F Daley2, Jennifer Pyrzanowski3, Tara M Vogt4, Elizabeth J Campagna3, L Miriam Dickinson5, Simon J Hambidge6, Judith C Shlay7. 1. Children's Outcomes Research Program, The Children's Hospital, Aurora, Colo; Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colo. Electronic address: Allison.Kempe@childrenscolorado.org. 2. Children's Outcomes Research Program, The Children's Hospital, Aurora, Colo; Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Denver, Colo. 3. Children's Outcomes Research Program, The Children's Hospital, Aurora, Colo. 4. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. 5. Children's Outcomes Research Program, The Children's Hospital, Aurora, Colo; Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colo. 6. Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colo; Community Health Services, Denver Health, Denver, Colo. 7. Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colo; Denver Public Health, Denver Health, Denver, Colo.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: School-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) may be instrumental in achieving high vaccination rates among children. Sustainability of SLIV programs may require third-party billing. This study assessed, among parents of elementary school students, the attitudes about SLIV and billing at school, as well as factors associated with being supportive of SLIV. METHODS: We conducted a survey (April 2010 to June 2010) of parents of 1000 randomly selected primarily low-income children at 20 elementary schools at which SLIV with billing had occurred. RESULTS: Response rate was 70% (n = 699). Eighty-one percent agreed (61% strongly) they "would be okay" with SLIV for their child. Many agreed it was better to get vaccinated at their child's doctor's office because they could take care of other health issues (72%) and the doctor knows the child's medical history (65%). However, an equal percentage (47%) thought the best place for influenza vaccination was the child's doctor's office and the child's school. Twenty-five percent did not want to give health insurance information necessary for billing at school. Factors independently associated with strongly supporting SLIV included parental education of high school or less (relative risk 1.30; 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.58), Hispanic ethnicity (1.25; 1.08-1.45); believing the vaccine is efficacious (1.49; 1.23-1.84); and finding school delivery more convenient (2.37; 1.82-3.45). Having concerns about the safety of influenza vaccine (0.80; 0.72-0.88) and not wanting their child to be vaccinated without a parent (0.74; 0.64-0.83) were negatively associated. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents were supportive of SLIV, although parental concerns about not being present for vaccination and about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine will need to be addressed.
OBJECTIVE: School-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) may be instrumental in achieving high vaccination rates among children. Sustainability of SLIV programs may require third-party billing. This study assessed, among parents of elementary school students, the attitudes about SLIV and billing at school, as well as factors associated with being supportive of SLIV. METHODS: We conducted a survey (April 2010 to June 2010) of parents of 1000 randomly selected primarily low-income children at 20 elementary schools at which SLIV with billing had occurred. RESULTS: Response rate was 70% (n = 699). Eighty-one percent agreed (61% strongly) they "would be okay" with SLIV for their child. Many agreed it was better to get vaccinated at their child's doctor's office because they could take care of other health issues (72%) and the doctor knows the child's medical history (65%). However, an equal percentage (47%) thought the best place for influenza vaccination was the child's doctor's office and the child's school. Twenty-five percent did not want to give health insurance information necessary for billing at school. Factors independently associated with strongly supporting SLIV included parental education of high school or less (relative risk 1.30; 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.58), Hispanic ethnicity (1.25; 1.08-1.45); believing the vaccine is efficacious (1.49; 1.23-1.84); and finding school delivery more convenient (2.37; 1.82-3.45). Having concerns about the safety of influenza vaccine (0.80; 0.72-0.88) and not wanting their child to be vaccinated without a parent (0.74; 0.64-0.83) were negatively associated. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents were supportive of SLIV, although parental concerns about not being present for vaccination and about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine will need to be addressed.
Authors: Cuc H Tran; Joe Brew; Nicholas Johnson; Kathleen A Ryan; Brittany Martin; Catherine Cornett; Brad Caron; R Paul Duncan; Parker A Small; Paul D Myers; J Glenn Morris Journal: Vaccine Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 3.641