Carmen S Arriola1, Nancy Vasconez2, Joseph Bresee3, Alba María Ropero4. 1. Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: wus3@cdc.gov. 2. Pan American Health Organization, Managua, Nicaragua. 3. Influenza Division, Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nicaragua implemented an influenza vaccination program for pregnant women with high-risk obstetric conditions in 2007. In 2014, the recommendation of influenza vaccination expanded to include all pregnant women. Given the expansion in the recommendation of vaccination, we evaluated knowledge, attitudes and practices of pregnant women and their healthcare providers towards influenza vaccination and its recommendation. METHODS: We conducted surveys among pregnant women and their healthcare providers from June to August 2016 at two hospitals and 140 health facilities in Managua. The questions were adapted from the U.S. national CDC influenza survey and related to knowledge, attitudes and practices about influenza vaccination and barriers to vaccination. We analyzed reasons for not receiving vaccination among pregnant women as well as receipt of vaccination recommendation and offer by their healthcare providers. RESULTS: Of 1,303 pregnant women enrolled, 42% (5 4 5) reported receiving influenza vaccination in the 2016 season. Of those who reported not receiving vaccination, 46% indicated barriers to vaccination. Pregnant women who were vaccinated were more likely to be aware of the recommendation for vaccination and the risks of influenza illness during pregnancy and to perceive the vaccine as safe and effective, compared to unvaccinated pregnant women (p-values < 0.001). Of the 619 health workers enrolled, over 89% recalled recommending influenza vaccination to all pregnant women, regardless of obstetric risk. Of the 1,223 women who had a prenatal visit between the start date of the influenza vaccination and the time of interview, 44% recalled receiving a recommendation for influenza vaccination and 43% were offered vaccination. Vaccination rates were higher for those receiving a recommendation and offer of vaccination compared with those who received neither (95% vs 5%, p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pregnant women in Managua had positive perceptions of influenza vaccine and were receptive to receiving influenza vaccination, especially after the offer and recommendation by their healthcare providers. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
BACKGROUND: Nicaragua implemented an influenza vaccination program for pregnant women with high-risk obstetric conditions in 2007. In 2014, the recommendation of influenza vaccination expanded to include all pregnant women. Given the expansion in the recommendation of vaccination, we evaluated knowledge, attitudes and practices of pregnant women and their healthcare providers towards influenza vaccination and its recommendation. METHODS: We conducted surveys among pregnant women and their healthcare providers from June to August 2016 at two hospitals and 140 health facilities in Managua. The questions were adapted from the U.S. national CDC influenza survey and related to knowledge, attitudes and practices about influenza vaccination and barriers to vaccination. We analyzed reasons for not receiving vaccination among pregnant women as well as receipt of vaccination recommendation and offer by their healthcare providers. RESULTS: Of 1,303 pregnant women enrolled, 42% (5 4 5) reported receiving influenza vaccination in the 2016 season. Of those who reported not receiving vaccination, 46% indicated barriers to vaccination. Pregnant women who were vaccinated were more likely to be aware of the recommendation for vaccination and the risks of influenza illness during pregnancy and to perceive the vaccine as safe and effective, compared to unvaccinated pregnant women (p-values < 0.001). Of the 619 health workers enrolled, over 89% recalled recommending influenza vaccination to all pregnant women, regardless of obstetric risk. Of the 1,223 women who had a prenatal visit between the start date of the influenza vaccination and the time of interview, 44% recalled receiving a recommendation for influenza vaccination and 43% were offered vaccination. Vaccination rates were higher for those receiving a recommendation and offer of vaccination compared with those who received neither (95% vs 5%, p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pregnant women in Managua had positive perceptions of influenza vaccine and were receptive to receiving influenza vaccination, especially after the offer and recommendation by their healthcare providers. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Entities:
Keywords:
Attitudes; Healthcare providers; Influenza vaccination; Knowledge; Practices; Pregnant women
Authors: Annette K Regan; Donna B Mak; Yvonne L Hauck; Robyn Gibbs; Lauren Tracey; Paul V Effler Journal: Women Birth Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.172
Authors: Valerie Wing Yu Wong; Daniel Yee Tak Fong; Kris Yuet Wan Lok; Janet Yuen Ha Wong; Chu Sing; Alice Yin-Yin Choi; Carol Yuet Sheung Yuen; Marie Tarrant Journal: Vaccine Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Denise J Jamieson; Margaret A Honein; Sonja A Rasmussen; Jennifer L Williams; David L Swerdlow; Matthew S Biggerstaff; Stephen Lindstrom; Janice K Louie; Cara M Christ; Susan R Bohm; Vincent P Fonseca; Kathleen A Ritger; Daniel J Kuhles; Paula Eggers; Hollianne Bruce; Heidi A Davidson; Emily Lutterloh; Meghan L Harris; Colleen Burke; Noelle Cocoros; Lyn Finelli; Kitty F MacFarlane; Bo Shu; Sonja J Olsen Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lauren M Stark; Michael L Power; Mark Turrentine; Renee Samelson; Maryam M Siddiqui; Michael J Paglia; Emmie R Strassberg; Elizabeth Kelly; Katie L Murtough; Jay Schulkin Journal: Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-07-31
Authors: Justin R Ortiz; Marc Perut; Laure Dumolard; Pushpa Ranjan Wijesinghe; Pernille Jorgensen; Alba Maria Ropero; M Carolina Danovaro-Holliday; James D Heffelfinger; Carol Tevi-Benissan; Nadia A Teleb; Philipp Lambach; Joachim Hombach Journal: Vaccine Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Alba María Ropero-Álvarez; Nathalie El Omeiri; Hannah Jane Kurtis; M Carolina Danovaro-Holliday; Cuauhtémoc Ruiz-Matus Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Mark G Thompson; Min Z Levine; Silvia Bino; Danielle R Hunt; Tareq M Al-Sanouri; Eric A F Simões; Rachael M Porter; Holly M Biggs; Lionel Gresh; Artan Simaku; Illham Abu Khader; Veronica L Tallo; Jennifer K Meece; Meredith McMorrow; Edelwisa S Mercado; Sneha Joshi; Nicholas P DeGroote; Iris Hatibi; Felix Sanchez; Marilla G Lucero; Samir Faouri; Stacie N Jefferson; Numila Maliqari; Angel Balmaseda; Diozele Sanvictores; Crystal Holiday; Cristina Sciuto; Zachary Owens; Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner; Aubree Gordon Journal: Lancet Child Adolesc Health Date: 2019-09-03
Authors: Joseph S Bresee; Kathryn E Lafond; Margaret McCarron; Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner; Susan Y Chu; Malembe Ebama; Alan R Hinman; Anonh Xeuatvongsa; Silvia Bino; Dominique Richardson; Rachael M Porter; Ann Moen; Mark McKinlay Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-07-06 Impact factor: 3.641