A-G Marien1, A Hochart1, M Lagrée1, D Diallo1, A Martinot2, F Dubos3. 1. Pediatric emergency unit & infectious diseases, hôpital R. Salengro, CHU de Lille, 2, avenue Oscar-Lambret, 59000 Lille, France. 2. Pediatric emergency unit & infectious diseases, hôpital R. Salengro, CHU de Lille, 2, avenue Oscar-Lambret, 59000 Lille, France; EA 2694, santé publique : épidémiologie et qualité des soins, université de Lille, 59000 Lille, France. 3. Pediatric emergency unit & infectious diseases, hôpital R. Salengro, CHU de Lille, 2, avenue Oscar-Lambret, 59000 Lille, France; EA 2694, santé publique : épidémiologie et qualité des soins, université de Lille, 59000 Lille, France. Electronic address: francois.dubos@chru-lille.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination coverage of children with chronic disease is insufficient in France, although a nasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has been approved. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the acceptance of nasally administered vaccines by parents of children with chronic illness, by comparing LAIV vs. injectable inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) acceptance. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational study (December 2014 to April 2015) including parents of all children vaccinated with the LAIV during the 2013-2014 influenza vaccination campaign at our university hospital. It was an opinion survey on the tolerance and acceptance of the LAIV. RESULTS: A standardized evaluation form was completed by 67/79 parents of all children who received the LAIV (mean age: 113±56 months; 64% with a chronic respiratory disease). The parents responded that vaccines in general were important (99%) but only 58% of them accepted the injectable route of administration. Of the 48 parents of children who had received both LAIV and IIV in the past, global opinion (P<0.0001) and tolerance (P<0.0001) were better for LAIV. For the future, 81% of parents would prefer LAIV, mainly because of needle absence and/or less painful character, and 18% IIV, mainly because of easier administration or habit. CONCLUSION: The better acceptance of a nasally administrated vaccine could increase vaccination coverage in the future for nasal vaccines.
BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination coverage of children with chronic disease is insufficient in France, although a nasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has been approved. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the acceptance of nasally administered vaccines by parents of children with chronic illness, by comparing LAIV vs. injectable inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) acceptance. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational study (December 2014 to April 2015) including parents of all children vaccinated with the LAIV during the 2013-2014 influenza vaccination campaign at our university hospital. It was an opinion survey on the tolerance and acceptance of the LAIV. RESULTS: A standardized evaluation form was completed by 67/79 parents of all children who received the LAIV (mean age: 113±56 months; 64% with a chronic respiratory disease). The parents responded that vaccines in general were important (99%) but only 58% of them accepted the injectable route of administration. Of the 48 parents of children who had received both LAIV and IIV in the past, global opinion (P<0.0001) and tolerance (P<0.0001) were better for LAIV. For the future, 81% of parents would prefer LAIV, mainly because of needle absence and/or less painful character, and 18% IIV, mainly because of easier administration or habit. CONCLUSION: The better acceptance of a nasally administrated vaccine could increase vaccination coverage in the future for nasal vaccines.
Authors: Mohamad-Hani Temsah; Mazin Barry; Fadi Aljamaan; Abdullah Alhuzaimi; Ayman Al-Eyadhy; Basema Saddik; Abdulkarim Alrabiaah; Fahad Alsohime; Ali Alhaboob; Khalid Alhasan; Ali Alaraj; Rabih Halwani; Nurah Maziad Alamro; Fatimah S Al-Shahrani; Amr Jamal; Sarah Alsubaie; Ziad A Memish; Jaffar A Al-Tawfiq Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 2.692