Raquel Muñoz-Miralles1, Sígrid Bonvehí Nadeu2, Cristina Sant Masoliver2, Ana Martín Gallego2, Julia Gómez Del Canto3, Jacobo Mendioroz Peña4, Anna M Bonet Esteve5. 1. Equip d'Atenció Primària Plaça Catalunya, SAP Bages-Berguedà-Solsonès, Gerència Territorial Catalunya Central, Institut Català de la Salut, Manresa, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: rmunozm.cc.ics@gencat.cat. 2. Equip d'Atenció Primària Plaça Catalunya, SAP Bages-Berguedà-Solsonès, Gerència Territorial Catalunya Central, Institut Català de la Salut, Manresa, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Institut de Medicina Legal i Ciències Forenses, Ministerio de Justicia, Spain. 4. Health Promotion in Rural Areas Research Group, Institut Català de la Salut, Sant Fruitós de Bages, Barcelona, Spain; Secretaria de Salut Pública, Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Health Promotion in Rural Areas Research Group, Institut Català de la Salut, Sant Fruitós de Bages, Barcelona, Spain; Unitat de Farmacia de la Catalunya Central, Institut Català de la Salut, Sant Fruitós de Bages, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a brief intervention in increasing influenza vaccination coverage compared with the usual advice in people who refuse it, and to record the main reasons for refusing to be vaccinated. METHOD: A cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in which the study population was individuals with high risk factors who initially had refused to be vaccinated against influenza. Professionals (doctors and nurses) who voluntarily accepted to participate were assigned randomly to the intervention group (brief intervention) and the control group (usual advice). RESULTS: 57 professionals recruited 524 people who had previously declined the influenza vaccination (271 in the control group and 253 in the intervention group). Brief intervention showed its effectiveness with an odds ratio of 2.48 (1.61-3.82; p<0.001), in individuals aged 60 or over, both healthy or with risk factors. The most frequent reasons for rejection of vaccination were the belief that there was no risk of getting sick (53.0%) and the fear of the side effects (33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Brief intervention is an effective tool in improving vaccination coverage in people who have initially rejected it.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a brief intervention in increasing influenza vaccination coverage compared with the usual advice in people who refuse it, and to record the main reasons for refusing to be vaccinated. METHOD: A cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in which the study population was individuals with high risk factors who initially had refused to be vaccinated against influenza. Professionals (doctors and nurses) who voluntarily accepted to participate were assigned randomly to the intervention group (brief intervention) and the control group (usual advice). RESULTS: 57 professionals recruited 524 people who had previously declined the influenza vaccination (271 in the control group and 253 in the intervention group). Brief intervention showed its effectiveness with an odds ratio of 2.48 (1.61-3.82; p<0.001), in individuals aged 60 or over, both healthy or with risk factors. The most frequent reasons for rejection of vaccination were the belief that there was no risk of getting sick (53.0%) and the fear of the side effects (33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Brief intervention is an effective tool in improving vaccination coverage in people who have initially rejected it.
Keywords:
Atención primaria de salud; Cobertura de vacunación; Consejo dirigido; Directive counselling; Educación sanitaria; Health education; Influenza vaccines; Primary health care; Vaccination coverage; Vacunas contra la gripe