Survey of state practices during the 2004-2005 influenza vaccine shortage

To describe state-level actions and policies during the 2004-2005 influenza vaccine shortage and determine whether these or other factors were related to vaccination coverage, we surveyed all state health departments (including the District of Columbia). We included 2004-2005 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data to examine whether state-level actions, policies, or other factors like vaccine supply were related to changes in vaccination coverage in adults aged > or = 65 years from the previous non-shortage year. We found that 96% (n = 49) of states reported adopting or recommending adherence to the initial national interim influenza vaccination recommendations. Of these, at some point during the season, 22% (n = 11) reported local public health agencies issued prioritization recommendations that differed from the state health department's guidance. Eighty percent (n = 41) initiated at least one emergency response activity and 43% (n = 22) referred to or implemented components of their pandemic influenza plans. In 35% (n = 18), emergency or executive orders were issued or legislative action occurred. In a multivariable linear regression model, the availability and use of practitioner contact lists and having a relatively high vaccine supply in early October 2004 were associated with smaller decreases in coverage for adults aged > or = 65 years from the previous non-shortage season (p = 0.003, r2 = 0.26). States over-whelmingly followed national vaccination prioritization guidelines and used a range of activities to manage the 2004-2005 vaccine shortage. The availability and use of practitioner contact lists and having a relatively high vaccine supply early in the season were associated with smaller decreases in coverage from the previous non-shortage season.     

Influenza vaccination rates and motivators among healthcare worker groups.

BACKGROUND: The rate of influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs) is approximately 40%. Differences in vaccination rates among HCW groups and reasons for accepting or rejecting vaccination are poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To determine vaccination rates and motivators among different HCW groups during the 2004-2005 influenza season. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted between July 10 and September 30, 2005. SETTING: Two tertiary care teaching hospitals in an urban center. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurses, nursing aides, and other staff. Surveys were collected from 1,042 HCWs (response rate, 42%). RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of physicians (n=282) and 63% of medical students (n=145) were vaccinated, compared with 46% of nurses (n=336), 42% of nursing aides (n=135), and 29% of administrative personnel (n=144). Physicians and medical students were significantly more likely to be vaccinated than all other groups (P<.0001). Pediatricians (84%) were more likely than internists (69%) and surgeons (43%) to be vaccinated (P<.0001). Among the HCWs who were vaccinated, 33.4% received the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) and 66.6% received trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV). Vaccinated HCWs were less likely than unvaccinated HCWs to report an influenza-like illness (P=.03). Vaccination with LAIV resulted in fewer episodes of influenza-like illness than did receiving no vaccine (P=.03). The most common reason for rejecting vaccination was a concern about availability. Understanding that HCWs may transmit the virus to patients correlated with vaccine acceptance (P=.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in vaccination exist among physician specialties and employee groups, and there are inadequate vaccination rates among those with the greatest amount of patient contact, potentially providing a basis for group-specific interventions.     

Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage among adults during the 2004-2005 season

During the 2004-2005 influenza season, the supply of vaccine to the United States was significantly reduced. In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued interim recommendations for prioritizing vaccination. Given trends in racial/ethnic disparities in vaccination for influenza, the authors assessed the impact of the shortage on those historically less likely to be vaccinated. Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, they considered vaccination coverage among those non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics who had priority for being vaccinated during the 2004-2005 influenza season. The vaccine shortage had a significant negative effect on coverage among adults aged 65 years or older across the three racial/ethnic groups. Yet, the magnitude of the disparities in coverage did not change significantly from previous seasons. This finding may imply similar patterns of vaccine-seeking behavior during shortage and nonshortage years. No racial/ethnic differences were seen among adults aged 18-64 years, which likely reflects the higher percentage of health-care workers in this age group. Yearly monitoring of influenza vaccine coverage is important to assess the long-term impact of shortages on overall coverage and gaps in coverage between racial/ethnic groups.     

Access To Influenza Vaccine In East Harlem And The Bronx During A National Vaccine Shortage

In October 2004, one of the major producers of the U.S. influenza vaccine supply announced that their vaccine would not be available because of production problems, resulting in approximately half of the anticipated supply suddenly becoming unavailable. This study was part of a larger effort using community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles to distribute influenza vaccine to hard-to-reach populations. Given the extant literature suggesting economic and racial disparities in influenza vaccine access in times of adequate supply and our inability to distribute vaccine due to the shortage, we sought to examine vaccine access as well as awareness of the vaccine shortage and its impact on health-seeking behaviors in eight racially-diverse and economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods in New York City (NYC) during the shortage. In our study few people had been vaccinated, both among the general community and among high risk groups; vaccination rates for adults in priority groups and non-priority groups were 21.0% and 3.5%. Awareness of the 2004 vaccine shortage was widespread with over 90% being aware of the shortage. While most attributed the shortage to production problems, almost 20% said that it was due to the government not wanting to make the vaccine available. Many respondents said they would be more likely to seek vaccination during the current and subsequent influenza seasons because of the shortage. The target neighborhoods were significantly affected by the national influenza vaccine shortage. This study highlights the challenges of meeting the preventive health care needs of hard-to-reach populations in times of public health crisis.     

Impact of the 2004-2005 influenza vaccine shortage on immunization practices in long-term care facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the response of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) to the 2004-2005 influenza vaccine shortage and the impact on resident and healthcare worker (HCW) immunization rates. METHODS: A 12-item questionnaire was sent to 824 randomly selected LTCFs in December 2004. The following 2 open-ended questions were also asked: "How did you cope with the vaccine shortage?" and "Who helped you get your supply?" Immunization rates reported by LTCF administrators for 2003-2003 and 2003-2004 were compared with those for 2004-2005. Immunization rates were defined as the proportion of all eligible residents and HCWs who received influenza vaccine. RESULTS: Responses were received from 380 LTCFs (46.3%), which had a total of 38,447 beds. Resident mean influenza immunization rates (+/-SD) decreased from 85%+/-15.3% in 2002-2003 and 85.1%+/-15.3% in 2003-2004 to 81.9%+/-19.4% in the 2004-2005 influenza season (P=.025). The immunization rates among HCWs also decreased from 51% in 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 to 38.4% in 2004-2005 (P<.001). In response to one of the open-ended questions, 96 facilities (25.3%) reported that they obtained vaccine from 2 or more sources. Eight percent commented on specific intensified infection control efforts, and only 2.3% commented on emergency preparedness. CONCLUSIONS: The influenza vaccine shortage in 2004-2005 impacted immunization practices of LTCFs across the United States, leading to decreases in both resident and HCW vaccination rates. The significant decrease in vaccination rates in LTCFs is of concern and has broad implications for policy makers working on emergency preparedness for a possible pandemic of influenza.     

Influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women --- United States, 2010-11 influenza season

Women are at increased risk for morbidity and mortality from influenza during pregnancy. Vaccinating pregnant women for influenza can protect both the women and their infants, especially infants aged <6 months who are not old enough to receive influenza vaccination. Since 2004, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have recommended inactivated influenza vaccine for all women who are pregnant during influenza season, regardless of trimester. Before 2009, estimated influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women had been consistently low (approximately 15%). However, vaccination levels increased substantially in response to the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic to nearly 50%. To estimate influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women for the 2010-11 season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted in April 2011 among women who were pregnant any time during October 2010-January 2011. Among 1,457 survey respondents, 49% reported that they had received influenza vaccination: 12% were vaccinated before pregnancy, 32% during pregnancy, and 5% after pregnancy. Women offered influenza vaccination by a health-care provider (62%) were more likely to be vaccinated (71%) than other women (14%) and were more likely to have positive attitudes about vaccine effectiveness and safety. These results indicate that the higher vaccination level achieved the previous season (2009-10) was sustained and emphasize the critical role of health-care providers in promoting influenza vaccination. Continued efforts are needed to encourage health-care providers to strongly recommend and offer influenza vaccination to pregnant patients to protect both the mothers and their infants.     

Impact of the 2004 Influenza Vaccine Shortage on Patients from Inner City Health Centers

In the fall of 2004, the FDA and British authorities suspended the license of one of only two manufacturers that provided the US supply of inactivated influenza vaccine. With a 50% reduction in supply, a severe vaccine shortage resulted. This situation necessitated the development of priority groups for vaccination including those ≥65 years, when ordinarily, influenza vaccine is recommended for those ≥50 years old. A sample of patients ≥50 years old (n = 336), who had been seen at one of four inner-city health centers, was interviewed in summer 2005 using computer-assisted telephone interviewing. Associations of survey responses were examined for three groups: those vaccinated in the 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 influenza seasons (n = 142), those vaccinated in 2003–2004 but not vaccinated in 2004–2005 because of the shortage (n = 63), and those unvaccinated in both seasons (n = 83). Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors significantly influencing the likelihood of vaccination status. A significantly larger proportion of patients 50–64 years of age were unvaccinated due to the shortage (73%) compared to those who were vaccinated during both seasons (36%, P < 0.001), but there were no racial disparities in vaccination rates. Compared with patients who were vaccinated during both seasons, those who were unvaccinated due to the shortage were more frequently employed, self-reported their health positively, saw their physician less frequently, rated the US government’s response to the shortage as “terrible,” and blamed the US government for the shortage. Vaccination during the influenza vaccine shortage appears to have followed preferential vaccination of the CDC-established priority group (≥65 years) and did not result in racial disparities in inner-city health centers. This paper was presented at the American Academy of Family Physicians Annual Meeting held in Washington DC, September, 2006. It received a runner-up award for Family Medicine Research.     

Determinants of influenza vaccination in hard-to-reach urban populations

OBJECTIVE: Influenza vaccination rates among disadvantaged minority and hard-to-reach populations are lower than in other groups. We assessed the barriers to influenza vaccination in disadvantaged urban areas. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study, using venue-based sampling, collecting data on residents of eight neighborhoods throughout East Harlem and the Bronx, New York City. RESULTS: Of 760 total respondents, 461 (61.6%) had received influenza vaccination at some point in their life. In multivariable models, having access to routine medical care, receipt of health or social services, having tested positive for HIV, and current interest in receiving influenza vaccination were significantly associated with having received influenza vaccination in the previous year. Of participants surveyed, 79.6% were interested in receiving an influenza vaccination at the time of survey. Among participants who had never previously received influenza vaccination in the past, 73.4% were interested in being vaccinated; factors significantly associated with an interest in being vaccinated were minority race, lower annual income, history of being homeless, being uninsured/underinsured, and not having access to routine medical care. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who are unconnected to health or social services or government health insurance are less likely to have been vaccinated in the past although these persons are willing to receive vaccine if it were available.     

State-specific influenza vaccination coverage among adults aged > or =18 years--United States, 2003-04 and 2005-06 influenza seasons

Influenza epidemics occur seasonally and result in substantial morbidity and mortality among adults in the United States. Adult groups included in the 2007 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendation for annual influenza vaccination are persons aged 18-49 years with high-risk conditions (i.e., conditions associated with an increased risk for complications from influenza), persons aged > or =50 years, health-care personnel, and others who are household contacts or caregivers of persons at high risk (e.g., persons with high-risk conditions or children aged < or =59 months). In addition, adults who want to reduce the risk for becoming ill with influenza or of transmitting influenza to others should be vaccinated. Healthy People 2010 (HP2010) objectives include increasing vaccination levels to 90% for adults aged > or =65 years (objective 14-29a) and 60% for persons aged 18-64 years who have one or more high-risk conditions (objective 14-29c). From the 1992-93 through 2003-04 influenza seasons, seasonal influenza vaccination coverage estimates (based on Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System [BRFSS] data) among adults aged > or =65 years trended upward, except for three seasons (1997-98, 1999-00, and 2000-01) when no increases occurred (Figure). To evaluate recent state-specific progress toward the HP2010 objectives, CDC compared data from the 2004 and 2006 BRFSS surveys, which reflected vaccinations received during the 2003-04 and 2005-06 influenza seasons; data from the 2004-05 influenza season, which have been published previously, were not included in this comparison because that season was marked by a substantial shortage of influenza vaccine. This report describes the results of the analysis, which indicated that influenza vaccination coverage for the 2005-06 season did not return to levels observed before the vaccine shortage of 2004-05 and remained substantially below HP2010 targets. Comprehensive measures are needed to improve influenza vaccination coverage among adult populations in the United States, including increasing adoption of recommended adult immunization practices by health-care providers, raising public awareness about influenza vaccination, vaccinating throughout the influenza season, and ensuring stable supplies of readily available vaccine.     

The role of attitudes in understanding disparities in adult influenza vaccination

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccine coverage of adults aged 65 years and older persist even after controlling for access, healthcare utilization, and socioeconomic status. Differences in attitudes toward vaccination may help explain these disparities. The purpose of this study was to describe patient characteristics and attitudes toward influenza vaccination among whites and African Americans aged 65 years and older, and to examine their effect on racial disparities in vaccination coverage. METHODS: A cross-sectional telephone survey of Medicare beneficiaries in five U.S. sites, sampled on race/ethnicity and ZIP code. Multivariate analysis controlling for demographics, healthcare utilization, and attitudes toward influenza vaccination was conducted in 2005 to assess racial disparities in vaccine coverage during the 2003-2004 season. RESULTS: The analysis included 1859 white and 1685 African-American respondents; 79% of whites versus 50% of African Americans reported influenza vaccination in the past year (p < 0.00001). Both vaccinated and unvaccinated African Americans were significantly less likely than whites to report positive attitudes toward influenza vaccination. Even among respondents with provider recommendations, respondents with positive attitudes were more likely to be vaccinated than those with negative attitudes. After multivariate adjustment, African Americans had significantly lower odds of influenza vaccination than whites (odds ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval = 0.42-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: A significant gap in vaccination coverage between African Americans and whites persisted even after controlling for specific respondent attitudes. Future research should focus on other factors such as vaccine-seeking behavior.     

Racial/ethnic differences in influenza vaccination in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic differences in influenza vaccination exist among elderly adults despite nearly universal Medicare health insurance coverage. Overall influenza vaccination prevalence in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System is higher than in the general population; however, it is not known whether racial/ethnic differences exist among older adults receiving VA healthcare. Racial/ethnic differences in influenza vaccination in VA were assessed, and barriers to and facilitators of influenza vaccination were examined among veteran outpatients aged 50 years and older. METHODS: A random sample of 121,738 veterans receiving care at VA outpatient clinics during the 2003-2004 influenza season completed the mailed Survey of Health Experiences of Patients (77% response rate). Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine associations among race/ethnicity and influenza vaccination prevalence, barriers, and facilitators. Analyses were conducted during 2005 and 2006. RESULTS: Based on unadjusted prevalences, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and American Indian/Alaskan Natives were significantly less likely to be vaccinated for influenza compared to non-Hispanic whites (71%, 79%, and 74%, respectively, vs 82%). After adjustment for age, gender, marital status, education level, employment, having a primary care provider, confidence and/trust in provider, and health status, only non-Hispanic blacks remained significantly less likely to be vaccinated compared to non-Hispanic whites (75% vs 81%). Influenza vaccination barriers and facilitators varied by race/ethnic group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks were less likely to receive influenza vaccination in the VA healthcare system during the 2003-2004 influenza season. Although these differences were small, results suggest the need for further study and culturally informed interventions.     

Cross-sectional study on factors associated with influenza vaccine uptake and pertussis vaccination status among pregnant women in Germany

Pregnant women and their newborns are at increased risk for influenza-related complications; the latter also have an increased risk for pertussis-related complications. In Germany, seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for pregnant women since 2010. A dose of pertussis-containing vaccine has been recommended since 2004 for women of childbearing age if they have not been vaccinated within the past 10 years. We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey among pregnant women in February/March 2013 to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to influenza vaccination during pregnancy and to identify factors associated with their pertussis vaccination status. In total, 1025 pregnant women participated and provided information through a self-administered questionnaire. Of these, 23.2% were vaccinated against seasonal influenza during the 2012/13 season; 15.9% during their pregnancy. Major reasons for being unvaccinated (n = 686 respondents) were lack of confidence in the vaccine (60.4%) and the perception that vaccination was not necessary (40.3%). Influenza vaccination during pregnancy was independently associated with having received influenza vaccine in the previous season, having received a recommendation from a physician, a high level of vaccine-related knowledge and of perceived disease severity. In contrast, knowledge of the recommendation for regular hand-washing to prevent influenza and the perception that vaccine-related side effects were likely to occur or likely to be severe were negatively associated with vaccine uptake. Receipt of a pertussis vaccine in the past 10 years was reported by 22.5% of participants. Pertussis vaccine uptake was independently associated with living in the Eastern federal states and receiving seasonal influenza vaccination annually, while a migration background was associated with a lower uptake. To enhance vaccine uptake in pregnant women and women of childbearing age, special efforts must be undertaken to improve knowledge of both recommendations and the benefits of vaccination. Gynecologists could serve as important facilitators.     

Determinants of influenza and pertussis vaccine uptake in pregnant women in Ireland: A cross-sectional survey in 2017/18 influenza season

In Ireland seasonal influenza and pertussis vaccination during pregnancy is recommended and every year national campaigns are organised to raise awareness and improve uptake. We estimated influenza and pertussis vaccine uptake and identified factors associated with vaccination status in pregnant women in 2017/18.We conducted a face-to-face omnibus survey, with quota sampling, among women aged 18–55 years and collected socio-demographic characteristics, self-reported vaccination status, awareness of vaccine campaigns, and attitudes towards vaccination. Sample was weighted to ensure representativeness with the target population. We performed univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses on survey data.Overall, 241 pregnant women were enrolled. Influenza and pertussis vaccine uptake was 61.7% and 49.9%, respectively. Awareness of vaccine campaign and socio-economic status (SES) were associated with both influenza and pertussis vaccine uptake. The association between SES and uptake of vaccines differed by awareness. Women aware of the influenza vaccine campaign and with mid and low SES were less likely to be vaccinated, compared to those with high SES (aOR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.22–0.97; aOR = 0.27; 95%CI: 0.12–0.60, respectively); women not aware of the pertussis vaccine campaign and with mid and low SES were less likely to be vaccinated, compared to those aware and with high SES (aOR = 0.15; 95%CI: 0.04–0.48; aOR = 0.05; 95%CI: 0.01–0.24, respectively).General practitioner (GP) recommendation was the main reason for receiving influenza vaccine (39.2%), and 71.8% of women were recommended pertussis vaccination from their GPs.The survey reports moderate uptake of vaccines among pregnant women, inequalities in uptake by SES and identifies GPs as primary source for vaccine recommendation. We recommend multifaceted campaigns, by engaging GPs, to target all socio-economic groups.     

Receipt of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines in California (USA) during the 2021–2022 influenza season

BackgroundDespite lower circulation of influenza virus throughout 2020–2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, seasonal influenza vaccination has remained a primary tool to reduce influenza-associated illness and death. The relationship between the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and/or an influenza vaccine is not well understood.MethodsWe assessed predictors of receipt of 2021–2022 influenza vaccine in a secondary analysis of data from a case-control study enrolling individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 testing. We used mixed effects logistic regression to estimate factors associated with receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine. We also constructed multinomial adjusted marginal probability models of being vaccinated for COVID-19 only, seasonal influenza only, or both as compared with receipt of neither vaccination.ResultsAmong 1261 eligible participants recruited between 22 October 2021–22 June 2022, 43% (545) were vaccinated with both seasonal influenza vaccine and >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 34% (426) received >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine only, 4% (49) received seasonal influenza vaccine only, and 19% (241) received neither vaccine. Receipt of >1 COVID-19 vaccine dose was associated with seasonal influenza vaccination (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15–6.43); this association was stronger among participants receiving >1 COVID-19 booster dose (aOR = 16.50 [10.10–26.97]). Compared with participants testing negative for SARS- CoV-2 infection, participants testing positive had lower odds of receipt of 2021-2022 seasonal influenza vaccine (aOR = 0.64 [0.50–0.82]).ConclusionsRecipients of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to receive seasonal influenza vaccine during the 2021–2022 season. Factors associated with individuals’ likelihood of receiving COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines will be important to account for in future studies of vaccine effectiveness against both conditions. Participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in our sample were less likely to have received seasonal influenza vaccine, suggesting an opportunity to offer influenza vaccination before or after a COVID-19 diagnosis.     

Influenza vaccination coverage among children aged 6-59 months--eight immunization information system sentinel sites, United States, 2007-08 influenza season

Vaccination is the most effective way to prevent influenza-associated morbidity and mortality. However, influenza vaccination coverage among children historically has been low. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends annual vaccination with influenza vaccine for all children aged 6-59 months. Previously unvaccinated children and children who received only 1 vaccine dose for the first time in the previous influenza season are recommended to receive 2 influenza vaccine doses. To assess vaccination coverage among children aged 6-59 months during the 2007-08 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from the eight immunization information system (IIS) sentinel sites. For the eight sites, an average (unweighted) of 40.8% of children aged 6-23 months received 1 or more influenza vaccine doses, and an average of 22.1% were fully vaccinated. Among children aged 24-59 months, an average of 22.2% received 1 or more doses, and an average of 16.5% were fully vaccinated. These results indicate that influenza vaccination coverage among children remains low and highlight the need to identify additional barriers to influenza vaccination and to develop more effective interventions to promote vaccination of children aged 6--59 months who are at high risk for influenza-related morbidity and mortality.     

Correlation between healthcare workers' knowledge of influenza vaccine and vaccine receipt.

OBJECTIVE: Influenza vaccine receipt by healthcare workers (HCWs) is important because HCWs are at risk for occupational exposure to influenza and may act as vectors in the nosocomial transmission of influenza. HCWs were surveyed to determine whether belief in commonly held influenza vaccine misconceptions was associated with influenza vaccine acceptance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large urban teaching hospital. METHOD: A self-administered survey was used to assess nursing and physician staff influenza vaccine knowledge, current vaccination status, and potential reasons for vaccine declination. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve of 215 surveys were completed. The overall influenza vaccination rate was 73%. Physician staff were significantly more likely to have been vaccinated compared with nursing staff (82% vs 62%, respectively; P = .0009). HCWs answering the 5 influenza vaccine basic knowledge questions correctly were significantly more likely to have been vaccinated than those responding incorrectly to any question (84% vs 64%, respectively; P = .002). This association was present in the nursing group where 80% of those answering the knowledge questions correctly were vaccinated, but only 49% of those answering incorrectly were vaccinated (P = .000005). However, in the physician group, there was no significant difference in the influenza vaccination rates between those answering correctly and those answering incorrectly (P = .459). CONCLUSION: Belief in commonly held influenza vaccine misconceptions was significantly associated with influenza vaccine declination among nursing staff and may act as a barrier to greater rates of influenza vaccination. Reasons for influenza vaccine nonreceipt may differ between nursing and physician staff.     

Parental perspectives on influenza vaccination among children with asthma

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to: (1) identify modifiable factors influencing receipt of influenza vaccination among children with asthma, and (2) to evaluate the effect of heightened media attention on vaccination rates. METHODS: During November and December 2003, we interviewed parents of children with asthma about their experiences with and beliefs about influenza vaccination. We randomly selected 500 children from a study population of 2,140 children identified with asthma in a managed care organization in Massachusetts. We obtained data on influenza vaccination status from computerized medical records and determined significant factors influencing receipt of influenza vaccination. RESULTS: Children were more likely to be vaccinated if their parent recalled a physician recommendation (odds ratio [OR] 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5, 4.5), believed the vaccine worked well (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.4, 2.8), or expressed little worry about vaccine adverse effects (OR 1.3; 95% CI 1.0, 1.6), or if the child was younger (OR 1.1 per year of age; 95% CI 1.0, 1.2). During the study period, there was heightened media attention about influenza illness and the vaccine. The influenza vaccination rate for children with asthma was 43% in 2003-04 compared with 27% in 2002-03. Comparison of weekly influenza vaccination rates in 2003-04 and 2002-03 suggested that the media attention was associated with the increase in vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: Physician recommendations and parental education about influenza vaccine availability, effectiveness, and adverse effects are potentially important influences on influenza vaccination. Our findings suggest that media coverage of the risks of influenza was associated with a significant increase in vaccination rates.     

Influenza vaccination coverage among children aged 6-23 months--United States, 2006-07 influenza season

Children aged <5 years have more influenza-related medical-care visits compared with older children, and those aged <2 years are at the greatest risk for influenza-related hospitalizations. In 2002, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) encouraged annual influenza vaccination of children aged 6-23 months and then, in 2004, recommended vaccination for this group. Two doses, spaced at least 4 weeks apart, are recommended to fully vaccinate children aged <9 years who are receiving influenza vaccination for the first time. This report, based on data from the 2007 National Immunization Survey (NIS), provides an assessment of influenza vaccination coverage among children aged 6-23 months during September-December of the 2006-07 influenza season. Nationally, 31.8% of children received 1 or more doses of influenza vaccine, and 21.3% were fully vaccinated, with substantial variability among states. The findings underscore the need to increase interest in and access to influenza vaccination for more children in the United States. Further study is needed to identify knowledge deficits or logistical barriers that might contribute to continued low influenza vaccination coverage among young children.     

Effects of the year 2000 influenza vaccine delay on elderly patients' attitudes and behaviors

BACKGROUND: A substantial delay in distribution of influenza vaccine occurred in the 2000-2001 influenza season. Our objective was to quantify the impact of this delay on immunization rates, location of receipt of immunization, and patient attitudes and beliefs about the influenza vaccine. METHODS: Inner-city and suburban medical practices that received influenza vaccine supply on-time or late in the season (late-receipt) were selected. A random sample of elderly patients from each practice completed telephone interviews. RESULTS: Of 775 eligible patients, we interviewed 72%. The odds of receiving influenza vaccine in late-receipt practices compared to on-time practices did not significantly differ in either the suburban stratum (adjusted OR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.6) or the inner-city stratum (adjusted OR = 1.5, 95% CI 0.8-2.8). Very few respondents (4%-11%) reported changes in their beliefs about the vaccine, its safety or efficacy, from previous years. More patients in late-receipt practices reported receiving influenza vaccine at locations other than their regular doctor's offices in the shortage year compared with the previous year. CONCLUSIONS: The 2000-2001 influenza vaccine delay changed vaccination location, but did not change influenza vaccination rates.     

Influenza vaccination coverage rates in five European countries-a population-based cross-sectional analysis of two consecutive influenza seasons

INTRODUCTION: Influenza continues to be a considerable health problem in Europe. Vaccination is the only preventive measure, reducing mortality and morbidity of influenza in all age groups. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this survey was to assess the level of influenza vaccination coverage during two consecutive influenza seasons (2002/2003 and 2003/2004) in six European countries, to understand the driving forces and barriers to vaccination and to determine vaccination intentions for the following winter. METHODS: We conducted a random-sampling, telephone-based household survey among non-institutionalised individuals representative of the population aged 14 and over. The surveys used the same questionnaire for two consecutive winters: 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 data were used for Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 data were used for France. The data were subsequently pooled. Four target groups were determined for analysis: (1) persons aged 65 and over; (2) people working in the medical field; (3) persons suffering from chronic illness and (4) a group composed of persons aged 65 and over or working in the medical field or suffering from a chronic illness. RESULTS: The overall sample consisted of 20,118 individuals. The influenza vaccination coverage rate increased from 21.3% in the first season to 23.2% in the second season. The increase in coverage is statistically significant (p=0.01). The most frequent reasons for being vaccinated given by vaccines were: influenza, considered to be a serious illness which people wanted to avoid (55.8%), having received advice from the family doctor or nurse to be vaccinated (55.2%) and not wanting to infect family and friends (36.1%). Reasons for not being vaccinated mentioned by people who have never been vaccinated were: not expecting to catch influenza (40.4%), not having considered vaccination before (33.3%) and not having received a recommendation from the family doctor to be vaccinated (27.3%). Options encouraging influenza vaccination are: recommendation by the family doctor or nurse (53.1%), more available information on the vaccine regarding efficacy and tolerance (32.1%) and more information available about the disease (26.7%). Adjusted odds ratios for target group vaccination were between 3.6 (Germany) and 13.7 (UK). Vaccination rates among healthcare workers were generally very low. Adjusted odds ratios were between 0.7 (Germany) and 1.5 (Spain). CONCLUSION: The vaccination coverage during the second season increased in comparison to the first season. The family doctor is the most important source of encouragement for people to be vaccinated against influenza. It seems that the public would be more likely to be vaccinated if they had more information on the efficacy and tolerance of the vaccine, as well as the disease. We, therefore, suggest that family doctors be better informed on influenza vaccine and the disease itself, so that they can actively inform their patients on these topics.