Acceptance of seasonal and pandemic a (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccination by healthcare workers in a french teaching hospital

Introduction

The aim of this study was to highlight the perceived risks, behavioural changes and the rate of acceptance of seasonal and pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccines by healthcare workers (HCWs) in a French Teaching Hospital.

Methods

We sampled HCWs from the Angers French Teaching Hospital (France) using a cross-sectional intercept design during phase 5A of the 2009 French National Plan for the Prevention and Control of ‘Pandemic Influenza’. From November 2009 to February 2010, HCWs were approached in the workplace to undertake the survey. The primary endpoint assessed immunization coverage among HCWs who had contact with at-risk-patients.

Results

Of the 532 HCWs who answered the questionnaire, 119 (22.4%) had received a seasonal vaccine and 194 (36.5%) the H1N1 pandemic vaccine. Coverage rate was significantly higher among physicians (45% for the seasonal vaccine, 61% for the H1N1 vaccine). The main reasons given for acceptance of the seasonal vaccine were “protection of the patient” and “self-protection”, whereas the main arguments against were “low risk of being infected” and “doubts about vaccine safety”. For the H1N1 vaccine, reasons for vaccination were to “protect the patient” and “protect the family”. The main arguments against were “fear of side effects” and “doubts about vaccine safety”.

Conclusion

This study emphasizes the lack of perception by HCWs of the importance of being immunized against seasonal and pandemic A (H1N1) 2009 Influenza. In the future, particular efforts are needed, during vaccination campaigns, to provide more information to HCWs regarding development process and safety of such vaccines.     

Factors influencing uptake of influenza A (H1N1) vaccine amongst healthcare workers in a regional pediatric centre: lessons for improving vaccination rates

Background

Influenza A (H1N1) vaccination has been recommended for all frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) in the UK since October 2009, to protect individuals and their patients from infection. Understanding the factors influencing vaccine uptake by HCW may improve future vaccination programmes in current and subsequent years.

Aims

To assess the uptake of influenza A (H1N1) vaccine, and factors affecting vaccine uptake, in frontline healthcare workers in a large pediatric hospital.

Method

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey conducted in a regional Pediatric Hospital in Scotland incorporating intensive care and ECMO services. One page, anonymised questionnaires were distributed to all frontline HCW in high risk departments of the hospital.

Results

260 questionnaires were completed, capturing an estimated 52% of all staff. Vaccination rate was 49.6%, and was significantly higher amongst doctors (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.5, P = 0.005). Commonest reasons for vaccine uptake were high risk of contact with H1N1 (88%) and responsibility to protect patients (71%). Uncertainty about vaccine side-effects (47%), concern about vaccine safety (33%) and being too busy to attend the vaccine clinic (22%) were the commonest reasons for non-vaccination. Reasons for vaccination varied between staff grouping and department. 36% of non-vaccinated staff would accept the vaccine if offered.

Conclusions

Vaccine uptake may be increased by addressing HCW knowledge and attitudes and access to vaccine. Future vaccination programmes should include targeted education and vaccine delivery, at the convenience of staff, and in their own department.     

Motivating factors for high rates of influenza vaccination among healthcare workers

Background

Recent guidance from related regulatory agencies and medical societies supports mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers (HCW) against influenza. At St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, a pediatric oncology referral center, more than 90% of HCWs receive vaccine each year without a policy mandating immunization. Factors associated with HCW uptake of influenza vaccines have not previously been evaluated in a high compliance rate setting.

Methods

A structured, anonymous, electronic questionnaire was distributed in August 2010 to employees (HCW and non-HCW). Demographics, prior receipt of influenza vaccines, reasons for acceptance or refusal of seasonal and 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccine, and attitudes on mandatory vaccination were assessed.

Results

95.0% of 925 HCWs and 63.1% of all 3227 qualifying employees responded to the survey. 93.8% and 75.2% of HCW reported receiving seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, respectively, in the 2009-2010 season. Benefits to self and/or patients were cited as the most frequent reasons for accepting seasonal (83.5% and 78.3%, respectively) and 2009 H1N1 (85.9% and 81.1%, respectively) vaccination. 36.6% of HCWs opposed mandating influenza vaccination; 88.2% and 59.9% of whom reported receiving the seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, respectively. Violation of freedom of choice and personal autonomy were the most frequently reported reasons for opposition.

Conclusion

In this cohort of HCWs with a high influenza vaccination rate, realistic assessments of the potential benefits of vaccination appear to have driven the choice to accept immunization. Despite this, mandating vaccination was viewed unfavorably by a significant minority of vaccinated individuals. Employee concerns over autonomy should be addressed as institutions transition to mandatory vaccination policies.     

Efficacy of dual vaccination of pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza and seasonal influenza on institutionalized elderly: a one-year prospective cohort study

Background

The influenza A (H1N1) 2009 pandemic was declared by the WHO in April 2009. In Hong Kong, the vaccination program began in December 2009 in addition to the annual seasonal trivalent influenza vaccination program. The clinical efficacy of dual vaccination was unknown.

Method

From December 2009 to November 2010, a prospective 12-month cohort study on institutionalized elderly of nine nursing homes was conducted. Elderly persons who were followed up by the Hong Kong West Community Geriatric Assessment Team and had been vaccinated by the Department of Health were included. Outcome measures included all cause mortality, all cause hospitalization, hospitalization for fever on admission and hospitalization for pneumonia based on ICD-9-CM.

Results

711 elderly persons were included. 274 received both seasonal influenza vaccine and (H1N1) 2009 vaccine (H1N1-TIV), 368 received seasonal influenza vaccine only (TIV alone) and 69 received no vaccination (unvaccinated). Baseline characteristics were well matched between the groups, except there were fewer females in the TIV alone. The 12-month mortality rates of the H1N1-TIV, TIV alone and unvaccinated were 10.6%, 19.8% and 29%, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that dual vaccination in the institutionalized elderly significantly reduced all cause mortality by 54% (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.72; p < 0.001) and 74% (HR 0.26; CI 0.13-0.49; p < 0.001), compared with vaccination of seasonal vaccination alone and no vaccination, respectively. Dual vaccination also reduced all cause hospitalization, hospitalization for fever on admission and hospitalization for pneumonia compared with seasonal vaccination alone and the unvaccinated group.

Conclusion

Dual vaccination with both H1N1 and seasonal vaccinations provided additional protection to institutionalized elderly in reducing mortality and hospitalization.     

Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about seasonal influenza and H1N1 vaccinations in a low-income, public health clinic population

Objective

The Public Health Center Vaccine Survey (PHCVS) examines the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about seasonal influenza and H1N1 vaccinations in a largely low-income, urban, public health clinic population in Los Angeles County, USA.

Design

A cross-sectional survey of vulnerable individuals at risk for severe influenza infection was conducted in one of the nation's largest local public health jurisdictions.

Subjects

A total of 1541 clinic patients were recruited in the waiting rooms of five large public health centers in Los Angeles County from June to August, 2010.

Results

Among prospective respondents who met eligibility criteria, 92% completed the survey. The majority was black or Latino and most were between the ages of 18 and 44 years. More than half were unemployed; two-thirds had no health insurance; and nearly one-half reported having a high school education or less. About one-fifth reported they had received the H1N1 vaccine during the previous flu season. In comparative analyses, negative beliefs about vaccine safety and efficacy were highly predictive of H1N1 vaccination. Blacks were less likely than non-black respondents to report receiving the H1N1 vaccine (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.6-1.0). Blacks were also less likely than other respondents to agree that vaccines can prevent disease (OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.3-0.5), that vaccines are safe (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.4-0.6), and that they trust doctors/clinicians who recommend vaccines (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.4-0.7).

Conclusions

Study findings provide a useful risk profile of vulnerable groups in Los Angeles County, which may be generalizable to other urban jurisdictions in the United States. They also describe real world situations that can be used to forecast potential challenges that vaccine beliefs may pose to national as well as local influenza pandemic planning and response, especially for communities with limited access to these preventive services.     

Safety of MF-59 adjuvanted vaccine for pandemic influenza: results of the vaccination campaign in an Italian health district

Background

The occurrence of pandemic H1N1 influenza in 2009 led health authorities to promptly start massive vaccination campaigns. Due to the need of shortening time for development and approval, the pandemic vaccine was prepared by mock-up strategy, and limited safety data were available upon starting vaccine administration.

Aims

To determine the frequencies and clinical features of adverse events (AEs) observed in a population of subjects of an Italian health district receiving pandemic vaccination. The risk for the development of at least one AE was calculated for patients receiving H1N1 vaccine only or H1N1 + seasonal vaccine.

Methods

This prospective observational study was performed on the population of La Spezia Health District scheduled to receive pandemic MF-59-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine. Subjects were enrolled at the time of vaccine administration and followed up at least for 6 months. The study population was stratified in two subgroups defined by administration of H1N1 vaccine only or H1N1 + seasonal vaccine. AEs were recorded during the first hour following vaccine administration (early AEs) and through periodic telephonic interviews (delayed AEs).

Results

An overall number of 506 subjects receiving pandemic vaccine were enrolled (H1N1 only: 131 subjects; H1N1 + seasonal: 375 subjects). 233 AEs occurred throughout the study period. Among them, 211 were resolved, while 22 were ongoing at the last available follow-up. Adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for the development of at least one AE was 1.14 (0.77-1.69) for H1N1 only group vs H1N1 + seasonal group. Patients with a nervous system AE were more frequent in the H1N1 + seasonal group (adjusted IRR: 2.33; 95%CI: 1.04-5.23). Only two cases of ischemic stroke, both in the H1N1 + seasonal vaccine group, occurred in patients with cardiovascular risk factors, were classified as serious AEs.

Conclusions

In the present study, the MF59-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine was generally well tolerated. AEs were usually transient and mild to moderate in intensity. Our findings support the validity of mock-up strategy for rapid development of a safe vaccine in the emergency of a pandemic influenza.     

Determinants of A (H1N1) vaccination: cross-sectional study in a population of pregnant women in Quebec

Background

Because of the risk of complication, pregnant women were a priority target for vaccination during the A (H1N1) pandemic influenza. In Quebec, 63% of pregnant women were vaccinated, which is a higher rate than vaccination against seasonal influenza. However, the behaviour of pregnant women relative to the vaccination during the H1N1 pandemic is unknown. The present study was aimed at identifying factors influencing the decision-making of pregnant women regarding H1N1 vaccination.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in February 2010 in pregnant women or in early postpartum at the Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre using a self-administered questionnaire based on the Health Belief Model (HBM). Data items collected were: socio-demographic data, vaccination status, information sources consulted, knowledge on vaccination, and the HBM dimensions: effectiveness and risks of vaccination, severity and vulnerability towards the influenza. The associations between questionnaire variables and vaccination status were assessed by univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

Of the 250 women interviewed, 95% knew that the vaccination was recommended, but only 76% received the vaccine. Variables positively associated with vaccination were late vaccination during pregnancy (OR = 7.3, 95% CI 2.1-25.3), belief in the efficacy of the vaccine (OR = 7, 95% CI 2-23.4), and consultation of the Pandémie-Québec website (OR = 4.5, 95% CI 1.5-13.4). However, the belief that the vaccine had not been adequately tested (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.35) and consultation of mainstream websites (OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.81) were associated with lower vaccination rates.

Conclusions

The vast majority of pregnant women were aware of the recommendations relative to A (H1N1) vaccination. Internet media played an important role in their decision to get vaccinated. Better information on the safety of the vaccine must be prepared for future pandemics.     

Healthcare workers and H1N1 vaccination: does having a chronic disease make a difference?

Introduction

A novel H1N1 vaccine was manufactured in response to the pandemic in 2009. This study describes the willingness to be vaccinated for H1N1 among healthcare workers (HCWs) in primary healthcare clinics with and without chronic medical conditions, their reasons for refusing vaccination and whether they sought additional information to make an informed decision for the vaccination.

Materials and methods

An anonymous survey was conducted in November 2009 among all medical, nursing, allied health and operations HCWs in nine primary care clinics in Singapore. Participants were asked if they had any chronic medical conditions associated with influenza-related complications (example: asthma, stroke, heart disease, cancer, diabetes mellitus, renal disease), their perception towards vaccination for H1N1 and against seasonal influenza within the preceding 2 years.

Results

The initial response rate was 80%, of which 711 (54.7%) of the completed surveys were analysed. Among the 711 respondents, 16.6% reported having at least 1 chronic disease. Asthma (10.8%), hypertension (10.4%) and dyslipidaemia (9.8%) were the main chronic conditions. Only 39.4% of respondents were willing to be vaccinated against H1N1. Males were 2.07 (95% CI 1.19-3.62) times more likely than females to receive the H1N1 vaccination; the 45-54 and 55+ years old were 2.12 (95% CI 1.06-4.24) and 2.44 (95% CI 1.13-5.27) times more willing than those below 25 years old; and those who considered accepting the seasonal influenza vaccine were 7.0 times more likely than those who did not (95%CI 4.48-10.92). The 2 principal barriers were “fear of side effects” and “unsure of vaccine's effectiveness”. Although 78% attended some H1N1-related talks, only 7% of all HCWs felt that they had sufficient information. Most wanted more information about the vaccine's safety profile and contraindications.

Conclusion

Fewer than 40% of HCWs expressed willingness to receive the H1N1 vaccination, lower than past rates of influenza vaccine. HCWs in primary care clinics who had a chronic condition did not perceive themselves to be at higher risk of developing H1N1-related complications and were not more willing than the rest of the HCWs to accept H1N1 vaccination. Vaccine's side effects and effectiveness were the main concerns. Uptake of H1N1 vaccine may improve with targeted health information covering the vaccine's safety profile.     

Behavioral change with influenza vaccination: factors influencing increased uptake of the pandemic H1N1 versus seasonal influenza vaccine in health care personnel

Background

Many health care personnel (HCP) choose not to get vaccinated against influenza despite recommendations to do so. The pH1N1 epidemic gave a unique opportunity to evaluate the attitudes to influenza vaccination of a group of HCP who routinely choose not to get vaccinated, but accepted the pH1N1 vaccine.

Methods

HCP employed at a tertiary care hospital in Winnipeg, Canada who received the pH1N1 vaccine were invited to participate in an online survey asking about attitudes and experiences regarding seasonal and pH1N1 influenza and vaccination. Those eligible included primarily nurses, other clinical staff, and support staff, as few physicians work as employees.

Results

Of the 684 respondents (29% return rate), 504 reported routinely getting vaccinated (RV) for seasonal influenza and 180 reported routinely not getting vaccinated (NRV). These two groups had different attitude towards the two strains of influenza, with markedly lower level of concern about seasonal influenza than pH1N1 for the NRV group. The contrast was especially notable regarding the NRV's view of the seriousness of the illness, their sense of exposure risk, and their confidence in the vaccine effectiveness (for all, seasonal < pH1N1, p < 0.001). The most common motivators for getting vaccinated for both NRV and RV groups related to concerns about personal or family safety, while the choice to decline seasonal vaccination related primarily to lack concern about the illness and concerns about vaccine effectiveness and safety. Coworkers were influential in the decision to get the pH1N1 vaccine for the NRV group.

Conclusion

For HCP who do not routinely get the seasonal vaccination, perception of risk outweighing side effect concerns appeared to be a major influence in going ahead with the pH1N1 vaccine. Educational campaigns that focus on personal benefit, engage peer champions, and address concerns about the vaccine may improve influenza vaccine uptake among health care personnel.     

The immunogenicity of a novel A (H1N1) vaccine in HIV-infected children

Background

In October 2009, the United Kingdom Department of Health recommended vaccination of high-risk groups, including children with HIV, with a novel, oil-in-water AS03_B adjuvanted Influenza A (H1N1) vaccine (Pandemrix™). There were no published data available regarding the immunogenicity of this vaccine in such children.

Objectives

This study evaluated the immunogenicity of the adjuvanted Influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in HIV-infected children immunised according to national recommendations and assessed the impact of vaccination on individual CD4 counts and HIV viral loads.

Methods

HIV-infected children attending outpatient appointments between 01 November and 31 December 2009 were offered two doses of H1N1 vaccine three weeks apart and a blood test before and 3 weeks after the second dose of vaccine. Serum antibody responses were determined by a haemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay using standard methods.

Results

Of the 39 children recruited for vaccination, 31 (median age 11.2, range 3.0-17.9 years) received both doses of vaccine and provided pre- and post-vaccination blood samples. Eight children (26%) had baseline HAI titres ≥1:32. After vaccination, 29 children (94%, 95% CI, 78.6-99.2%) had HAI titres ≥1:32 (seroprotection), of whom 27 (87.1%, 95% CI, 70.1-96.4%) had also had a four-fold rise in titres (seroconversion). In the univariate analysis, post-vaccination geometric mean titres (GMTs) were higher among the 21 children receiving highly active anti-retroviral therapy compared with the 10 treatment-naïve children (GMT 406 [95% CI 218-757] vs. 128 [49-336]; P = 0.035), but this was no longer statistically significant when adjusted for prevaccine GMTs. There was no significant impact of vaccination on CD4+ T cell count or HIV viral load.

Conclusion

The AS03_B-adjuvanted pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) vaccine is highly immunogenic and appears to be safe in HIV-infected children.     

Workplace efforts to promote influenza vaccination among healthcare personnel and their association with uptake during the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1)

Background

Survey data suggest that, in a typical year, less than half U.S. healthcare personnel (HCP) are vaccinated for influenza. We measured workplace efforts to promote influenza vaccination among HCP in the U.S. and their association with seasonal and pandemic vaccination during the 2009-10 influenza season.

Methods

Self-reported survey data collected in June 2010 from eligible HCP (n = 1714) participating in a nationally representative, online research panel. HCP eligible for participation in the survey were those reporting as patient care providers and/or working in a healthcare setting. The survey measured workplace exposure to vaccination recommendations, vaccination requirements, on-site vaccination, reminders, and/or rewards, and being vaccinated for seasonal or H1N1 influenza.

Results

At least two-thirds of HCP were offered worksite influenza vaccination; about one half received reminders; and 10% were required to be vaccinated. Compared to HCP in other work settings, hospital employees were most (p < 0.001) likely to be the subject to efforts to promote vaccination. Vaccination requirements were associated with increases in seasonal and pandemic vaccination rates of between 31 and 49% points (p < 0.005). On-site vaccination was associated with increases in seasonal and pandemic vaccination of between 13 and 29% points (p < 0.05). Reminders and incentives were not associated with vaccination.

Conclusions

Our findings provide empirical support for vaccination requirements as a strategy for increasing influenza vaccination among HCP. Our findings also suggest that making influenza vaccination available to HCP at work could increase uptake and highlight the need to reach beyond hospitals in promoting vaccination among HCP.     

What a pandemic teaches us about vaccination attitudes of parents of children with asthma

Background

During the recent pandemic, Influenza A/H1N1 vaccine uptake remained far below the targeted rates. Associated factors regarding vaccine refusal in the general population have been reported in many studies, however the reasons behind refusals for asthmatic children have not yet been identified. We aimed to investigate Influenza A/H1N1 virus vaccine acceptance for children with asthma, to determine the attitudes and beliefs of parents concerning Influenza A/H1N1 disease and vaccine and to identify the association of asthma control parameters with vaccination.

Methods

The parents of asthmatic children aged 6–18 years participated in a cross-sectional survey study in three pediatric allergy outpatient clinics. The survey measured demographic factors, asthma control parameters, vaccination rates, and beliefs and attitudes regarding Influenza A/H1N1 vaccine.

Results

Of the 625 asthmatic children, 16.8% (n = 105) were immunized with Influenza A/H1N1 and 45.7% (n = 286) with seasonal influenza vaccine. Educational background of parents (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, for father's and mother's educational level, respectively), previous vaccination with seasonal influenza (p < 0.001), and having a family member vaccinated against Influenza A/H1N1 (p < 0.001) had a significant influence on vaccine acceptance, while fear of side effects (88.6%) was the major parental reason for refusing the vaccine. Asthma control parameters had no influence on uptake of the vaccine. Physician recommendation (84.8%) was important in the decision-making process for immunization. The statement “Children with asthma should receive swine flu vaccine” increased the likelihood of being vaccinated [OR: 2.160, (95%CI 1.135–4.111), p = 0.019].

Conclusion

Although asthmatic children are considered to be a high-priority group for Influenza A/H1N1 vaccination, we found low uptake of vaccine among our patients. Beliefs and attitudes rather than asthma control parameters influenced parental decisions for immunization. Understanding the underlying determinants for refusing the vaccine will help to improve vaccine campaigns in advance of a future outbreak.     

Determinantes de la vacunación antigripal en personal sanitario, temporada 2009-2010

Objectives

To determine vaccination coverage against seasonal influenza and the new A (H1N1) influenza virus among healthcare personnel during the 2009-2010 season and to identify its determining factors.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study among healthcare staff at the General University Hospital in Alicante (Spain) during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 influenza vaccination campaigns. The 2009-2010 vaccination campaign was subdivided into two phases. In the first phase, from 1st October to 19th November, 2009, the seasonal influenza vaccine was administered; in the second phase, from 16th November to 30th December, 2009, vaccination against the new A (H1N1) influenza virus was performed. Each of the vaccine programs was preceded by a specific vaccination promotion campaign. Healthcare staff were asked to complete a brief self-administered questionnaire containing a list of reasons for being vaccinated. Coverage during both vaccination campaigns was calculated, and the results, both overall and for each profession, were then compared using a Chi-square test.

Results

Coverage against seasonal influenza was 31% and that against the new A (H1N1) influenza virus was 22.2% (p < 0.05); these percentages were 36% and 34% respectively in medical personnel (NS), 33% and 24% respectively in nursing personnel (p < 0.001), and 21% and 12% respectively in nursing assistants (p < 0.001). The main reason given for being vaccinated was self-protection.

Conclusions

The low coverage achieved is a public health problem. Specific intervention programs should be implemented.     

Pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccination in The Netherlands: parental reasoning underlying child vaccination choices

Introduction

During the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, parents in the Netherlands were recommended to vaccinate healthy children between six months and five years of age. The aim of this study was to examine reasons for (non-)acceptance, risk perception, feelings of doubt and regret, influence of the social network, and information-seeking behavior of parents who accepted or declined H1N1 vaccination.

Methods

Data on accepters were collected via exit interviews following the second-dose vaccination round in December 2009 (n = 1227). Data on decliners were gathered in June and July 2010 with questionnaires (n = 1900); 25 parents participated in in-depth interviews.

Results

The most reported reasons for parental acceptance of H1N1 vaccination were “I don’t want my child to become sick” (43%), “Mexican flu can be severe” (10%), “the government advises it, so I do it” (6%), and “if I don’t do it, I will regret it” (6%). The most reported reasons declining the vaccination were “fear of side effects/harmful consequences” (51%), “just having a bad feeling about it” (46%), and “the vaccine was not thoroughly tested” (39%). More decliners than accepters experienced feelings of doubt about the vaccination decision (decliners 63% versus accepters 51%, p < 0.001), and decliners reported more often information-seeking behavior (decliners 76% versus accepters 56%, p < 0.001). Decliners more frequently solicited advice from their social network than accepters (decliners 72% versus accepters 61%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, accepters more often reported social influence on their vaccination decision (accepters 58% versus decliners 38%, p < 0.001) and experienced more negative feelings after their vaccination decision (accepters 8% versus decliners 2%, p < 0.001). Immigrant accepters and decliners more often had feelings of doubt and regret about the vaccination decision, solicited advice more often from their social network, and were more often influenced by this advice compared to native Dutch parents.

Conclusion

To optimize response rates in future vaccination campaigns, health authorities should provide more information on vaccine benefits and possible risks, tailoring this information to specific risk groups. Health authorities should also invest in the development and implementation of effective vaccine risk/benefit communication tools.     

Contact and communication with healthcare providers regarding influenza vaccination during the 2009-2010 H1N1 pandemic

Objective

The existence of two vaccines—seasonal and pandemic—created the potential for confusion and misinformation among consumers during the 2009-2010 vaccination season. We measured the frequency and nature of influenza vaccination communication between healthcare providers and adults for both seasonal and 2009 influenza A(H1N1) vaccination and quantified its association with uptake of the two vaccines.

Methods

We analyzed data from 4040 U.S. adult members of a nationally representative online panel surveyed between March 4th and March 24th, 2010. We estimated prevalence rates and adjusted associations between vaccine uptake and vaccination-related communication between patients and healthcare providers using bivariate probit models.

Results

64.1% (95%-CI: 61.5%-66.6%) of adults did not receive any provider-issued influenza vaccination recommendation. Adults who received a provider-issued vaccination recommendation were 14.1 (95%-CI: − 2.4 to 30.6) to 32.1 (95%-CI: 24.3-39.8) percentage points more likely to be vaccinated for influenza than adults without a provider recommendation, after adjusting for other characteristics associated with vaccination.

Conclusions

Influenza vaccination communication between healthcare providers and adults was relatively uncommon during the 2009-2010 pandemic. Increased communication could significantly enhance influenza vaccination rates.     

Serologic survey of pandemic influenza A (H1N1 2009) in Beijing, China

Objective

To examine the frequency and distribution of antibodies against pandemic influenza A (H1N1 2009) [H1N1] in populations in Beijing and elucidate influencing factors.

Methods

In January 2010, a randomized serologic survey of pandemic influenza A (H1N1 2009) was carried out. Six districts that were randomly selected with a total of 4601 participants involved in the survey have their antibody level tested by hemagglutination inhibition assay.

Results

Among the 4601 participants, the overall seropositive rate for pandemic influenza A (H1N1 2009) antibodies was 31.7%. The seropositivity prevalence in participants who received the pandemic H1N1 vaccination was 60.9%. Only 53.1% of the pandemic influenza A (H1N1 2009) seropositive individuals who had not received the vaccination experienced respiratory tract infection symptoms. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that factors such as age, occupation, dwelling type, whether the participant's family included students in school, and the vaccination history with pandemic influenza A (H1N1 2009) were associated with antibody titers (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Our data indicated that almost 30.0% of the residents had appropriate antibody titers against pandemic influenza A (H1N1 2009) in Beijing, and these titers may provide an immune barrier.     

The public's preventive strategies in response to the pandemic influenza A/H1N1 in France: distribution and determinants

Objectives

Since the emergence of the pandemic influenza A/H1N1, people were encouraged to adopt a large range of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical measures in order to counter the risk of infection. The aim of this article is to identify and to explain the different types of preventive strategies adopted by the French population.

Methods

The data are based on a phone survey conducted with a representative sample of the French population (N = 1003) in December 2009 (cooperation rate = 45.9%). Logistic regressions were used in order to characterize the different preventive behavioral patterns towards the A/H1N1 influenza.

Results

Four types of behavioral strategies have been identified: 31.5% of the respondents combined vaccination (intention or action, regardless of the nature of the vaccine) with non-pharmaceutical measures, 8.8% wanted to get exclusively vaccinated, 42.0% took non-pharmaceutical steps only and 17.7% didn't protect themselves at all. Significant social and cognitive variables were found to predict membership of each group.

Conclusions

These results indicate that a large majority of that is mainly population adopted a selective strategy rather than a cumulative one as it was recommended, a choice mostly explained by the level of risk perception.     

Vaccination and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus in active component U.S. Military, 2002-2008

Aims/hypothesis

To evaluate whether vaccination increases the risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus in active component U.S. military personnel.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among active component U.S. military personnel age 17-35 years. Individuals with first time diagnoses of type 1 diabetes between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2008 were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. We used Poisson regression to estimate risk ratios between individual vaccine exposures and type 1 diabetes. Secondary analyses were performed controlling for receipt of multiple vaccines and available demographic variables.

Results

Our study population consisted of 2,385,102 individuals followed for approximately 7,644,098 person-years of service. This included 1074 incident type 1 diabetes cases. We observed no significant increased risk of type 1 diabetes after vaccination with anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) [RR = 1.00; 95% CI (0.85, 1.17)], smallpox vaccine [RR = 0.84; 95% (CI 0.70, 1.01)], typhoid vaccine [RR = 1.03; 95% CI (0.87, 1.22)], hepatitis B vaccine [RR = 0.83; 95% CI (0.72, 0.95)], measles mumps rubella vaccine (MMR) [RR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.61, 0.83)], or yellow fever vaccine [RR = 0.70; 95% CI (0.59, 0.82)].

Conclusions

We did not find an increased risk of diagnosed type 1 diabetes and any of the study vaccines. We recommend that follow-up studies using medical record review to confirm case status should be considered to corroborate these findings.     

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis following influenza vaccination

Introduction

Approximately 5% of cases of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis are preceded by vaccination within 1 month prior to symptom onset. This occurs rarely following influenza immunization.

Methods

Case presentation and literature review.

Results

A 75-year-old woman developed acute disseminated encephalomyelitis within 3 weeks of receiving the seasonal influenza vaccine. The patient subsequently passed away, despite treatment with methylprednisolone and plasma exchange therapy.

Conclusions

The literature on post-influenza vaccination encephalomyelitis is limited. The majority of published cases had favourable outcomes following treatment with intravenous methylprednisolone. Given the limited number of cases, no incidence estimates have been published.