Acceptance of a vaccine against pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus amongst healthcare workers in Beijing, China

Due to the advent of the new influenza A (H1N1) strain in 2009, many countries introduced mass immunization programs. Healthcare workers (HCWs) were amongst the key groups targeted for the vaccine in these programs. However, experience with the seasonal influenza vaccine has shown that there are multiple barriers related to the attitudes and perceptions of the population which influence uptake. The aim of this study was to determine pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccination rate amongst a group of Chinese HCWs and the associated factors around acceptance.A cross-sectional investigation of HCWs (doctors, nurses and technicians) from 19 hospitals in Beijing, China was conducted in January 2010. The main outcome measures were awareness, risk perception of H1N1, preventive measures and uptake of H1N1 vaccination during the pandemic. A total of 1657 HCWs completed the survey. A quarter of the participants reported receiving the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccine. Occupation (being a doctor), receiving seasonal flu vaccine and believing in the effectiveness of the vaccine were all strongly associated with accepting the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccine. Over a thousand participants (61%, 1008/1657) agreed that they were ‘concerned about the side effects of the swine flu vaccine’, while 758 (46%) were ‘concerned that the vaccine had not been tested adequately’.While studies reported high rates of willingness to receive the vaccine, in reality these did not transpire. Aside from promoting seasonal flu vaccination, authorities need to start educational campaigns much earlier in a pandemic. Programs that are simultaneously launched with the introduction of the vaccine will not be as successful, as those which have built momentum alongside the pandemic.     

Vaccination against pandemic influenza A/H1N1 among healthcare workers and reasons for refusing vaccination in Istanbul in last pandemic alert phase

Coverage of the HCWs as target population is one of the important determinants for the impact of vaccination. To determine the vaccination against the pandemic influenza A/H1N1 among HCWs, we conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey in a public hospital in Istanbul from December 7 to December 22, 2009. Out of total 941 HCWs 718 (76.3%) completed the questionnaires. Nearly one-fourth (23.1%) of the participants were vaccinated against pandemic influenza A/H1N1. Occupation (being a doctor), receiving seasonal influenza vaccine in 2009, agreement with safety of pandemic influenza A/H1N1 vaccine and being comprehend that HCWs have a professional responsibility for getting vaccinated was the strongest independent predictive factor for accepting the pandemic influenza A/H1N1 vaccine (p < .0001). The most frequent reasons for refusing pandemic vaccine were fear of side effects and doubts about vaccine efficacy. Among HCWs 59.6% were recommending pandemic influenza vaccination to a patient even if indicated. In conclusion vaccination against pandemic influenza A/H1N1 is insufficient among HCWs. Misinformed or inadequately informed HCWs are important barrier to pandemic influenza vaccine coverage of the general public also. Educational campaigns concerning HCWs should include evidence based and comprehensible information about possible adverse effects and their incidence besides the advantages of vaccine.     

Pandemic influenza A(H1N1)2009 in hospital healthcare workers in New Zealand

We evaluated A/H1N1 influenza in healthcare workers (HCWs) and in a flu room during the 2009 pandemic. The flu room aided HCW care and management by facilitating rapid diagnosis and treatment. Absence of fever was common, and symptoms were nonspecific. A higher rate of H1N1 occurred in HCWs deployed in acute services.     

Seasonal and Pandemic A (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccination coverage and attitudes among health-care workers in a Spanish University Hospital

Influenza vaccination coverage among health-care workers (HCWs) remains the lowest compared with other priority groups for immunization. Little is known about the acceptability and compliance with the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccine among HCWs during the current campaign. Between 23 December 2009 and 13 January 2010, once the workplace vaccination program was over, we conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey at the University Hospital 12 de Octubre (Madrid, Spain). Five hundred twenty-seven HCWs were asked about their influenza immunization history during the 2009–2010 season, as well as the reasons for accepting or declining either the seasonal or pandemic vaccines. Multiple logistic-regression analysis was preformed to identify variables associated with immunization acceptance. A total of 262 HCWs (49.7%) reported having received the seasonal vaccine, while only 87 (16.5%) affirmed having received the pandemic influenza (H1N1) 2009 vaccine. “Self-protection” and “protection of the patient” were the most frequently adduced reasons for acceptance of the pandemic vaccination, whereas the existence of “doubts about vaccine efficacy” and “fear of adverse reactions” were the main arguments for refusal. Simultaneous receipt of the seasonal vaccine (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.14–0.52) and being a staff (OR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.04–0.19) or a resident physician (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.05–0.50) emerged as independent predictors for pandemic vaccine acceptance, whereas self-reported membership of a priority group was associated with refusal (OR: 5.98; 95% CI: 1.35–26.5). The pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccination coverage among the HCWs in our institution was very low (16.5%), suggesting the role of specific attitudinal barriers and misconceptions about immunization in a global pandemic scenario.     

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.     

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.     

Predictors of acceptance of H1N1 influenza vaccination by FDNY firefighters and EMS workers

Background

There is a widely recognized need for vaccination of health care workers (HCWs). We undertook this study to assess the 2009-2010 H1N1 vaccination rates in ∼14,000 firefighters and emergency medical service (EMS) workers at the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) and to determine predictors of H1N1 vaccine acceptance.

Methods

After 9/11/01, FDNY developed a bio-preparedness drill where units are dispatched to FDNY-BIOPOD (biologic points of distributions) for rapid distribution of medications/vaccines in the event of a biological disaster. Since 2005, FDNY offers free, voluntary seasonal influenza vaccination during routine medical monitoring/treatment examinations and at FDNY-BIOPOD. In 2009, FDNY-BIOPOD instead offered the H1N1 vaccine. We report on FDNY H1N1 vaccination rates and on predictors of acceptance using bivariate and multivariable techniques.

Results

Overall, 10,612 (77%) FDNY workers were offered H1N1 vaccination, of whom 5831 (55%) accepted. Acceptance was 57.2% during FDNY-BIOPOD compared with 34.4% during medical monitoring/treatment exams (p = 0.0001). Workers who accepted prior seasonal influenza vaccinations were 4 times more likely to accept H1N1 vaccination (AOR = 4.4, CI₉₅ = 4.0-4.8).

Conclusion

FDNY offered H1N1 vaccination to 77% of its workforce during the 2009-2010 season. Prior seasonal vaccine acceptance and vaccination in a group setting such as FDNY-BIOPOD dramatically increased acceptance of the H1N1 vaccine. However, within a voluntary program, additional strategies are needed to further increase vaccine acceptance in first responders and other HCWs.     

2009-2010 seasonal and pandemic A (H1N1) influenza vaccination among healthcare workers

Influenza vaccination recommendations are traditionally met with low compliance by healthcare workers (HCWs). The aim of this study is to analyze influenza vaccination among HCWs following a vaccination strategy characterized by an increased effort to maximize the hospital vaccination rate. For this, 2009-2010 seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccination rates among 2739 HCWs at a tertiary university hospital were evaluated. The seasonal influenza vaccination rate was 26.7% (48.3% increase vs. 2008-2009, p = 0.0000), and 14.8% in the case of pandemic influenza. HCWs with direct patient contact showed similar seasonal (25.7%) and pandemic (15.4%) influenza vaccination rates compared to the overall rates. Physician vaccination displayed the highest rate, showing significant differences vs. total rate (38.3%, p = 0.0007 for seasonal, and 32.2%, p = 0.0000 for pandemic influenza). The areas in which the vaccination strategy was most active reflected a significant increase (32.6%, p = 0.0056 for seasonal, and 25.2%, p = 0.0000 for pandemic influenza). It therefore appears that more active campaigns might increase influenza vaccination among HCWs.     

中国首批次甲型H1N1流感疫苗上市后安全性与保护效果的研究

目的 了解和掌握由中国自行研制的甲型H1N1流感疫苗的安全性与保护效果.方法 采用描述流行病学、队列研究方法,对95 244名首批次接种甲型H1N1流感疫苗的受种者,开展安全性与流行病学保护效果评价.结果 95 244名首批次接种甲型H1N1流感疫苗人员中,累计报告不良反应人数为193例,报告率为2.03‰;其中71.0%(137/193)的病例发生在接种后24h内.有81例不良反应确认与接种疫苗有关,其中78例(96.3%)属轻微反应.所有接种对象在接种后12周内未报告吉兰-巴雷综合征.甲型H1N1流感疫苗在不考虑接种率的情况下保护率可达到80.9%.结论 甲型H1N1流感疫苗具有良好的安全性和流行病学保护效果.     

Socioeconomic status, demographics, beliefs and A(H1N1) vaccine uptake in the United States

Early vaccination against influenza viruses is a cost-effective solution to prevent contagion and reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality. In the face of pandemic viruses, such as the A(H1N1), adequate rates of vaccine uptake play a critical role in containing the spread and effects of the disease. In order to understand the reasons underlying the relatively low 2009-2010 A(H1N1) vaccination rates, we conducted an online survey of 1569 respondents drawn from a nationally representative sample of United States (U.S.) adults age 18, and older. Because prior research suggests that vaccination rates are especially low among some U.S. population subgroups, we oversampled participants from minority ethnic/racial groups and those living under the Federal Poverty Level. Our results show that A(H1N1) vaccine uptake is associated with sociodemographic factors, A(H1N1)-related beliefs and seasonal vaccination. That is, A(H1N1) vaccination is strongly associated with age, urbanicity, perceiving the A(H1N1) vaccine as safe and seasonal flu vaccine uptake. Perceptions of safety and season flu vaccination show the strongest associations with A(H1N1) uptake. The reasons people gave to decline vaccination varied by respondents’ sociodemographic group. For example, Black participants were the most likely ethnic/racial group to reported having tried to get the vaccine but found it unavailable. Together, these findings suggest some clear pointers towards strategic public health communication efforts calling for communication campaigns towards audiences segmented by social class, race/ethnicity and beliefs, often what advertisers call “psychodemographics”.     

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.     

Immunogenicity of inactivated 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine in pediatric liver transplant recipients

To assess the safety and immunogenicity of 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccination, 13 pediatric liver transplant recipients and 31 immunocompetent controls received inactivated influenza vaccine without adjuvant according to Japanese guidelines. Serious adverse events and acute allograft rejections were not observed in participants. Seroprotection rates (hemagglutinin-inhibition (HI) antibody titer ≥ 1:40) were 53.8% among recipients and 58.1% among controls (p = 0.797). Seroconversion rates (4-fold or more HI antibody rise) were 46.2% for the recipient group and 51.6% for the control group (p = 0.741). Geometric mean titers were elevated after vaccination in both groups. In comparison with the seasonal influenza vaccination, the seroconversion rate for 2009 H1N1 appeared to be higher than that for seasonal influenza antigens, and the seroprotection rate for 2009 H1N1 clearly increased after vaccination. These findings suggest that pediatric liver transplant patients may respond safely to inactivated 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines in a manner similar to immunocompetent children.     

Optimal vaccination strategies for 2009 pandemic H1N1 and seasonal influenza vaccines in humans

A randomized clinical trial was conducted to assess whether the immunogenicity of seasonal and pandemic (H1N1/09) influenza vaccines is affected by the order of vaccine administration. 151 healthy adult volunteers were randomized into three groups. All groups received one dose (15 μg haemagglutinin) each of a pandemic H1N1 vaccine and a seasonal trivalent vaccine. Group 1 received the pandemic H1N1 vaccine first, followed by the seasonal vaccine 21 days later. Group 2 received vaccinations in vice versa and Group 3 received both vaccines simultaneously. Post-vaccination blood samples were collected to determine the immunogenicity by hemagglutination-inhibition (HI), microneutralization (MN), and B cell ELISPOT assays. All three vaccination strategies were well-tolerated and generated specific immune responses. However, we found a significant difference in magnitude of antibody responses to pandemic H1N1 between the three groups. Pre- or co-vaccination with the seasonal flu vaccine led to a significant reduction by 50% in HI titre to pandemic H1N1 virus after pandemic vaccination. Pre- or co-vaccination of pandemic H1N1 vaccine had no effect on seasonal flu vaccination. MN and ELISPOT assays showed a similar effect. Vaccination with pandemic H1N1 vaccine first is recommended to avoid an associated inhibitory effect by the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine. Clinical_Trials identifier: NCT01008137.     

College students' perceptions of H1N1 flu risk and attitudes toward vaccination

College students are highly susceptible to the H1N1 virus, yet previous studies suggest that college students perceive themselves at low risk for the flu. We surveyed 514 undergraduates to assess their perceptions of H1N1 flu risk and opinions about flu vaccines. A third of respondents stated that they were not at risk of getting the H1N1 flu because they were young. Responses indicated a distrust of the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccinations; only 15.8% of participants planned on receiving H1N1 vaccination. Top reasons for refusing the H1N1 vaccine included questioning vaccine safety and effectiveness, and concerns about potential serious and/or benign side effects. Top reasons for H1N1 vaccination acceptance included receiving a doctor recommendation for the vaccine, having previously gotten a seasonal vaccine, and being at high-risk for influenza. Our findings suggest that college students are inaccurate in assessing their risk level and are unlikely to seek vaccinations.     

Determinants of 2009 A/H1N1 Influenza Vaccination Among Pregnant Women in Hong Kong

During the 2009–2010 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic, pregnant women infected with the virus experienced excess morbidity and mortality when compared with other groups. Once a vaccine was available, pregnant women were a priority group for vaccination. Only a few studies have reported on the uptake of 2009 A/H1N1 influenza vaccine among pregnant women during the pandemic and none were from Asia. The purpose of this study was to examine factors associated with 2009 A/H1N1 influenza vaccine uptake among pregnant women in Hong Kong. Using a multi-center, cross-sectional design, we recruited 549 postpartum women from four post-natal wards in Hong Kong over a 4-month period during the second wave of the A/H1N1 influenza pandemic in the winter and spring of 2010. Only 6.2% (n = 34) of participants had received the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza vaccine and 4.9% (n = 27) had received the seasonal influenza vaccine. The most common reasons for not receiving the 2009 A/H1N1 vaccine were fear of causing harm to themselves or their fetus. A high knowledge level (OR = 19.06; 95% CI 5.55, 65.48), more positive attitudes (OR = 3.52; 95% CI 1.37, 9.07), and having a family member who had the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza vaccine (OR = 7.69; 95% CI 2.92, 20.19) were independently and positively associated with vaccination. Study results show an unacceptably low uptake of the pandemic A/H1N1 influenza vaccine among pregnant women in Hong Kong. Interventions to increase influenza vaccine knowledge and uptake among this group should be a priority for future pandemic planning and seasonal vaccination campaigns.     

Accounting for personal and professional choices for pandemic influenza vaccination amongst English healthcare workers

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are encouraged to get vaccinated during influenza pandemics to reduce their own, and patients’, risk of infection, and to encourage their patients to get immunised. Despite extensive research on HCWs’ receipt of vaccination, little is known about how HCWs articulate pandemic influenza vaccination advice to patients.AimsTo explore HCWs’ uptake of the A/H1N1 vaccine during the pandemic of 2009–2010, their recommendations to patients at the time, and their anticipated choices around influenza vaccination under different pandemic scenarios.MethodWe conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with eight vaccinated and seventeen non-vaccinated HCWs from primary care practices in England. The data was analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe HCWs constructed their receipt of vaccination as a personal choice informed by personal health history and perceptions of vaccine safety, while they viewed patients’ vaccination as choices made following informed consent and medical guidelines. Some HCWs received the A/H1N1 vaccine under the influence of their local practice organizational norms and values. While non-vaccinated HCWs regarded patients’ vaccination as patients’ choice, some vaccinated HCWs saw it also as a public health issue. The non-vaccinated HCWs emphasised that they would not allow their personal choices to influence the advice they gave to patients, whereas some vaccinated HCWs believed that by getting vaccinated themselves they could provide a reassuring example to patients, particularly those who have concerns about influenza vaccination. All HCWs indicated they would accept vaccination under the severe pandemic scenario. However, most non-vaccinated HCWs expressed reticence to vaccinate under the mild pandemic scenario.ConclusionsProviding evidence-based arguments about the safety of new vaccines and the priority of public health over personal choice, and creating strong social norms for influenza vaccination as part of the organizational culture, should increase uptake of influenza vaccination among primary care HCWs and their patients.     

Does receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine predict intention to receive novel H1N1 vaccine: Evidence from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults

We analyze data on the intention of U.S. adults to receive novel H1N1 vaccine if available this fall, and studies the relationship between the intention to be vaccinated against novel H1N1 and the uptake of seasonal influenza vaccine last year. We surveyed a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (n = 2067) via the Internet between May 26th and June 8th, 2009. Our results imply a vaccination rate for novel H1N1 of 49.6%, which corresponds to roughly 115 million adult vaccinations. Moreover, novel H1N1 vaccination intentions are strongly associated with seasonal influenza vaccinations, suggesting common attitudinal barriers to both vaccines.     

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.     

上海市长宁区小学生甲型H1N1流行性感冒疫苗接种情况及影响因素分析

目的了解小学生甲型H1N1流行性感冒(甲流)疫苗接种的影响因素,为开展疫苗接种工作提供参考。方法在上海市长宁区采取分层、随机整群抽样的原则抽取1752名小学生家长进行甲流疫苗相关情况问卷调查。结果 1752名学生中,甲流疫苗接种率为42.18%,接种过季节性流行性感冒(季流)疫苗、未接种过季流疫苗、不清楚是否接种过季流疫苗的学生甲流疫苗接种率分别为48.89%、38.44%和45.11%(P<0.05)。甲流疫苗未种原因主要为家长不了解疫苗(43.04%)和认为孩子有禁忌证不能接种(32.97%)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,小学生甲流疫苗接种与其年龄(OR=0.924)、健康状况(OR=2.350)、以前是否接种过季流疫苗(OR=1.446)、母亲文化程度(初中及以下OR=0.366,高中OR=0.694)和是否想了解更多的流感疫苗知识(OR=0.734)有关。结论在进行疫苗大规模人群接种前,应遵循"健康教育先行"的原则,充分利用主流媒体进行广泛而深入的宣传,增加大众对疫苗的认可程度,才能提高疫苗的接种率。     

Vaccination against the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) among healthcare workers in the major teaching hospital of Sicily (Italy)

The aim of the study was to investigate factors involved in vaccination acceptance among healthcare workers (HCWs) and adverse reactions rates associated with pandemic influenza vaccination. The study was carried out in the major teaching hospital of Sicily from November 2009 to February 2010 on 2267 HCWs. A total of 407 (18%) HCWs were vaccinated against the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1). A logistic regression analysis indicates an increased risk of non-vaccination against pandemic influenza in females (OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.3-2.1) compared to males, in nurses/technicians/administrative workers (OR = 1.7; 95% CI = 1.3-2.2) compared to doctors/biologists, and in HCWs who were non-vaccinated against seasonal influenza in 2008-2009 (OR = 4.9; 95% CI = 3.7-6.5) compared to vaccinated HCWs. Overall, 302 (74.2%) out of 407 questionnaires distributed to vaccinated HCWs were returned within the observation period. One hundred fifty-two workers (50.3%) experienced at least one adverse reaction (30.1%, local reactions; 6.6% systemic reactions and 13.6% both of them). The most frequent side effect of vaccination was pain at the injection site (43.4%). Twelve (3.9%) out of 302 HCWs stated they experienced influenza-like illness episodes during the follow-up period. The use of an adjuvanted vaccine against pandemic influenza A (H1N1) appears to be an effective and safe preventive strategy, showing a prevalence of both local and systemic adverse reactions not very different from that seen after vaccination with non-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine. Despite this finding, vaccination coverage among HCWs remains very low, suggesting the need to implement educational campaigns directed to groups with lower coverage rates.