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.     

Knowledge and attitude of Kenyan healthcare workers towards pandemic influenza disease and vaccination: 9 years after the last influenza pandemic

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of exposure and transmission of infectious respiratory pathogens like influenza. Despite the potential benefits, safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination, vaccines are still underutilized in Africa, including among HCWs.MethodFrom May-June 2018, we conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, written survey among HCWs from seven counties in Kenya and assessed their knowledge attitudes and perceptions towards pandemic influenza disease and vaccination. Using regression models, we assessed factors that were associated with the HCW’s knowledge of pandemic influenza and vaccination.ResultsA total of 2,035 HCWs, representing 49% of the targeted respondents from 35 health facilities, completed the question. Sixty eight percent of the HCWs had ever heard of pandemic influenza, and 80.0% of these were willing to receive pandemic influenza vaccine if it was available. On average, Kenyan HCWs correctly answered 55.0% (95% CI 54.0–55.9) of the questions about pandemic influenza and vaccination. Physicians (65.6%, 95% CI 62.5–68.7) and pharmacists (61.7%, 95% CI 57.9–65.5) scored higher compared to nurses (53.1%, 95% CI 51.7–54.5). HCWs with 5 or more years of work experience (55.8, 95% CI 54.5–57.0) had marginally higher knowledge scores compared to those with less experience (53.9%, 95% CI 52.5–55.3). Most participants who were willing to receive pandemic influenza vaccine did so to protect their relatives (88.7%) or patients (85.9%).ConclusionOur findings suggest moderate knowledge of pandemic influenza and vaccination by HCWs in Kenya, which varied by cadre and years of work experience. These findings highlight the need for continued in-service health education to increase the HCW’s awareness and knowledge of pandemic influenza to increase acceptance of influenza vaccination in the case of a pandemic.     

Factors influencing pandemic influenza vaccination of healthcare workers--a systematic review

Introduction

Maintaining the health and availability of Health care workers (HCW) is an essential component of pandemic preparedness. A key to protecting HCW during the H1N1 pandemic was influenza vaccination. Numerous researchers have reported on factors influencing H1N1 vaccination behaviour in various HCW groups. This systematic review aims to inform future influenza vaccine interventions and pandemic planning processes via the examination of literature in HCW H1N1 vaccination, in order to identify factors that are (1) unique to pandemic influenza vaccination and (2) similar to seasonal influenza vaccination research.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive review of literature (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, AMED, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and grey literature sources) published between January 2005 and December 2011 to identify studies relevant to HCW pH1N1 vaccine uptake/refusal.

Results

20 publications sampling HCW from different geographic regions are included in this review. H1N1 vaccine coverage was found to be variable (9–92%) across HCW populations, and self-reported vaccine status was the most frequently utilized predictor of pandemic vaccination. HCW were likely to accept the H1N1 vaccine if they perceived, (1) the H1N1 vaccine to be safe, (2) H1N1 vaccination to be effective in preventing infection to self and others (i.e. loved ones, co-workers and patients), and (3) H1N1 was a serious and severe infection. Positive cues to action, such as the access of scientific literature, trust in public health communications and messaging, and encouragement from loved ones, physicians and co-workers were also found to influence HCW H1N1 uptake. Previous seasonal influenza vaccination was found to be an important socio-demographic predictor of vaccine uptake. Factors unique to HCW pandemic vaccine behaviour are (1) lack of time and vaccine access related barriers to vaccination, (2) perceptions of novel and rapid pandemic vaccine formulation, and (3) the strong role of mass media on vaccine uptake.

Conclusions

Many of the factors that influenced HCW pandemic vaccination decisions have previously been reported in seasonal influenza vaccination literature, but some factors were unique to pandemic vaccination. Future influenza vaccine campaigns should emphasize the benefits of vaccination and highlight positive cues to vaccination, while addressing barriers to vaccine uptake in order to improve vaccine coverage among HCW populations. Since pandemic vaccination factors tend be similar among different HCW groups, successful pandemic vaccination strategies may be effective across numerous HCW populations in pandemic scenarios.     

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.     

Healthcare workers under a mandated H1N1 vaccination policy with employment termination penalty: A survey to assess employee perception

The ethical debate over mandatory healthcare worker (HCW) influenza vaccination is a heated one. Our study hospital instituted a mandatory employee influenza vaccination policy for the 2009–2010 influenza season during the highly publicized pandemic of the H1N1 “Swine Flu.” Under this mandate there was no informed declination option, and termination of employment was the consequence for noncompliance. Our objective was to examine HCW perceptions of the H1N1 influenza virus, the vaccine, and the strict mandated vaccination policy. A survey was designed, distributed, and anonymously collected. In total, 202 completed questionnaires were obtained via accidental sampling by the investigators achieving a 100% response rate. Data analysis showed that 31.7% of surveyed HCWs felt the mandate was an infringement on their rights and 3.5% of HCWs would electively seek employment elsewhere. Significantly more nurses and clerks/technicians were opposed to the mandate compared to other types of employees. 96% felt that the mandating hospital should be liable should a significant adverse effect occur from receiving the vaccine. While the mandate helped to increase HCW influenza vaccination rates dramatically, the strict consequence of employment termination created negative feelings of coercion. Adopting a policy that includes a declination option with mandatory masking during influenza season might be a more widely acceptable and still adequate approach.     

Strategic silences,eroded trust: The impact of divergent COVID-19 vaccine sentiments on healthcare workers' relations with peers and patients

BackgroundPolarized debates about Covid-19 vaccination and vaccine mandates for healthcare workers (HCWs) challenge Belgian HCWs ability to discuss Covid-19 vaccine sentiments with peers and patients. Although studies have identified drivers of HCWs vaccine hesitancy, they do not include effects of workplace interactions and have not addressed consequences beyond vaccine coverage.MethodsInterviews and focus group discussions with 74 HCWs practicing in Belgium addressed Covid-19 vaccine sentiments and experiences of discussing vaccination with peers and patients.ResultsMost participating HCWs reported difficulties discussing Covid-19 vaccination with peers and patients. Unvaccinated HCWs often feared that expressing their vaccine sentiments might upset patients or peers and that they would be suspended. Consequently, they used social cues to evaluate others’ openness to vaccine-skeptical discourses and avoided discussing vaccines. Surprisingly, some vaccine-confident HCWs hid their vaccine sentiments to avoid peer and patient conflicts. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs observed that unvaccinated patients occasionally received suboptimal care. Suboptimal care was central in unvaccinated HCW unwillingness to express their vaccine sentiments to peers. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs described loss of trust and ruptured social relations with peers and patients holding divergent vaccine sentiments.DiscussionBelgian HCW perceived Covid-19 vaccines as a risky discussion topic and engaged in “strategic silences” around vaccination to maintain functional work relationships and employment in health institutions. Loss of trust between HCW and peers or patients, along with suboptimal patient care based on vaccination status, threaten to weaken Belgium’s, and by implication, other health systems, and to catalyze preventable disease outbreaks.     

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.     

Increasing seasonal influenza vaccination among high risk groups in China: Do community healthcare workers have a role to play?

BackgroundSeasonal influenza vaccine uptake in China is low. This study aims to assess the role of community healthcare workers (HCWs) in increasing vaccination among high risk groups in China.MethodsWe analyzed data from four knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) studies on seasonal influenza vaccination in China targeting guardians of young children, pregnant women, adults aged ≥60 years, and HCWs from 2012 to 2014.ResultsThirty-one percent of pregnant women and 78% adults aged ≥60 years reported willingness to follow HCWs’ recommendations for influenza vaccination. Guardians were more likely to vaccinate their children if they received HCWs’ recommendations (35% vs. 17%, p < 0.001). Community HCWs were more likely to recommend seasonal influenza vaccination than hospital HCWs (58% vs. 28%, p < 0.001).ConclusionStudy results suggest the value of incorporating community HCWs’ recommendation for seasonal influenza vaccination into existing primary public health programs to increase vaccination coverage among high risk groups in China.     

Program cost analysis of influenza vaccination of health care workers in Albania

BackgroundSince 2012, WHO has recommended influenza vaccination for health care workers (HCWs), which has different costs than routine infant immunization; however, few cost estimates exist from low- and middle-income countries. Albania, a middle-income country, has self-procured influenza vaccine for some HCWs since 2014, supplemented by vaccine donations since 2016 through the Partnership for Influenza Vaccine Introduction (PIVI). We conducted a cost analysis of HCW influenza vaccination in Albania to inform scale-up and sustainability decisions.MethodsWe used the WHO’s Seasonal Influenza Immunization Costing Tool (SIICT) micro-costing approach to estimate incremental costs from the government perspective of facility-based vaccination of HCWs in Albania with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2018–19 season based on 2016–17 season data from administrative records, key informant consultations, and a convenience sample of site visits. Scenario analyses varied coverage, vaccine presentation, and vaccine prices.ResultsIn the baseline scenario, 13,377 HCWs (70% of eligible HCWs) would be vaccinated at an incremental financial cost of US$61,296 and economic cost of US$161,639. Vaccine and vaccination supplies represented the largest share of financial (89%) and economic costs (44%). Per vaccinated HCW financial cost was US$4.58 and economic cost was US$12.08 including vaccine and vaccination supplies (US$0.49 and US$6.76 respectively without vaccine and vaccination supplies). Scenarios with higher coverage, pre-filled syringes, and higher vaccine prices increased total economic and financial costs, although the economic cost per HCW vaccinated decreased with higher coverage as some costs were spread over more HCWs. Across all scenarios, economic costs were <0.07% of Albania’s estimated government health expenditure, and <5.07% of Albania’s estimated immunization program economic costs.ConclusionsCost estimates can help inform decisions about scaling up influenza vaccination for HCWs and other risk groups.     

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.     

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.     

Increasing healthcare workers’ uptake of seasonal influenza vaccination in a tertiary-care pediatric hospital in Greece with a low-cost,tailor-made,multifaceted strategy

BackgroundHealthcare workers’ (HCW) seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) is critical to prevent nosocomial influenza. However, HCW vaccination rates remain unacceptably low in many European institutions. A two-year three-step initiative was implemented at a tertiary-care pediatric hospital with 750 beds in Athens, Greece with the aim of increasing SIV among HCW.MethodsΑ cross-sectional anonymous survey of HCWs was conducted during the 2015–16 influenza season with the aim to evaluate attitudes, knowledge, and specific barriers and facilitators for SIV. Stratified analysis was used to identify factors associated with no prior history of influenza vaccination. Multifaceted interventions were implemented in the 2016–2017 season. These included 1) education around influenza disease and SIV, and 2) communication of availability and opportunity (time and place) of SIV. Interventions were designed to target HCWs with the lowest SIV rates in the previous three years.ResultsWe achieved a 67% response rate, with 363 respondents (106 doctors, 145 nurses, 101 other hospital staff; 11 did not provide their profession). Most (64%) had not been vaccinated in the previous three years; only 14% received the vaccine annually. Non-vaccination rates were significantly higher among nurses (76%) and cleaning and food-service workers (73%) compared to doctors (40%) (P < 0.001). Protection of self, family, patients and colleagues were the most common motivations. Concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, the belief that one does not belong to a high-risk group were the most common barriers. The interventions led to an increase in SIV uptake by the HCWs in the hospital, from 19% to 31%.ConclusionsIn a country with very low reported rates of vaccination among HCWs, a simple, low-cost, tailor-made intervention strategy can lead to an increase in SIV uptake. Stratifying data according to vaccination history may reveal a diversity of targets for improvement that might otherwise be missed.     

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and its associated factors among Palestinian healthcare workers: Expectations beaten by reality

BackgroundIn response to this extraordinary outbreak, many countries and companies rush to develop an effective vaccine, authorize, and deliver it to all people across the world. Despite these extensive efforts, curbing this pandemic relies highly upon vaccination coverage. This study aimed to determine SARS-COV-2 vaccine uptake among Palestinian healthcare workers, the factors that influence vaccination uptake, and the motivators and barriers to vaccination.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using an online anonymous self-administered questionnaire during April and May 2021, after the Palestinian Ministry of Health launched the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.The questionnaire collected socio-demographic characteristics, vaccination attitude and vaccination uptake status, and motivators and barriers towards vaccination. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the influencing factors of vaccination uptake.ResultsThe study included 1018 participants from different professions, including 560 (55.0%) females. Of the participants, 677 (66.5%; 95% CI: 63.5–69.4%) received the vaccine. Higher uptake was observed among males (aOR = 1.5; 95 %CI: 1.1–2.1), single HCWs (aOR = 1.3; 95 %CI: 1.1–1.8), HCWs working in the non-governmental sector (aOR = 1.6; 95 %CI: 1.2–2.4), higher monthly income (aOR = 1.9; 95 %CI: 1.4–2.8) and smoking (aOR = 1.5; 95 %CI: 1.1–3.5). The lower level of negative vaccination attitudes predicted higher intake; mistrust of vaccine belief (aOR = 1.6; 95 %CI: 1.4–1.7) and worries over unforeseen future effects (aOR = 1.2; 95 %CI: 1.1–1.3).ConclusionIn conclusion, the COVID-19 vaccination uptake was comparable to other studies worldwide but still needs to be improved, especially in the context of this ongoing global pandemic. It is imperative to invest resources to promote vaccination uptake and target all the vaccine misconceptions and fears.     

Exploring vaccination coverage and attitudes of health care workers towards influenza vaccine in Cyprus

Seasonal influenza is a major public health problem. Nosocomial influenza is particularly concerning as it may affect patients at high risk for complications. Unvaccinated health care workers (HCWs) are an important source of nosocomial influenza and therefore a priority target group for vaccination. Despite the fact that some European countries have high coverage rates such as UK (76.8% in season 2020/21), others continue to have low coverage rates for influenza vaccines. This study aims to estimate vaccination coverage in HCWs in Cyprus, an island country located in the Eastern Mediterranean region and describe their attitudes towards influenza vaccination.MethodsThis is a questionnaire based, nation-wide study assessing flu vaccination coverage in 2019–2020 and attitudes related to vaccination acceptance, of 962 HCWs in both public and private health care facilities. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate factors associated with flu vaccination status.ResultsFlu vaccination coverage was estimated as 31.8%. The top two reasons for getting vaccinated were to protect their family (81.4%) and themselves (77.4%). The top two reasons for not getting immunised, besides “no particular reason” (25.7%), included disbelief for vaccine effectiveness (21.5%) and safety (29.3%). The regression model showed that doctors compared to nurses had 10 times the odds of being vaccinated. Other factors positively associated with flu vaccination were encouragement by the supervisor, having sufficient knowledge on flu and flu vaccination and easy access to vaccination. A percentage of 54.8% of participants stated that COVID-19 pandemic strongly or somewhat influenced their decision to get vaccinated.ConclusionFlu vaccination coverage in HCWs in Cyprus is rather low, similar to some other European countries. Barriers and facilitators in this study can be considered in strategies to increase flu vaccination uptake. Such questionnaire-based surveys should be repeated in order to evaluate effectiveness of targeted vaccination campaigns.     

Healthcare worker’s attitude to seasonal influenza vaccination in the South Tyrolean province of Italy: barriers and facilitators

BackgroundSeasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) is an effective and safe way to prevent influenza. Public health institutions around the world consequently recommend SIV to certain groups at risk, including healthcare worker’s (HCWs). Even if SIV is free of charge, the vaccination coverage rate remains low, however. The aim of this study was to gain information on the sociodemographics, lifestyle and knowledge of HCWs associated with their attitude to SIV, also investigating the differences between different professional categories of HCW.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted over six consecutive weeks from October to December 2016. It was based on an anonymous online questionnaire administered to all employees (N = 9633) of the South Tyrolean Health Service. Coverage rates and attitudes to SIV were assessed by type of HCW. A logistic regression analysis was run to test the associations between SIV in the winter of 2015/2016 and potential predictors of the HCWs’ attitude to vaccination.ResultsIn all, 4091 employees (42.4% of the total) took part in the study. Statistically significant differences emerged between the different healthcare professions in terms of their reported vaccination rates and their attitudes to SIV. Among the different types of HCW, physicians had the highest rate of vaccination uptake. There were sociocultural and lifestyle factors associated with SIV in HCWs, as well as these worker’s professional roles and the ward where they worked. All the professionals agreed that specific training was the best way to improve HCW vaccination rates.ConclusionLow compliance with SIV among HCWs is attributable to numerous factors, some of which relate to their attitude to health issues. Commitment and accountability to patients and society should be further developed in HCWs. Specific training and information, also through informal scientific channels, should be provided to improve their knowledge of influenza and attitude to vaccination.     

Examining the views of key stakeholders regarding the provision of occupational influenza vaccination for healthcare workers in Australia

Annual vaccination of hospital healthcare workers (HCWs) may be an effective measure to reduce the transmission of healthcare associated influenza. However, vaccine coverage rates among HCWs in most public Australian hospitals are below satisfactory for a number of reasons. This study aimed to examine the opinions of key health stakeholders on current issues regarding HCW influenza vaccination.     

A systematic review of adult tetanus-diphtheria-acellular (Tdap) coverage among healthcare workers

During the last decades pertussis incidence raised globally. Several vaccination strategies targeting adults to reduce pertussis among young infants have been proposed, including vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs). The aim of this study was to analyse, by performing a systematic review of literature, published papers that evaluated Tdap coverage among HCWs, variables associated with vaccine uptake and efforts implemented to raise vaccination rates. We searched the MedLine, Embase, SCOPUS, LILACS, Web of Science and Cochrane for full-text studies that evaluated Tdap coverage in HCW. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and extracted the data. Twenty-eight studies published from 2009 to 2018 were reviewed. Most studies were conducted in the USA. Initial Tdap coverage varied from 6.1% to 63.9%. USA and France are the only two countries with studies evaluating Tdap coverage within HCWs using national data. In the USA, Tdap coverage in HCWs raised from 6.1% to 45.1% from 2007 to 2015. In the analysis of French national data, a Tdap coverage of 63.9% was observed. Five studies used interventions to raise Tdap coverage in HCWs. Two intervention studies implemented mandatory vaccination and three used educational strategies. All of them achieved coverages over 86%. Only eleven studies analysed the association of Tdap vaccination with variables of interest. Previous immunization with other vaccines recommended for HCWs (like influenza, hepatitis B and MMR) was positively associated with Tdap uptake in four studies. In conclusion, overall Tdap coverage among HCWs is low, but seems to increase over the years after the vaccine introduction and with implementation of interventions to increase coverage.     

Assessing state immunization requirements for healthcare workers and patients

BACKGROUND: Laws requiring vaccination for school entry have resulted in high coverage and reduced disease incidence; however, few data exist on the use of similar laws in other settings. This study reviews laws regulating vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients in selected healthcare delivery settings. METHODS: From September 2004 to June 2005, Lexis-Nexis and other web-based databases were searched for laws pertaining to HCW and patient vaccination in 50 states and Washington DC. Laws were grouped by population, setting, vaccine type, and voluntary versus mandatory vaccination. Data were analyzed in 2006. RESULTS: Over half of states (n=32) have laws for HCW vaccination in traditional healthcare settings (hospitals, ambulatory care), while only seven states have laws for patients in these settings. Most laws regulating vaccine administration for HCWs were voluntary; requirements for mandatory immunization were most common for institutionalized populations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant state-to-state variation exists in laws for vaccination of HCWs and patients. Additional data are needed on how such vaccination requirements affect coverage in these populations. Model legislation may be helpful to states wishing to implement immunization requirements.     

Factors associated with uptake of seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccine among clinical risk groups in the UK: an analysis using the General Practice Research Database

Background

Influenza vaccine uptake rates are low compared with uptake rates of many other vaccines. It is unclear how this differs between risk groups in the population and between pandemic and non-pandemic influenza vaccines.

Aim

This study sought to estimate uptake rates of pandemic and seasonal influenza vaccines among clinical risk groups in the UK during the 2009/2010 influenza season and to identify predictors of vaccine uptake in this cohort.

Methods

Uptake rates were calculated using data from the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD). Predictors of vaccination were identified using a modified Poisson regression with robust standard error estimates.

Results

Uptake of pandemic influenza vaccine in clinical risk groups was 40.3% and uptake of seasonal influenza vaccine was 61.3%. Factors found to be predictive of seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccination included age and the total number of underlying health conditions an individual had. At risk individuals in those age groups in which universal vaccination of the general population was recommended were more likely to have been vaccinated than individuals in age groups in which only clinical risk groups were recommended for vaccination; hence children in clinical risk groups were more likely to receive pandemic than seasonal influenza vaccine. In older people, having a history of Guillain Barré syndrome was associated with a reduced likelihood of receipt of both seasonal (IRR_adj 0.83, CI₉₅ 0.77–0.90) and pandemic influenza vaccines (IRR_adj 0.82, CI₉₅ 0.73–0.92).

Discussion

Uptake of pandemic influenza vaccine was lower than that of seasonal influenza vaccine among those at a clinically high risk of influenza related morbidity. This suggests that vaccination strategies may need to be altered during future pandemics. Recommending universal vaccination within age categories in which there is a large proportion of high risk individuals could be considered as this may result in higher uptake among clinical risk groups.