Motors of influenza vaccination uptake and vaccination advocacy in healthcare workers: A comparative study in six European countries |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Royal College of General Practitioners, United Kingdom;2. Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland;3. National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic;4. Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria;5. National Institute of Public Health, Prishtina, Kosovo;6. Children’s Clinic Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Transilvania University, Brasov, Romania;7. Sanofi Pasteur, Lyon, France;8. Kingston University, London, United Kingdom;1. Sanofi Pasteur, 69367 Lyon Cedex 7, France;2. Kingston Business School, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames, U.K.;3. BeCHANGE Research Group, Institute of Public Communication, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland and Institute for Global Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, U.K.;1. Department of Work and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands;2. Orbis Medisch en Zorgconcern, Sittard, The Netherlands;3. Betriebsärztlicher Dienst, Klinikum der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany;1. The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China;2. Stanley Ho Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China;3. Shenzhen Research Institute of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China;4. Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China;5. Nursing Administration (Infection Control), Yishun Community Hospital, Singapore;6. Occupational Health Division, Public Health Services, Ministry of Health, Brunei Darussalam;7. PAPRSB Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Darussalam;8. NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore;9. Health for Life Center, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH), Singapore;1. The Migrant Health Research Group, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George''s, University of London, London, UK;2. Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK;3. Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, Department of Health and Social Care, London, UK;4. Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK;5. UK Health Security Agency, London, UK;6. Population, Policy and Practice Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK;7. Our Future Health, Manchester, UK;1. Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada;2. Centre de recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada;3. Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada;1. Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Seattle Children''s Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States;2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States;3. Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle, WA, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundAnnual vaccination is the most effective way to prevent and control the health and economic burden caused by seasonal influenza. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a crucial role in vaccine acceptance and advocacy for their patients. This study explored the drivers of HCWs’ vaccine acceptance and advocacy in six European countries.MethodsHealthcare workers (mainly general practitioners, specialist physicians, and nurses) voluntarily completed a questionnaire in Bulgaria (N = 485), Czech Republic (N = 518), Kosovo (N = 466), Poland (N = 772), Romania (N = 155), and the United Kingdom (N = 80). Twelve-item scales were used to analyse sentiment clusters for influenza vaccination acceptance and engagement with vaccination advocacy. Past vaccination behaviour and patient recommendation were also evaluated. All data were included in a single analysis.ResultsFor vaccination acceptance, the main cluster (engaged sentiment: 68%) showed strong positive attitudes for influenza vaccination. A second cluster (hesitant sentiment: 32%) showed more neutral attitudes. Cluster membership was predicted by country of origin and age. The odds ratio for past vaccination in the engaged cluster was 39.6 (95% CI 12.21–128.56) although this varied between countries. For vaccination advocacy, the main cluster (confident sentiment: 73%) showed strong positive attitudes towards advocacy; a second cluster (diffident sentiment: 27%) showed neutral attitudes. Cluster membership was predicted by country of origin, age and profession, with specialist physicians being the least likely to belong to the confident sentiment cluster. HCWs characterised by confident advocacy sentiments were also more likely recommend flu vaccination. Again, this association was moderated by country of origin.ConclusionsThese data show that there is room to improve both vaccination acceptance and advocacy rates in European HCWs, which would be expected to lead to higher rates of HCW vaccination. Benefits that could be expected from such an outcome are improved advocacy and better control of morbidity and mortality related to seasonal influenza infection. |
| |
| Keywords: | Healthcare worker Influenza Vaccine Motivation Acceptance Advocacy |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
