Influenza vaccination compliance among health care workers in a German university hospital

[Measles in 2010. Knowledge and vaccination status of medical students]

OBJECTIVES

In 2002, the WHO Regional Office for Europe developed a strategic plan for measles in the WHO European Region. WHO recommends that at least 95% of children receive two doses of measles vaccine. This plan targeted the elimination of measles for the year 2010 and is supported by the Federal Republic of Germany.

METHODS

Questionnaire survey, serological tests and check-up of the certificates of vaccination were offered to second year medical students of Goethe University Frankfurt/Main, Germany.

RESULTS

Only 62.3% of medical students had received two doses of measles vaccine. Serological data showed that 23.1% were not immune against measles. Important gaps of knowledge were identified in the knowledge test of the survey; less than one third of the students (n=95/324) were able to answer more than 50% of the questions correctly.

DISCUSSION

The suboptimum measles-vaccination coverage shows that the goal of eliminating measles will not be met across Europe by the target year 2010. Both occupational and public health measures need to make sure that vaccination programs should achieve a minimum of 95% coverage with two doses. In addition, the obligation to notify the authorities even of suspected cases serve the same purpose and measures to improve the knowledge of medical students are required. Consequent surveillance systems are necessary to investigate chains of measles infections. Healthcare workers play a decisive role in this issue.

[Determinants of influenza vaccination in health staff: 2009-2010 season]

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 2009 influenza H1N1 virus vaccination: compliance and safety in a single hemodialysis center

BACKGROUND

Acceptance of vaccination against pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza virus has been poor in some countries, perhaps because of concerns about safety of the new vaccine.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We prospectively examined vaccination compliance and reasons for nonvaccination in the dialysis patients and the staff of a single hemodialysis unit, after on-site vaccination with a monovalent inactivated adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine. Safety profile was evaluated and compared to that of a control group without chronic kidney disease (CKD).

RESULTS

Vaccination acceptance among dialysis patients in our unit was 68% (110/161). Dialysis patients vaccinated against H1N1 had significantly higher compliance with vaccination for seasonal influenza and pneumococcus than those unvaccinated. Three out of 34 (9%) of the unit's staff received the vaccine. Fear of side effects was the main reason for not vaccinating in both groups, while several participants did not consider pandemic influenza a serious disease. At least one adverse reaction was observed in 37/110 (33.6%) of the vaccinated dialysis patients and in 22/42 (52.4%) of the non-CKD control group, p = 0.034. Local mild pain at injection site was the most common side effect of vaccination in both groups. All side effects were of short duration and no serious adverse reactions related to the vaccine or reactions of special interest occurred during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that immunization against H1N1 virus in dialysis patients is safe and do not support the concerns about safety of the vaccine that was the main reason for nonvaccination in our study.

Promotion of seasonal influenza vaccination among staff in residential care homes for elderly in Hong Kong

Annual influenza epidemics continue to cause worldwide morbidity, mortality and societal disruption, especially among the aged residents of residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs). Vaccination remains the most effective measure to prevent influenza and its associated complications. The seasonal influenza vaccine uptake rates among RCHE staff were much lower than that among residents. In order to increase uptake of influenza vaccination among RCHE staff in Hong Kong, this study developed and evaluated amultimodal vaccine promotion program (VPP) based on identified factors affecting vaccination acceptance or refusal within the Hong Kong Chinese context. Vaccine acceptance was found to be significantly associated with belief in vaccine efficacy, duration of service, staff group and providing direct care to residents. The focus group study revealed that RCHE staff's belief in the efficacy and safety of the vaccine played a major role in vaccine acceptance. VPP effectiveness was evaluated with a cluster randomised controlled trial among RCHEs with staff vaccination rates below 50%. Compared with 2008/09, the 2009/10 mean staff vaccination rates increased significantly in both the intervention (39.4% to 59.6% (P < 0.001)) and control groups (36.3% to 47.6% (P = 0.008)). RCHE staff in the intervention group had a higher vaccination rate than in the control group (59.6% versus 47.6%, P = 0.072). This program reinforces the importance of a comprehensive and culturally sensitive approach to promote influenza vaccination for RCHE staff.

Perceptions of personal health risks by medical and non-medical workers in a university medical center: a survey study

Background

Health care workers (HCWs) are faced with many work-related choices which may depend on how they perceive risk, such as whether or not to comply with safety regulations. Little research has investigated risk perception in medical workers in comparison with non-medical workers and the extent to which risk perception differs in these groups. The current study thus investigates risk perception of medical and non-medical workers to inform and complement future research on safety compliance. The study has implications for the design of intervention programmes to increase the level of compliance of HCWs.

Methods

A survey study was conducted in which questionnaires were distributed to 6380 HCWs. The questionnaire asked for ratings of risk perception for cold, annual influenza, pandemic influenza, cancer, heart attack and food poisoning. Of 2495 returned questionnaires (response rate: 39%), 61.40% were from medical workers (24.1% of these were from physicians, 39.7% from nurses and 36.2% from paramedics) and 38.60% were from non-medical workers.

Results

Medical workers gave lower risk perception ratings than did non-medical workers for cancer, but not for other health risks. Within the medical workers, physicians rated the risk of getting a cold as higher, but of having a heart attack as lower than did nurses and paramedics; physicians also rated their risk of getting cancer as lower than did nurses. Perceived risk was higher as a function of age for pandemic influenza, cancer and heart attack, but lower for cold and annual influenza. HCWs who lived with a partner and children rated the risk of getting a cold or annual influenza higher than those who lived alone or with a partner only. Full-time HCWs gave lower ratings for annual influenza than did part-time HCWs.

Conclusions

Different base levels of risk perception between medical and non-medical workers need to be taken into account for successful implementation of safety regulations.

Intervention programmes to improve compliance with safety regulations may need to be customized for different groups as a function of how they perceive risk.

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.

Perceived risks of adverse effects and influenza vaccination: a survey of hospital employees

BACKGROUND

Many hospital employees shun influenza immunization because they want to avoid adverse reactions. We surveyed hospital employees to elucidate whether the conception of the adverse effects of vaccination stems from correct or misperceived incidence rates of vaccine adverse effects. 

METHODS

We used an anonymous self-administered paper questionnaire at a tertiary-care university hospital in Germany, in 2006. Multiple-choice questions probed respondents' knowledge about influenza, influenza vaccine and about rates of 12 possible vaccine adverse effects. We correlated overestimation of each adverse effect with failure to obtain vaccination in 2005-06, stratified by professional group. 

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 34% (652/1898). Of the 304 respondents unvaccinated in 2005-06, 127 (42%) attributed their vaccination status mainly to concerns about adverse effects. Among physicians, failure to obtain influenza vaccination was associated with the overestimation of both non-severe and severe adverse effects. Non-vaccinated nurses were significantly more likely than the vaccinated nurses to overestimate the rates of five of six non-severe adverse effects, but differed significantly in rates of overestimation of merely one of the six severe adverse effects. Overestimation of vaccine-caused absenteeism from work was negatively associated with vaccination rates among all professionals. 

CONCLUSIONS

Overestimation of the actual low rates of influenza vaccine adverse effects was associated with non-receipt of the vaccine among hospital employees. Due to our finding of different misconceptions about adverse effects, educational and promotional programmes should be targeted differentially for nurses and physicians.

Vaccination against classical influenza in health-care workers: self-protection and patient protection

BACKGROUND

Health-care workers are at risk of occupational exposure to influenza and can also transmit the disease to their patients.

METHODS

Selective literature review and description of the influenza vaccination program at the Frankfurt University Hospital.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Many studies demonstrate that influenza vaccination for health-care workers lowers morbidity and mortality in their patients. Official immunization recommendations and free, voluntary immunization programs for health-care workers have been in existence for many years. Nevertheless, influenza vaccination rates are unacceptably low. Therefore, mandatory vaccination ought to be considered. In addition, infection-control measures (covering the mouth and nose with a mask, meticulous hand disinfection) should be rigorously observed in the hospital to prevent the nosocomial transmission of influenza and other infectious diseases. Vaccination rates might be improved if health-care workers were made aware that they themselves face a risk of infection.