Implementation of mandatory immunisation of healthcare workers: Observations from New South Wales, Australia

Acceptability of mandatory vaccination against influenza, measles, pertussis and varicella by workers in healthcare facilities: a national cross-sectional study, France, 2019

BACKGROUND

Vaccination of healthcare workers (HCW) aims to protect them and to reduce transmission to susceptible patients. Influenza, measles, pertussis, and varicella vaccinations are recommended but not mandatory for HCW in France. Insufficient vaccine coverage for these diseases in HCW has raised the question of introducing mandatory vaccination. We conducted a survey to estimate acceptability of mandatory vaccination for these four vaccines by HCW working in healthcare facilities (HCF) in France, and to identify associated determinants.

METHODS

In 2019, we performed a cross-sectional survey of physicians, nurses, midwives and nursing assistants working in HCF in France using a randomised stratified three-stage sampling design (HCF type, ward category, HCW category). Data were collected in face-to-face interviews using a tablet computer. We investigated the possible determinants of acceptability of mandatory vaccination using univariate and multivariate Poisson regressions, and estimated prevalence ratios (PR).

RESULTS

A total of 8594 HCW in 167 HCF were included. For measles, pertussis, and varicella, self-reported acceptability of mandatory vaccination (very or quite favourable) was 73.1% [CI95%: 70.9-75.1], 72.1% [69.8-74.3], and 57.5% [54.5-57.7], respectively. Acceptability varied according to i) HCW and ward category for these three vaccinations, ii) age group for measles and pertussis, and iii) sex for varicella. For mandatory influenza vaccination, acceptability was lower (42.7% [40.6-44.9]), and varied greatly between HCW categories (from 77.2% for physicians to 32.0% for nursing assistants).

CONCLUSION

HCW acceptability of mandatory vaccination was high for measles, pertussis and varicella but not as high for influenza. Vaccination for COVID-19 is mandatory for HCW in France. Replication of this study after the end of the COVID-19 crisis would help assess whether the pandemic had an impact on their acceptability of mandatory vaccination, in particular for influenza.

Vaccination policies for healthcare personnel: Current challenges and future perspectives

Healthcare personnel (HCP) are at occupational risk for acquisition of several vaccine-preventable diseases and transmission to patients. Vaccinations of HCP are justified to confer them immunity but also to protect susceptible patients and healthcare services from outbreaks, HCP absenteeism and presenteeism. Mandatory vaccination policies for HCP are increasingly adopted and achieve high and sustainable vaccination rates in short term. In this article we review the scientific evidence for HCP vaccination. We also address issues pertaining to vaccination policies for HCP and present the challenges of implementation of mandatory versus voluntary vaccination policies. Finally, we discuss the issue of mandatory vaccination of HCP against COVID-19.

Barriers for vaccination of healthcare workers

Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) in hospital settings remain a challenge even in countries with established (childhood-) vaccination programs. Healthcare workers (HCWs) with an updated vaccination card play an important role in reducing the risk of nosocomial spread of VPDs. Yet, in many places, HCWs report their immunization status to be unknown or not updated. In times of a global pandemic, the debate on vaccination of HCWs is as hot as ever; do HCWs have an increased responsibility to get vaccinated against VPDs? If so, how do we increase vaccination uptake rates among HCWs? Mandatory vaccination against VPDs for HCWs has been introduced in some countries, but it may cause ethical dilemmas and not be culturally acceptable everywhere. We looked at vaccination policies and HCWs' attitudes toward immunization against VPDs. We found that missing vaccine policies and lack of knowledge of VPDs, vaccination benefits, as well as inadequate organization around HCWs' immunizations were important barriers to have a complete vaccination record. A systematic approach to employees providing information of VPDs and vaccinations, going through their vaccination cards and offering antibody testing where appropriate or a shot of a missing vaccine could support staff to adhere to vaccination schemes.

What works to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening? An evidence synthesis and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) is effective but uptake is suboptimal.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) interventions for DRS attendance; describe the interventions in terms of QI components and behaviour change techniques (BCTs); identify theoretical determinants of attendance; investigate coherence between BCTs identified in interventions and determinants of attendance; and determine the cost-effectiveness of QI components and BCTs for improving DRS.

DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS

Phase 1 - systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions to increase DRS attendance (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trials registers to February 2017) and coding intervention content to classify QI components and BCTs. Phase 2 - review of studies reporting factors influencing attendance, coded to theoretical domains (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and sources of grey literature to March 2016). Phase 3 - mapping BCTs (phase 1) to theoretical domains (phase 2) and an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness of BCTs or QI components.

RESULTS

Phase 1 - 7277 studies were screened, of which 66 RCTs were included in the review. Interventions were multifaceted and targeted patients, health-care professionals (HCPs) or health-care systems. Overall, interventions increased DRS attendance by 12% [risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.14] compared with usual care, with substantial heterogeneity in effect size. Both DRS-targeted and general QI interventions were effective, particularly when baseline attendance levels were low. All commonly used QI components and BCTs were associated with significant improvements, particularly in those with poor attendance. Higher effect estimates were observed in subgroup analyses for the BCTs of 'goal setting (outcome, i.e. consequences)' (RD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.36) and 'feedback on outcomes (consequences) of behaviour' (RD 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29) in interventions targeting patients and of 'restructuring the social environment' (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26) and 'credible source' (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) in interventions targeting HCPs. Phase 2 - 3457 studies were screened, of which 65 non-randomised studies were included in the review. The following theoretical domains were likely to influence attendance: 'environmental context and resources', 'social influences', 'knowledge', 'memory, attention and decision processes', 'beliefs about consequences' and 'emotions'. Phase 3 - mapping identified that interventions included BCTs targeting important barriers to/enablers of DRS attendance. However, BCTs targeting emotional factors around DRS were under-represented. QI components were unlikely to be cost-effective whereas BCTs with a high probability (≥ 0.975) of being cost-effective at a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY included 'goal-setting (outcome)', 'feedback on outcomes of behaviour', 'social support' and 'information about health consequences'. Cost-effectiveness increased when DRS attendance was lower and with longer screening intervals.

LIMITATIONS

Quality improvement/BCT coding was dependent on descriptions of intervention content in primary sources; methods for the identification of coherence of BCTs require improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomised controlled trial evidence indicates that QI interventions incorporating specific BCT components are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared with usual care. Interventions generally used appropriate BCTs that target important barriers to screening attendance, with a high probability of being cost-effective. Research is needed to optimise BCTs or BCT combinations that seek to improve DRS attendance at an acceptable cost. BCTs targeting emotional factors represent a missed opportunity to improve attendance and should be tested in future studies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016044157 and PROSPERO CRD42016032990.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Vaccination of healthcare workers: is mandatory vaccination needed?

INTRODUCTION

Vaccinations of healthcare workers (HCWs) aim to directly protect them from occupational acquisition of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) and to indirectly protect their patients and the essential healthcare infrastructure. However, outbreaks due to VPDs continue to challenge healthcare facilities and HCWs are frequently traced as sources of VPDs to vulnerable patients. In addition, HCWs were disproportionately affected during the current measles outbreak in Europe. Areas covered: We reviewed the recent published information about HCWs vaccinations with a focus on mandatory vaccination policies. Expert commentary: Although many countries have vaccination programs specifically for HCWs, their vaccination coverage remains suboptimal and a significant proportion of them remains susceptible to VPDs. The increasing vaccination hesitancy among HCWs is of concern, given their role as trusted sources of information about vaccines. Mandatory vaccinations for HCWs are implemented for specific VPDs in few countries. Mandatory influenza vaccination of HCWs was introduced in the United States a decade ago with excellent results. Mandatory vaccinations for VPDs that may cause significant morbidity and mortality should be considered. Issues of mistrust and misconceptions about vaccinations should also be addressed.

Seasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: systematic review of qualitative evidence

Background

Most countries recommend that healthcare workers (HCWs) are vaccinated seasonally against influenza in order to protect themselves and patients. However, in many cases coverage remains low. A range of strategies have been implemented to increase uptake. Qualitative evidence can help in understanding the context of interventions, including why interventions may fail to achieve the desired effect. This study aimed to synthesise evidence on HCWs’ perceptions and experiences of vaccination for seasonal influenza.

Methods

Systematic review of qualitative evidence. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and included English-language studies which reported substantive qualitative data on the vaccination of HCWs for seasonal influenza. Findings were synthesised thematically.

Results

Twenty-five studies were included in the review. HCWs may be motivated to accept vaccination to protect themselves and their patients against infection. However, a range of beliefs may act as barriers to vaccine uptake, including concerns about side-effects, scepticism about vaccine effectiveness, and the belief that influenza is not a serious illness. HCWs value their autonomy and professional responsibility in making decisions about vaccination. The implementation of interventions to promote vaccination uptake may face barriers both from HCWs’ personal beliefs and from the relationships between management and employees within the targeted organisations.

Conclusions

HCWs’ vaccination behaviour needs to be understood in the context of HCWs’ relationships with each other, with management and with patients. Interventions to promote vaccination should take into account both the individual beliefs of targeted HCWs and the organisational context within which they are implemented.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2703-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Barriers and enablers to diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: Protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy is a serious complication of diabetes which, if left untreated, can result in blindness. Population screening among people with diabetes has been shown to be clinically effective; however, suboptimal attendance with wide demographic disparities has been reported. To develop quality improvement interventions to maximise attendance, it is important to understand the theoretical determinants (i.e. barriers and enablers) of screening behaviour. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and synthesise the modifiable barriers and enablers associated with diabetic retinopathy screening attendance.

METHODS/DESIGN

Primary and secondary studies will be included if they report perceived barriers/enablers of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance, from the perspectives of people with diabetes and healthcare providers. There will be no restrictions on study design. Studies will be identified from published and grey literature through multiple sources. Bibliographic databases will be searched using synonyms in four search domains: diabetic retinopathy; screening; barriers/enablers; and theoretical constructs relating to behaviour. Search engines and established databases of grey literature will be searched to identify additional relevant studies. Extracted data will include: participant quotations from qualitative studies, statistical analyses from questionnaire and survey studies, and interpretive descriptions and summaries of results from reports. All extracted data will be coded into domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and (for organisational level data) the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR); with domains representing theoretical barriers/enablers proposed to mediate behaviour change. The potential role of each domain in influencing retinopathy screening attendance will be investigated through thematic analysis of the TDF/ CFIR coding. Domain importance will be identified using pre-specified criteria: "frequency" and "expressed importance". Variations in perceived barriers and enablers between demographic groups (e.g., socio-economic, ethnic) will be explored.

DISCUSSION

This review will identify important barriers and enablers likely to influence attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening. The results will be used to assess the extent to which existing interventions targeting attendance address the theoretical determinants of attendance behaviour. Findings will inform recommendations for future intervention design.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016032990.

Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy - A systematic review

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts.

METHODS

A systematic review of peer reviewed (January 2007-October 2013) and grey literature (up to October 2013) was conducted using a broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy concerning vaccines. This search strategy was applied and adapted across several databases and organizational websites. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for 166 (peer reviewed) and 15 (grey literature) evaluation studies. In addition, the quality of evidence relating to a series of PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control, outcomes) questions defined by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy (WG) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria; data were analyzed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.

Are they protected? Immunity to vaccine-preventable diseases in healthcare workers at an Australian hospital

OBJECTIVE

Australian guidelines for healthcare worker (HCW) vaccination were updated in 2010, and pre-employment assessment of new employees has previously been identified as a priority. We determined the vaccination status of a cohort of existing HCWs at a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Victoria.

METHODS

Random sampling of HCWs employed prior to 2006 with unknown/incomplete immunisation status was conducted between April and August 2011. Immunity to vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) was determined serologically (hepatitis B, varicella, measles, mumps, rubella) and by questionnaire (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis), with vaccination by a nurse immuniser.

RESULTS

Overall, 95 HCWs were evaluated. Mean age and duration of employment were 47.2 and 12.6 years, respectively. Forty-seven staff (49%) required vaccination to comply with Australian immunisation guidelines: 18% were non-immune to hepatitis B, 2% to varicella, 8% to measles, 19% to mumps and 13% to rubella. HCWs without serological hepatitis B immunity were all staff with clinical roles. Total costs were $7,527.34 (mean $222.79/HCW).

CONCLUSIONS

Immunity to VPDs among existing HCWs was inadequate. About half assessed HCWs were non-immune to at least one VPD, and non-immunity to hepatitis B was high. A comprehensive assessment strategy for existing employees is required to enhance vaccination coverage and compliance with national guidelines.

IMPLICATIONS

Adequately resourced 'look-back' immunisation assessment programs are required to reduce the risks of VPDs among existing staff and patients. Review of current approaches and national consensus regarding the need for mandatory strategies would assist this process.

Seroprevalence study of B. pertussis infection in health care workers in Catalonia, Spain

Pertussis is a re-emerging infection in countries with high infant immunization coverage. Healthcare workers (HCW) are exposed and can transmit the infection to especially-vulnerable patients. Therefore, pertussis vaccination of HCW is recommended. Between June 2008 and December 2010, 460 HCW from hospital and primary healthcare centers were recruited to determine susceptibility to pertussis. IgG antibodies against pertussis (anti-pertussis ab) were measured, using a routine technique that detects antibodies against pertussis including pertussis toxin (PT) and filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA). Positive results were confirmed with a more-specific technique that only assesses anti-PT IgG antibodies. The median age was 42 years (range, 21-65), 77.3% were female. 172 were nurses, 133 physicians, 60 other clinical workers and 95 non-clinical workers. None had received pertussis vaccination since childhood. The overall prevalence of anti-pertussis antibodies was 51.7%, (95% CI 47.1-56.4). Anti-PT antibodies were determined in the 220 HCW with positive anti-pertussis antibodies: 4 (1.8%) were negative and 33 (15%) had a high titer (≥ 45 IU/mL). No significant differences between the prevalence of anti-pertussis antibodies or anti-TP antibodies were found according to age, type of occupation or type of center. Our study confirms the need for vaccination of HCW because at least half are susceptible to pertussis. High anti-PT titers found in 15% of seropositive HCW showed that they had had recent contact with B. pertussis.

A global perspective of vaccination of healthcare personnel against measles: systematic review

Measles transmission has been well documented in healthcare facilities. Healthcare personnel who are unvaccinated and who lack other evidence of measles immunity put themselves and their patients at risk for measles. We conducted a systematic literature review of measles vaccination policies and their implementation in healthcare personnel, measles seroprevalence among healthcare personnel, measles transmission and disease burden in healthcare settings, and impact/costs incurred by healthcare facilities for healthcare-associated measles transmission. Five database searches yielded 135 relevant articles; 47 additional articles were found through cross-referencing. The risk of acquiring measles is estimated to be 2 to 19 times higher for susceptible healthcare personnel than for the general population. Fifty-three articles published worldwide during 1989-2013 reported measles transmission from patients to healthcare personnel; many of the healthcare personnel were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status. Eighteen articles published worldwide during 1982-2013 described examples of transmission from healthcare personnel to patients or to other healthcare personnel. Half of European countries have no measles vaccine policies for healthcare personnel. There is no global policy recommendation for the vaccination of healthcare personnel against measles. Even in countries such as the United States or Finland that have national policies, the recommendations are not uniformly implemented in healthcare facilities. Measles serosusceptibility in healthcare personnel varied widely across studies (median 6.5%, range 0-46%) but was consistently higher among younger healthcare personnel. Deficiencies in documentation of two doses of measles vaccination or other evidence of immunity among healthcare personnel presents challenges in responding to measles exposures in healthcare settings. Evaluating and containing exposures and outbreaks in healthcare settings can be disruptive and costly. Establishing policies for measles vaccination for healthcare personnel is an important strategy towards achieving measles elimination and should be a high priority for global policy setting groups, governments, and hospitals.

Are healthcare workers immune to rubella?

Healthcare workers (HCW) have high exposure to infectious diseases, some of which, such as rubella, are vaccine-preventable. The aim of this study was to determine the immunity of HCW against rubella. We performed a seroprevalence study using a self-administered survey and obtained blood samples to determine rubella Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels in HCW during preventive examinations by five Primary Care Basic Prevention Units and six tertiary hospitals in Catalonia. Informed consent was obtained. IgG was determined using an antibody capture microparticle direct chemiluminometric technique. The odss ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Logistic regression was made to calculate adjusted OR. Of 642 HCW who participated (29.9% physician, 38.8% nurses, 13.3% other health workers and 18% non-health workers), 46.6% were primary care workers and 53.4% hospital workers. Of total, 97.2% had rubella antibodies. HCW aged 30-44 years had a higher prevalence of antibodies (98.4%) compared with HCW aged<30 years (adjusted OR 3.92; 95% CI 1.04-14.85). The prevalence was higher in nurses than in other HCW (adjusted OR: 5.57, 95% CI 1.21-25.59). Antibody prevalence did not differ between females and males (97.4% vs. 97.1%, P 0.89), type of center (97.7% vs. 96.8%, P 0.51) or according to history of vaccination (97.3% vs. 96.8%, P 0.82). Seroprevalence of rubella antibodies is high in HCW, but workers aged<30 years have a higher susceptibility (5.5%). Vaccination should be reinforced in HCW in this age group, due to the risk of nosocomial transmission and congenital rubella.

Should acellular pertussis vaccine be recommended to healthcare professionals?

The aim of this study was to describe recent changes in the epidemiology of pertussis and existing policies regarding recommended and mandatory occupational vaccinations for healthcare professionals (HCPs). The authors carried out an extensive review of references on the PubMed and SciELO databases and the official sites of the World Health Organization, Pan American Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Brazilian Ministry of Health, using the keywords pertussis, vaccines and healthcare professionals. Vaccination against pertussis is recommended for HCPs in the United States, Canada, nine European countries, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Costa Rica, Argentina and Uruguay, and in some countries it is compulsory. In Brazil, only one publication discussing the risk of pertussis among HCPs was found. Considering the reemergence of pertussis and the great number of associated hospitalizations and deaths registered in 2011, it is necessary to review public policies regarding HCP pertussis vaccination, particularly among workers in frequent contact with young babies.

Attitudes toward mandatory occupational vaccinations and vaccination coverage against vaccine-preventable diseases of health care workers in primary health care centers

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the attitudes regarding mandatory occupational vaccinations and the vaccination coverage against vaccine-preventable diseases among health care workers (HCWs) working in primary health care centers in Greece.

METHODS

A standardized questionnaire was distributed to HCWs working in all primary health care centers in Greece (n = 185).

RESULTS

A total of 2,055 of 5,639 HCWs (36.4% response rate) from 152 primary health care centers participated. The self-reported completed vaccination rates were 23.3% against measles, 23.3% against mumps, 29.8% against rubella, 3% against varicella, 5.8% against hepatitis A, 55.7% against hepatitis B, and 47.3% against tetanus-diphtheria; corresponding susceptibility rates were 17%, 25%, 18.6%, 16.7%, 87.5%, 35%, and 52.6%. Mandatory vaccinations were supported by 65.1% of 1,807 respondents, with wide differences by disease. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed higher rates of acceptance of mandatory vaccination in physicians compared with other HCW categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the fact that two-thirds of HCWs working in primary health care centers in Greece support mandatory vaccination for HCWs, completed vaccination rates against vaccine-preventable diseases are suboptimal.

Attitudes regarding occupational vaccines and vaccination coverage against vaccine-preventable diseases among healthcare workers working in pediatric departments in Greece

We studied the attitudes with regard to occupational vaccines and vaccination coverage among healthcare workers in pediatric departments. Completed vaccination rates were 33%, 33%, 41.7%, 3%, 5.8%, 69.2% and 36.3% against measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and tetanus-diphtheria, respectively. Susceptibility rates were 14.2%, 15.7%, 14.6%, 7.6%, 87.4%, 22.6% and 61.8% for measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and tetanus-diphtheria, respectively. Mandatory vaccinations were supported by 70.6% of healthcare workers, with considerable differences by target disease.

Theories of behaviour change synthesised into a set of theoretical groupings: introducing a thematic series on the theoretical domains framework

Behaviour change is key to increasing the uptake of evidence into healthcare practice. Designing behaviour-change interventions first requires problem analysis, ideally informed by theory. Yet the large number of partly overlapping theories of behaviour makes it difficult to select the most appropriate theory. The need for an overarching theoretical framework of behaviour change was addressed in research in which 128 explanatory constructs from 33 theories of behaviour were identified and grouped. The resulting Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) appears to be a helpful basis for investigating implementation problems. Research groups in several countries have conducted TDF-based studies. It seems timely to bring together the experience of these teams in a thematic series to demonstrate further applications and to report key developments. This overview article describes the TDF, provides a brief critique of the framework, and introduces this thematic series.

In a brief review to assess the extent of TDF-based research, we identified 133 papers that cite the framework. Of these, 17 used the TDF as the basis for empirical studies to explore health professionals’ behaviour. The identified papers provide evidence of the impact of the TDF on implementation research. Two major strengths of the framework are its theoretical coverage and its capacity to elicit beliefs that could signify key mediators of behaviour change. The TDF provides a useful conceptual basis for assessing implementation problems, designing interventions to enhance healthcare practice, and understanding behaviour-change processes. We discuss limitations and research challenges and introduce papers in this series.