Pandemic A(H1N1)2009 influenza vaccination in Lyon University Hospitals, France: perception and attitudes of hospital workers

Identifying H1N1 and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy or refusal among health care providers: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to describe and map the evidence on COVID-19 and H1N1 vaccine hesitancy or refusal by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists in North America, the United Kingdom and the European Union, and Australia.

INTRODUCTION

Since 2009, we have experienced two pandemics: H1N1 "swine flu" and COVID-19. While severity and transmissibility of these viruses varied, vaccination has been a critical component of bringing both pandemics under control. However, uptake of these vaccines has been affected by vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The vaccination behaviors of health care providers, including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, are of particular interest as they have been priority populations to receive both H1N1 and COVID-19 vaccinations. Their vaccination views could affect the vaccination decisions of their patients.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they identified reasons for COVID-19 or H1N1 vaccine hesitancy or refusal among physicians, nurses, or pharmacists from the included countries. Published and unpublished literature were eligible for inclusion. Previous reviews were excluded; however, the reference lists of relevant reviews were searched to identify additional studies for inclusion.

METHODS

A search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Premier databases was conducted April 28, 2021, to identify English-language literature published from 2009 to 2021. Gray literature and citation screening were also conducted to identify additional relevant literature. Titles, abstracts, and eligible full-text articles were reviewed in duplicate by 2 trained reviewers. Data were extracted in duplicate using a structured extraction tool developed for the review. Conflicts were resolved through discussion or with a third team member. Data were synthesized using narrative and tabular summaries.

RESULTS

In total, 83 articles were included in the review. Studies were conducted primarily across the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The majority of articles (n=70) used cross-sectional designs to examine knowledge, attitudes, and uptake of H1N1 (n=61) or COVID-19 (n=22) vaccines. Physicians, medical students, nurses, and nursing students were common participants in the studies; however, only 8 studies included pharmacists in their sample. Across health care settings, most studies were conducted in urban, academic teaching hospitals, with 1 study conducted in a rural hospital setting. Concerns about vaccine safety, vaccine side effects, and perceived low risk of contracting H1N1 or COVID-19 were the most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy or refusal across both vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

With increased interest and attention on vaccines in recent years, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, more research that examines vaccine hesitancy or refusal across different health care settings and health care providers is warranted. Future work should aim to utilize more qualitative and mixed methods research designs to capture the personal perspectives of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, and consider collecting data beyond the common urban and academic health care settings identified in this review.

Vaccination Attitudes and Experiences of Medical Doctors in Croatia amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Social Roles Conflict?

The study aimed to investigate the range of experiences and attitudes of Croatian medical doctors (MDs) related to vaccination and vaccine hesitancy. In January 2021 three asynchronous online focus groups were held using MRQual, a web-based platform, which included 46 MDs from all three levels of the healthcare system in Croatia. NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software package, was used for the thematic analysis of collected data. The participants expressed a high level of support for the Croatian immunization program and vaccines in general. However, some skepticism was expressed regarding new vaccines and the regulatory processes of their approval. A significant number of participants raised concerns over the approval of COVID-19 vaccines, especially given their rapid development. The results also revealed that the process of communication with patients is often based on the very elaborate categorizations of patients based on previous experience, which leads to prioritizing and a communication breakup when dealing with “problematic patients”. MDs find themselves in a delicate situation where a fine balance between time-consuming communication with patients and the demands for maintaining satisfying vaccination uptake is needed. The situation arises from a social roles conflict that is embedded in wider social values and expectations, since communication problems do not arise in the doctor’s office, and therefore cannot be solved without addressing the social forces that cause trust deficiencies. To achieve better immunization results public health leaders need to better understand the social contexts and constraints of MDs vaccine-related behaviors.

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in French hospitals

Objectives

COVID-19 vaccines have become the new hope for stemming the pandemic. We aimed to assess pre-launch vaccine acceptance among hospital workers in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Administrative Region of France.

Methods

We performed a cross sectional study involving all hospital workers in 11 Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes hospitals in December 2020. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.

Results

We analyzed completed questionnaires from 1,964 respondents (78% women, mean age 42 years, 21.5% physicians, 41% private care centers). A total of 1,048 (53%) hospital workers were in favor of COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy was associated with: female gender; young age; paramedical, technical, and administrative professions (i.e., all non-medical professions); no prior flu vaccination; and employment in the private medical care sector (p < 0.05). Distrust of health authorities and pharmaceutical lobbying were the main obstacles to vaccination. Inversely, creating herd immunity and protecting patients and household members were the most frequently cited reasons in favor of vaccination. More than two-thirds of participants feared that the clinical and biological research was too rapid and worried about serious adverse effects. Most participants were interested in written information on the available vaccines, but the most vaccine-hesitant categories preferred oral information. Only 35% supported mandatory vaccination.

Conclusions

Targeted written and oral information campaigns will be necessary to improve vaccination coverage among hospital workers who show a surprisingly high hesitancy rate. Imposing mandatory vaccination could be counterproductive.

Health Systems and Services During COVID-19: Lessons and Evidence From Previous Crises: A Rapid Scoping Review to Inform the United Nations Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery

This rapid scoping review has informed the development of the November 2020 United Nations Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery, by providing a synthesis of available evidence on the impact of pandemics and epidemics on (1) essential services and (2) health systems preparedness and strengthening. Emerging findings point to existing disparities in health systems and services being further exacerbated, with marginalized populations and low- and middle-income countries burdened disproportionately. More broadly, there is a need to further understand short- and long-term impacts of bypassed essential services, quality assurance of services, the role of primary health care in the frontline, and the need for additional mechanisms for effective vaccine messaging and uptake during epidemics. The review also highlights how trust—of institutions, of science, and between communities and health systems—remains central to a successful pandemic response. Finally, previous crises had repeatedly foreshadowed the inability of health systems to handle upcoming pandemics, yet the reactive nature of policies and practices compounded by lack of resources, infrastructure, and political will have resulted in the current failed response to COVID-19. There is therefore an urgent need for investments in implementation science and for strategies to bridge this persistent research–practice gap.

Reasons for the low influenza vaccination rate among nurses in Slovenia

AIM

This study aimed to identify nurses' views on influenza vaccination and factors that might explain why they do not receive influenza vaccinations, and to examine any ethical issues encountered in the vaccination process.

BACKGROUND

All 27 European Union member states and 2 other European countries recommended influenza vaccinations for healthcare workers in 2014-15. Data show that the influenza vaccination rate among nurses in Slovenia is even lower than in other European countries. Slovenian study showed that 41.7% of the respondents had received both the pandemic and the seasonal vaccine. Doctors had the highest level of vaccine coverage, with 44.1%, followed by registered nurses at 23.4%, whereas the lowest level was found among nursing assistants and nursing technicians (17%) at a Ljubljana health clinic.

METHODS

A qualitative study was carried out. Nineteen nurses who did not receive influenza vaccination took part in the study. Thematic interviews were conducted in December 2018. Interview transcripts were read, coded, reviewed and labelled by three independent researchers. The collected material was processed using qualitative content analysis.

FINDINGS

Thirteen categories and four themes were identified and coded, which enabled an understanding of the nurses' views regarding influenza vaccination. Most of their experiences were positive in one way: they recognised the importance of vaccination and people's awareness of it. However, they did not obtain the influenza vaccine themselves. The main barriers to vaccination were doubt regarding the vaccine's effectiveness, the potential for side effects, the belief that young healthcare professionals are well protected and not at high risk, an overrated trust in their own immune systems, and the belief that pharmaceutical industry marketing was targeting them. The nurses suggested several ways that vaccination could be promoted and improved vaccination coverage achieved. These findings call attention to the importance of recognising both the need for targeted information for the nurses and the need for different approaches to healthcare provision.

Évaluation de la couverture vaccinale antigrippale du personnel du pôle de médecine d’urgence du centre hospitalo-universitaire de Toulouse lors de la saison hivernale 2017–2018

Introduction : Plus de 677 000 patients ont consulté de décembre 2016 à avril 2017 en structure des urgences (SU) en Occitanie. La proportion de patients à risque de grippe grave est plus importante en SU que dans la population générale. Les professionnels de santé doivent être vaccinés pour lutter contre la propagation du virus ainsi que pour protéger les patients. L’objectif de notre étude était de connaître le taux de vaccination antigrippale parmi les professionnels de santé travaillant dans le pôle de médecine d’urgences (PMU) d’un centre hospitalier universitaire (CHU) durant l’hiver 2017–2018.

Matériel et méthode : Nous avons réalisé une étude épidémiologique rétrospective monocentrique sur le PMU. Les critères d’inclusion étaient les professionnels de santé en poste (médecin, infirmier, interne ou aide-soignant) dans les SU de Purpan, Rangueil et/ou au service d’aide médicale urgente de Haute-Garonne (Samu 31) entre le 30 novembre 2017 et le 30 avril 2018. Le critère de jugement principal était défini par la proportion de professionnels de santé vaccinés. Les critères de jugement secondaires étaient la recherche de facteurs motivant la vaccination ou la nonvaccination. Les résultats étaient exprimés en pourcentages avec calcul de l’intervalle de confiance à 95 %.

Résultats : Deux cent trente-six professionnels de santé (59 %) ont répondu au questionnaire, 103 (44 %) étaient vaccinés contre la grippe. Les facteurs évoqués pour la vaccination étaient la protection des patients, se protéger soimême et son entourage. L’absence d’envie, l’impression de non-efficacité du vaccin, la peur des effets secondaires et la méconnaissance des principes de la vaccination étaient les facteurs retrouvés pour la non-vaccination.

Conclusion : Le taux de vaccination du personnel du PMU du CHU reste faible vis-à-vis des objectifs fixés par Santé publique France qui sont de 75 %. La mise en place d’un professionnel référent dans le service qui effectuerait une vaccination après information et sensibilisation est une piste à évaluer.

The benefit of the doubt or doubts over benefits? A systematic literature review of perceived risks of vaccines in European populations

OBJECTIVES

The success of vaccination strategies depends in part on population perceptions of benefits and risks of vaccines and related confidence in vaccination. Better knowledge of public concerns about vaccines and what is driving them is needed to inform vaccination strategies and communications. This literature reviewer examined studies on vaccine and vaccination risk perceptions and concerns across European populations.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies published between 2004 and 2014 in Europe. A descriptive analysis was performed.

FINDINGS

A total of 145 articles were selected, most of which were conducted in the UK, the Netherlands and France and studied seasonal influenza, HPV and pandemic influenza vaccination. Across all countries and vaccines, the primary area of concern was vaccine safety, followed by perceptions of low likelihood of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), perceived low severity of VPDs, beliefs that vaccines do not work, and overall lack of information. Concerns were found to be vaccine-, country- and population-specific.

CONCLUSION

In addition to identifying concerns about vaccination in Europe, this study confirmed the notion that individuals have many safety concerns about vaccination and often believe that the risks of vaccination outweigh their benefits. More research needs to be conducted to explore the impact of different types of communication strategies, which would frame the benefits of vaccination as well as risks of not vaccinating. Strategies to better inform public perceptions of vaccines should include the provision of unbiased, comprehensive information tailored to population information needs, and delivered using multiple and new communication technologies such as social media.

Barriers of Influenza Vaccination Intention and Behavior - A Systematic Review of Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy, 2005 - 2016

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccine hesitancy is a significant threat to global efforts to reduce the burden of seasonal and pandemic influenza. Potential barriers of influenza vaccination need to be identified to inform interventions to raise awareness, influenza vaccine acceptance and uptake.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to (1) identify relevant studies and extract individual barriers of seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccination for risk groups and the general public; and (2) map knowledge gaps in understanding influenza vaccine hesitancy to derive directions for further research and inform interventions in this area.

METHODS

Thirteen databases covering the areas of Medicine, Bioscience, Psychology, Sociology and Public Health were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between the years 2005 and 2016. Following the PRISMA approach, 470 articles were selected and analyzed for significant barriers to influenza vaccine uptake or intention. The barriers for different risk groups and flu types were clustered according to a conceptual framework based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and discussed using the 4C model of reasons for non-vaccination.

RESULTS

Most studies were conducted in the American and European region. Health care personnel (HCP) and the general public were the most studied populations, while parental decisions for children at high risk were under-represented. This study also identifies understudied concepts. A lack of confidence, inconvenience, calculation and complacency were identified to different extents as barriers to influenza vaccine uptake in risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Many different psychological, contextual, sociodemographic and physical barriers that are specific to certain risk groups were identified. While most sociodemographic and physical variables may be significantly related to influenza vaccine hesitancy, they cannot be used to explain its emergence or intensity. Psychological determinants were meaningfully related to uptake and should therefore be measured in a valid and comparable way. A compendium of measurements for future use is suggested as supporting information.

Vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in Europe: A qualitative study

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are often referred to as the most trusted source of vaccine-related information for their patients. However, the evidence suggests that a number of HCWs are vaccine-hesitant. This study consists of 65 semi-structured interviews with vaccine providers in Croatia, France, Greece, and Romania to investigate concerns HCWs might have about vaccination. The results revealed that vaccine hesitancy is present in all four countries among vaccine providers. The most important concern across all countries was the fear of vaccine side effects. New vaccines were singled out due to perceived lack of testing for vaccine safety and efficacy. Furthermore, while high trust in health authorities was expressed by HCWs, there was also strong mistrust of pharmaceutical companies due to perceived financial interests and lack of communication about side effects. The notion that it is a doctor's responsibility to respond to hesitant patients was reported in all countries. Concerns were also seen to be country- and context-specific. Strategies to improve confidence in vaccines should be adapted to the specific political, social, cultural and economic context of countries. Furthermore, while most interventions focus on education and improving information about vaccine safety, effectiveness, or the need for vaccines, concerns raised in this study identify other determinants of hesitancy that need addressing. The representativeness of the views of the interviewed HCWs must be interpreted with caution. This a qualitative study with a small sample size that included geographical areas where vaccination uptake was lower or where hesitancy was more prevalent and it reflects individual participants' beliefs and attitudes toward the topic. As HCWs have the potential of influencing patient vaccination uptake, it is crucial to improve their confidence in vaccination and engage them in activities targeting vaccine hesitancy among their patients.

Opinion about seasonal influenza vaccination among the general population 3 years after the A(H1N1)pdm2009 influenza pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To assess the opinions of the French general population about seasonal influenza vaccination three years after the A(H1N1)pdm 09 pandemic and identify factors associated with a neutral or negative opinion about this vaccination.

STUDY DESIGN

The study was conducted using data collected from 5374 participants during the 2012/2013 season of the GrippeNet.fr study. The opinion about seasonal influenza vaccination was studied on three levels ("positive", "negative" or "neutral"). The link between the participant's characteristics and their opinion regarding the seasonal influenza vaccination were studied using a multinomial logistic regression with categorical variables. The "positive" opinion was used as the reference for identifying individuals being at risk of having a "neutral" or a "negative" opinion.

RESULTS

Among the participants, 39% reported having a positive opinion about seasonal influenza vaccine, 39% a neutral opinion, and 22% a negative opinion. Factors associated with a neutral or negative opinion were young age, low educational level, lack of contact with sick or elderly individuals, lack of treatment for a chronic disease and taking a homeopathic preventive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show that an important part of the French population does not have a positive opinion about influenza vaccination in France. Furthermore, it allows outlining the profiles of particularly reluctant individuals who could be targeted by informative campaigns.

Sustained low influenza vaccination in health care workers after H1N1 pandemic: a cross sectional study in an Italian health care setting for at-risk patients

Background

Despite consistent recommendations by all Public Health Authorities in support of annual influenza vaccination for at-risk categories, there is still a low uptake of influenza vaccine in these groups including health care workers (HCWs). Aim of this observational two-phase study was to estimate the immunization rates for influenza in four subsequent seasons and for pandemic H1N1 influenza in HCWs of a University Hospital, and to investigate its distribution pattern and the main determinants of immunization. Phase 1 data collection was performed in 2009–2010, during the peak of H1N1 pandemic. Phase 2 data collection, aimed to investigate seasonal influenza vaccination coverage in the three seasons after pandemic, was performed in 2012–2013.

Methods

The overall H1N1 vaccination rate was derived by the Hospital immunization registry. In 2010, the personnel of three Departments (Infectious Diseases, Pediatrics and Gynecology/Obstetrics) completed a survey on influenza. A second-phase analysis was performed in 2012 to investigate influenza vaccination coverage in three consecutive seasons.

Results

The first-phase survey showed a low coverage for influenza in all categories (17 %), with the lowest rate in nurses (8.1 %). A total of 37 % of health care workers received H1N1 vaccine, with the highest rate among physicians and the lowest in nurses. H1N1 vaccination was closely related to the Department, being higher in the Department of Infectious Diseases (53.7 %) and Pediatrics (42.4 %) than in Gynecology/Obstetrics (8.3 %). The second-phase survey showed the lowest rate of influenza vaccination in 2012/13 season. The main reasons for not being vaccinated were “Unsure of the efficacy of vaccine” and “Feel not at-risk of getting influenza or its complications”. Despite recommendations, influenza vaccine uptake remains poor.

Conclusion

Immunization is largely perceived as a personal protection rather than a measure needed to prevent disease spreading to at-risk patients. Compulsory vaccination against influenza should be considered as a possible strategy, at least in health institutions where at-risk patients are admitted.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1090-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Vaccination coverage against hepatitis A and B viruses, Streptococcus pneumoniae, seasonal flu, and A(H1N1)2009 pandemic influenza in HIV-infected patients

BACKGROUND

Several vaccines are recommended in HIV-infected patients due to an increased risk of vaccine-preventable infections, severe forms of the disease, or shared transmission routes. Few data are available regarding vaccination coverage and its determinants in this population.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed in HIV-infected patients included in a hospital-based cohort in 2011. Vaccination coverage against hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), seasonal and A(H1N1)2009 pandemic influenza, and invasive pneumococcal diseases (IPD) were recorded. Factors associated with vaccination were assessed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

2467 patients were included (median age: 47 years; male gender 71.5%; men having sex with men (MSM): 43.9%; CDC stage C: 24.3%; HBV and/or hepatitis C virus co-infection: 14.4%). Median duration of HIV infection was 10 years and 93.1% of patients received combination antiretroviral therapy. At baseline, the median CD4 count was 527 cells/mm(3) and HIV viral load was <50 copies/mL in 83.3% of cases. Vaccination coverage for HBV, HAV, seasonal influenza, A(H1N1)2009 pandemic influenza, and IPD were 61.9%, 47.4%, 30.9, 48.3%, and 64.6%, respectively. Factors independently associated with vaccination were a younger (HBV) or an older age (influenza), male gender (HBV, HAV), MSM (HBV), CD4 count >200/mm(3) and HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL (IPD, influenza), longer duration of HIV infection (IPD, influenza), and follow-up by an experienced physician (HBV, IPD).

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination coverage remained insufficient for all vaccine-preventable infections investigated in this study. Determinants for vaccination were largely not evidence-based, and efforts should be focused on improving physicians' knowledge about guidelines.