1
|
Isonne C, Iera J, Sciurti A, Renzi E, De Blasiis MR, Marzuillo C, Villari P, Baccolini V. How well does vaccine literacy predict intention to vaccinate and vaccination status? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2024; 20:2300848. [PMID: 38174706 PMCID: PMC10773666 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2023.2300848] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2023] [Accepted: 12/27/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024] Open
Abstract
This review quantified the association of vaccine literacy (VL) and vaccination intention and status. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Any study, published until December 2022, that investigated the associations of interest were eligible. For each outcome, articles were grouped according to the vaccine administrated and results were narratively synthesized. Inverse-variance random-effect models were used to compare standardized mean values in VL domain(s) between the two groups: individuals willing vs. unwilling to get vaccinated, and individuals vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. This review of 18 studies shows that VL strongly predicts the vaccination intention while its association with vaccination status is attenuated and barely significant, suggesting that other factors influence the actual vaccination uptake. However, given the scarce evidence available, the heterogeneity in the methods applied and some limitations of the studies included, further research should be conducted to confirm the role of VL in the vaccination decision-making process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudia Isonne
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Jessica Iera
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Antonio Sciurti
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Erika Renzi
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Carolina Marzuillo
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Paolo Villari
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Valentina Baccolini
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chirila S, Hangan T, Gurgas L, Costache MG, Vlad MA, Nitu BF, Bittar SM, Craciun A, Condur L, Bjørklund G. Pharmacy-Based Influenza Vaccination: A Study of Patient Acceptance in Romania. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2024; 17:1005-1013. [PMID: 38690537 PMCID: PMC11059623 DOI: 10.2147/rmhp.s459369] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2024] [Accepted: 04/16/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Background This study explores patient acceptance of influenza vaccination administered by pharmacists in Romania during the 2023 season, considering it a novel strategy to address gaps in knowledge. Pharmacy-based vaccination deviates from traditional methods, providing high-risk patients with full reimbursement and others with 50% reimbursement, allowing a choice between family doctors and pharmacies for vaccine administration. Material and Method The survey includes 15 questions covering socio-demographic data, health information, vaccination preferences, and perceptions of pharmacy-based vaccinations. Results Respondents showed a positive inclination toward pharmacy-based vaccination, with 68% expressing favorable sentiments, but an awareness gap exists, as only 36% were aware of pharmacy-based vaccination availability. Conclusion Challenges include a lack of patient awareness and understanding of benefits, emphasizing the need for structured pharmacist-patient dialogues. Legal changes, a defined funding mechanism, and collaboration are crucial for successful implementation. The study provides valuable insights into patient perceptions, contributing to discussions on optimizing influenza vaccination coverage in Romania and beyond and recognizing pharmacies' potential in achieving broader vaccination goals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergiu Chirila
- Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ovidius University of Constanta, Constanta, Romania
| | - Tony Hangan
- Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Ovidius University of Constanta, Constanta, Romania
| | - Leonard Gurgas
- Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ovidius University of Constanta, Constanta, Romania
| | | | | | | | - Sara Melek Bittar
- Department of Dermatology, County Clinical Emergency Hospital of Constanta, Constanta, Romania
| | - Aurora Craciun
- Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Ovidius University of Constanta, Constanta, Romania
| | - Laura Condur
- Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ovidius University of Constanta, Constanta, Romania
| | - Geir Bjørklund
- Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, Mo i Rana, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
López-Zambrano MA, Pita CC, Escribano MF, Galán Meléndez IM, Cebrián MG, Arroyo JJG, Huerta C, Cuadrado LM, Ruiperez CM, Núñez C, Zapata AP, de la Pinta MLR, Uriz MAS, Conejo ISA, Gomila CM, Carbajo MDL, Gómez AS. Factors associated to influenza vaccination among hospital's healthcare workers in the Autonomous Community of Madrid, Spain 2021-2022. Vaccine 2023; 41:6719-6726. [PMID: 37806803 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.09.047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2023] [Revised: 09/12/2023] [Accepted: 09/22/2023] [Indexed: 10/10/2023]
Abstract
Influenza vaccination (IV) aims primarily to protect high-risk groups against severe influenza-associated disease and death. It is recommended in Spain for high-risk groups, including Healthcare workers (HCWs). However, vaccination uptake has been consistently below desirable levels. The objective of this study were to evaluate influenza vaccination coverage using data from the regional vaccination registry, during 2021-2022 season, among HCWs in public hospitals in Autonomous Community of Madrid (CAM) and to explore factors associated with influenza vaccination. We conducted a cross-sectional study using administrative data retrieved from the Regional Department of Health data repositories. A multilevel logistic regression model was designed to estimate Level 1 (individual) and Level 2 (contextual) variables that are associated with HCẂs vaccination. The study population was HCWs from 25 public hospitals in CAM who were active during the period of the influenza 2021-2022 vaccination campaign. The global influenza vaccination coverage (IVC) was 52.1 %. All study Level 1 variables were significantly associated with vaccine uptake. Greater IVC is associated with individual characteristics: female (OR1.14; 95 %CI 1.09-1.19), older age 59-69 years old (OR1.72; 95 %CI 1.60-1.84), born in Spain, medical staff, more than one high-risk condition (OR1.24; 95 %CI 1.10-1.40; respectively) and vaccinated in two previous campaigns (OR25.64; 95 %CI 24.27-27.09). IVC was highest among HCWs celiac disease (65.5 %) followed by diabetes mellitus (65.1 %) and chronic inflammatory disease (64.3 %). The hospital where the study subject worked also showed an effect on the vaccination uptake, although Level 2 variable (hospital complexity) was not positively associated. IVC in HCWs remains suboptimal. These findings may prove useful to tailor strategies to reach specific groups. It is recommended to delve into the identification of factors associated with the HCWs workplace that may have a positive impact on IV.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- María Alejandra López-Zambrano
- Subdirección General de Prevención y Promoción de la Salud, Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.
| | - Covadonga Caso Pita
- Servicio de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
| | | | - Isabel Mª Galán Meléndez
- Servicio de Prevención y Salud Laboral, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Manuela García Cebrián
- Servicio de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Hospital Universitario Santa Cristina, Madrid, Spain.
| | | | - Carmen Huerta
- Servicio de Prevención Riesgos Laborales, Hospital Universitario de Móstoles, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Luis Mazón Cuadrado
- Servicio de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Carmen Muñoz Ruiperez
- Servicio de Medicina del Trabajo y Prevención de Riesgos Laborales, Hospital Universitario 12 de octubre, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Concha Núñez
- Servicio de Prevención Riesgos Laborales, Hospital U. La Paz-Carlos III-Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Aurora Pérez Zapata
- Servicio de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales - Salud Laboral, Hospital Universitario Príncipe de Asturias, Madrid, Spain.
| | | | - Mª Angeles Sánchez Uriz
- Servicio de Prevención Mancomunado de Grupo, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain.
| | | | | | - Mª Dolores Lasheras Carbajo
- Subdirección General de Prevención y Promoción de la Salud, Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.
| | - Amaya Sánchez Gómez
- Subdirección General de Prevención y Promoción de la Salud, Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Patel A, Sims E, Blacklock J, Birt L, Bion V, Clark A, Griffiths A, Guillard C, Hammond A, Holland R, Jones A, Jones L, Katangwe-Chigamba T, Pitcher J, Ruby P, Scott S, Wagner AP, Ahmed S, Baqir W, Cook L, Dean T, Wright D. Cluster randomised control trial protocol for estimating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention to increase care home staff influenza vaccination rates compared to usual practice (FLUCARE). Trials 2022; 23:989. [PMID: 36494824 PMCID: PMC9733011 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06925-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2022] [Accepted: 11/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
The care home staff influenza vaccination rate in England is significantly lower than the 75% World Health Organisation recommendation. This represents a substantial potential for resident harm. Barriers to staff vaccination stem from individual and organisational levels. Existing interventions address some but not all barriers and are not underpinned by behavioural science theory. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a theory-informed intervention to improve care home staff vaccination rates compared to routine practice.Set in care homes with both nursing and residential focus, and a range of ownership status, only homes providing long stay care to older people with a staff vaccination rate below 40% are eligible to participate. Participation expressions of interest will be sought using a variety of approaches prior to seeking consent.The primary outcome measure is the proportion of staff vaccinated at 6 months, with secondary outcome measures being proportion vaccinated at 3 months, numbers of staff sick days, general practitioner and nurse visits to care home, care home resident hospitalisations and mortality.Based on the assumptions that the mean cluster (care home) size is 54 staff, a coefficient of variation of 0.48, control vaccination rate is 55%, intervention 75%, intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.2 and with 90% power, and 20% attrition, we require 39 care homes per arm.Blocked randomisation will be at the level of care home, stratified by the proportion of non-white care home staff, and implemented by Norwich Clinical Trials Unit.The intervention comprises co-designed information videos and posters, provision of in-house staff vaccination clinics, and incentive scheme and monthly data collection on trial outcomes. Beyond usual practice, the control arm will additionally contribute monthly data.Data will be collected at the start, monthly and at 6 months, and analysis will be blind to allocation. Statistical analysis will use the intention-to-treat principle with the difference in vaccination rates between groups compared using a random effect logistic regression model at the staff-level.This will be the first study to use a theory-informed intervention designed to comprehensively address identified barriers to care home staff influenza vaccination.Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN22729870 . Registered on 24 August 22. Secondary identifiers: R209939, IRAS 316820, CPMS 53812.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amrish Patel
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Erika Sims
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Jeanette Blacklock
- grid.9918.90000 0004 1936 8411School of Healthcare, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Linda Birt
- grid.9918.90000 0004 1936 8411LOROS Associate Professor in Palliative Care and Frailty, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Veronica Bion
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Allan Clark
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Alys Griffiths
- grid.10025.360000 0004 1936 8470Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Cecile Guillard
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Amber Hammond
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Richard Holland
- grid.9918.90000 0004 1936 8411Leicester Medical School, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Andy Jones
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Liz Jones
- grid.10025.360000 0004 1936 8470Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Thando Katangwe-Chigamba
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Jennifer Pitcher
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Po Ruby
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Sion Scott
- grid.9918.90000 0004 1936 8411School of Healthcare, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Adam P. Wagner
- grid.8273.e0000 0001 1092 7967Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK ,grid.451056.30000 0001 2116 3923National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) East of England (EoE), Cambridge, UK
| | - Saiqa Ahmed
- Patient and Public Involvement Representative, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (ARC NWC), Liverpool, UK
| | - Wasim Baqir
- grid.451052.70000 0004 0581 2008Pharmacy Integration Programme, NHS England and Improvement, London, UK
| | - Luke Cook
- Askham Village Community, Doddington, UK
| | - Tony Dean
- Norfolk Local Pharmaceutical Committee, Great Bircham, UK
| | - David Wright
- grid.9918.90000 0004 1936 8411School of Healthcare, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Antonopoulou V, Goffe L, Meyer CJ, Grimani A, Graham F, Lecouturier J, Tang MY, Chadwick P, Sniehotta FF. A comparison of seasonal influenza and novel Covid-19 vaccine intentions: A cross-sectional survey of vaccine hesitant adults in England during the 2020 pandemic. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2022; 18:2085461. [PMID: 35816683 PMCID: PMC9621000 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2022.2085461] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2022] [Revised: 05/17/2022] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
We compared intention to receive the seasonal influenza vaccine with a prospective coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine among undecided or COVID-19 vaccine hesitant individuals to better understand the underlying differences and similarities in factors associated with vaccine intention. We delivered a cross-sectional online survey in October-November 2020. We included psychological constructs and sociodemographic variables informed by theory. We conducted pairwise comparisons and multiple linear regression models to explore associations between vaccine intention and psychological constructs. We recruited 1,660 participants, where 47.6% responded that they would likely receive the influenza vaccine, 31.0% that they would probably not accept the vaccination and 21.4% were unsure. In relation to the prospective COVID-19 vaccine, 39.0% responded that they would likely receive the vaccination, 23.7% that they would probably not accept the vaccination and 37.3% were unsure. Unique factors positively associated with COVID-19 vaccine intention were: perceived knowledge sufficiency about vaccine safety, beliefs about vaccine safety, and living in an area of low deprivation. The only unique factor positively associated with influenza intention was past influenza behavior. The strongest common predictors positively associated with intention were: favorable vaccine attitudes, the anticipated regret they may feel following infection if they were not to receive a vaccine, and the expectation from family or friends to accept the vaccine. Despite overall similarities in those factors associated with vaccination intention, we identified unique influences on intention. This additional insight will help support the planning and tailoring of future immunizations programmes for the respective viruses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivi Antonopoulou
- NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science, Centre for Behaviour Change, Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Louis Goffe
- NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science – Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Carly J Meyer
- NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science, Centre for Behaviour Change, Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Aikaterini Grimani
- NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science – Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Fiona Graham
- NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science – Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Jan Lecouturier
- NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science – Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Mei Yee Tang
- NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science – Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Paul Chadwick
- NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science, Centre for Behaviour Change, Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Falko F Sniehotta
- NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science – Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Department of Public Health, Preventive and Social Medicine, Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health Baden-Wuerttemberg, Heidelberg University, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bell S, Clarke RM, Ismail SA, Ojo-Aromokudu O, Naqvi H, Coghill Y, Donovan H, Letley L, Paterson P, Mounier-Jack S. COVID-19 vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours among health and social care workers in the UK: A mixed-methods study. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0260949. [PMID: 35073312 PMCID: PMC8786153 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260949] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 11/20/2021] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The UK began delivering its COVID-19 vaccination programme on 8 December 2020, with health and social care workers (H&SCWs) given high priority for vaccination. Despite well-documented occupational exposure risks, however, there is evidence of lower uptake among some H&SCW groups. Methods We used a mixed-methods approach—involving an online cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews–to gain insight into COVID-19 vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours amongst H&SCWs in the UK by socio-demographic and employment variables. 1917 people were surveyed– 1656 healthcare workers (HCWs) and 261 social care workers (SCWs). Twenty participants were interviewed. Findings Workplace factors contributed to vaccination access and uptake. SCWs were more likely to not be offered COVID-19 vaccination than HCWs (OR:1.453, 95%CI: 1.244–1.696). SCWs specifically reported uncertainties around how to access COVID-19 vaccination. Participants who indicated stronger agreement with the statement ‘I would recommend my organisation as a place to work’ were more likely to have been offered COVID-19 vaccination (OR:1.285, 95%CI: 1.056–1.563). Those who agreed more strongly with the statement ‘I feel/felt under pressure from my employer to get a COVID-19 vaccine’ were more likely to have declined vaccination (OR:1.751, 95%CI: 1.271–2.413). Interviewees that experienced employer pressure to get vaccinated felt this exacerbated their vaccine concerns and increased distrust. In comparison to White British and White Irish participants, Black African and Mixed Black African participants were more likely to not be offered (OR:2.011, 95%CI: 1.026–3.943) and more likely to have declined COVID-19 vaccination (OR:5.550, 95%CI: 2.294–13.428). Reasons for declining vaccination among Black African participants included distrust in COVID-19 vaccination, healthcare providers, and policymakers. Conclusion H&SCW employers are in a pivotal position to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination access, by ensuring staff are aware of how to get vaccinated and promoting a workplace environment in which vaccination decisions are informed and voluntary.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sadie Bell
- Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- * E-mail:
| | | | - Sharif A. Ismail
- Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Oyinkansola Ojo-Aromokudu
- Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Habib Naqvi
- NHS Race and Health Observatory, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Louise Letley
- Immunisation, Hepatitis & Blood Safety Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom
| | - Pauline Paterson
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sandra Mounier-Jack
- Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
COVID-19 vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours among health and social care workers in the UK: A mixed-methods study. PLoS One 2022. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260949 pmid:35073312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
The UK began delivering its COVID-19 vaccination programme on 8 December 2020, with health and social care workers (H&SCWs) given high priority for vaccination. Despite well-documented occupational exposure risks, however, there is evidence of lower uptake among some H&SCW groups.
Methods
We used a mixed-methods approach—involving an online cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews–to gain insight into COVID-19 vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours amongst H&SCWs in the UK by socio-demographic and employment variables. 1917 people were surveyed– 1656 healthcare workers (HCWs) and 261 social care workers (SCWs). Twenty participants were interviewed.
Findings
Workplace factors contributed to vaccination access and uptake. SCWs were more likely to not be offered COVID-19 vaccination than HCWs (OR:1.453, 95%CI: 1.244–1.696). SCWs specifically reported uncertainties around how to access COVID-19 vaccination. Participants who indicated stronger agreement with the statement ‘I would recommend my organisation as a place to work’ were more likely to have been offered COVID-19 vaccination (OR:1.285, 95%CI: 1.056–1.563). Those who agreed more strongly with the statement ‘I feel/felt under pressure from my employer to get a COVID-19 vaccine’ were more likely to have declined vaccination (OR:1.751, 95%CI: 1.271–2.413). Interviewees that experienced employer pressure to get vaccinated felt this exacerbated their vaccine concerns and increased distrust. In comparison to White British and White Irish participants, Black African and Mixed Black African participants were more likely to not be offered (OR:2.011, 95%CI: 1.026–3.943) and more likely to have declined COVID-19 vaccination (OR:5.550, 95%CI: 2.294–13.428). Reasons for declining vaccination among Black African participants included distrust in COVID-19 vaccination, healthcare providers, and policymakers.
Conclusion
H&SCW employers are in a pivotal position to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination access, by ensuring staff are aware of how to get vaccinated and promoting a workplace environment in which vaccination decisions are informed and voluntary.
Collapse
|
8
|
Influenza Vaccination Programs for Healthcare Personnel: Organizational Issues and Beyond. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2021; 18:ijerph182111122. [PMID: 34769641 PMCID: PMC8583029 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2021] [Revised: 10/19/2021] [Accepted: 10/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Healthcare personnel (HCP) are a high priority group for influenza vaccination aiming to protect them but also to protect vulnerable patients and healthcare services from healthcare-associated influenza and HCP absenteeism. Multi-component influenza vaccination programs targeting behavioral, organizational, and administrative barriers are critical, if influenza vaccination rates among HCP are to be raised on a sustained basis. Mandatory influenza vaccination policy is the only single intervention that can achieve high and sustainable vaccination rates in HCP in short term. In this article, we provide an overview of issues pertaining to influenza vaccination of HCP, with an emphasis on organizational issues of influenza vaccination programs.
Collapse
|
9
|
Murphy K. Administration of the flu vaccination: required skills and knowledge. BRITISH JOURNAL OF NURSING (MARK ALLEN PUBLISHING) 2020; 29:1168-1171. [PMID: 33180607 DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2020.29.20.1168] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin Murphy
- Specialist Practice Teacher, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Bell S, Chantler T, Paterson P, Mounier-Jack S. Is flu vaccination opt-out feasible? Evidence from vaccination programme implementers and managers in the English National Health Service. Vaccine 2020; 38:4183-4190. [PMID: 32381480 PMCID: PMC7254052 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.04.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2020] [Revised: 04/03/2020] [Accepted: 04/10/2020] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2018/19, English NHS trusts (NHSTs) implemented an 'opt-out' policy for seasonal flu vaccination in frontline healthcare workers (HCWs). HCWs declining the vaccination were asked to sign an opt-out form and provide a reason for their decision. In addition, HCWs working in higher risk hospital environments (e.g. oncology) were asked to inform their manager about their declination decision. The policy aimed to provide greater insight into reasons for vaccination decline and information from HCWs in higher risk areas was intended for use in considering HCW redeployment. This study investigated the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived value of the policy during the 2018/19 flu vaccination season. METHODS We conducted semi-structured interviews across 9 NHSTs in England with different levels of HCW flu vaccination uptake in 2017/18. We interviewed 30 vaccination programme implementers and 27 managers. FINDINGS The purpose of the policy was poorly understood, and interviewees did not know how data on decliners was being used. Most NHSTs tried to collect the personal details of decliners and, in some instances, these were recorded in Electronic Staff Records and reported to line-managers for action. This created strain on employer-employee relationships, leading to decliners refusing to complete opt-out forms and some vaccinators not implementing the policy. None of the NHSTs had a redeployment policy for decliners, arguing that this was impractical due to strain on staffing levels. CONCLUSION A flu-vaccination opt-out approach for HCWs did not appear acceptable in our sampled NHSTs, due to a lack of clear messaging about its purpose and complicated implementation. To promote an opt-out approach effectively, there needs to be clear communication of its purpose, which should be to explore reasons for decline rather than identify and 'push' decliners to vaccinate, so as not to damage staff relationships. NHSTs should involve their workforce in developing flu vaccination approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sadie Bell
- Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom.
| | - Tracey Chantler
- Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom
| | - Pauline Paterson
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom
| | - Sandra Mounier-Jack
- Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|