Interventions to increase seasonal influenza vaccine coverage in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Healthcare personnel acceptance and recommendations for influenza vaccine in twelve low- and middle-income countries: A pooled analysis from 2018 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Although healthcare personnel (HCP) are targeted for influenza vaccination they typically underutilize vaccines especially in low- and middle-income countries. We explored knowledge, attitudes, and practices of HCP about seasonal influenza vaccines (SIV) to identify factors associated with and modifiable barriers to SIV uptake.

METHODS

We pooled individual-level data from cross-sectional surveys about SIV conducted among health workers in 12 low- and middle- income countries during 2018-2020 (i.e., Albania, Armenia, Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Morocco, North Macedonia, Tunisia, Tajikistan, and Uganda). Eleven countries used a standard protocol and questionnaire based on the Health Belief Model to measure perceptions of susceptibility and severity of influenza disease, benefits of, barriers to, and motivators for vaccination. We analyzed attitudes and perceptions among HCP, including acceptance of vaccine for themselves and willingness to recommend vaccines to patients, grouped by the presence/absence of a national influenza vaccination program. Models were adjusted for geographic region.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 10,281 HCP from 12 countries representing four of the six World Health Organization regions: African, Eastern Mediterranean, European, and Western Pacific. The sample was distributed across low income (LIC) (3,183, 31 %), lower-middle (LMIC) (4,744, 46 %), and upper-middle income (UMIC) (2,354, 23 %) countries. Half (50 %) of the countries included in the analysis reported SIV use among HCP in both the year of and the year preceding data collection while the remainder had no influenza vaccination program for HCP. Seventy-four percent (6,341) of HCP reported that they would be willing to be vaccinated if the vaccine was provided free of charge. HCP in LICs were willing to pay prices for SIV representing a higher percentage of their country's annual health expenditure per capita (6.26 % [interquartile range, IQR: 3.13-12.52]) compared to HCP in LMICs and UMICs. HCP in countries with no SIV program were also willing to pay a higher percentage for SIV (5.01 % [IQR: 2.24-8.34]) compared to HCP in countries with SIV programs.. Most (85 %) HCP in our analysis would recommend vaccines to their patients, and those who would accept vaccines for themselves were 3 times more likely to recommend vaccines to their patients (OR 3.1 [95 % CI 1·8, 5·2]).

CONCLUSION

Increasing uptake of SIV among HCP can amplify positive impacts of vaccination by increasing the likelihood that HCP recommend vaccines to their patients. Successful strategies to achieve increased uptake of vaccines include clear guidance from health authorities, interventions based on behavior change models, and access to vaccine free-of-charge.

Increasing vaccination coverage among healthcare workers: Active call and mandatory laws. Data from a large general hospital in Southern Italy

Influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are respiratory pathogens which significantly impact healthcare systems. Seasonal vaccination is recommended for all healthcare workers (HCWs) to reduce the risk for both operators and patients. Puglia, a region in Southern Italy, has been enforcing since 2018 a law mandating influenza vaccination in healthcare workers. However, vaccination coverages for this category have always been suboptimal. Our study tests the effectiveness of an active recall intervention on vaccination coverage for influenza and SARS-CoV-2 in the HCWs of a large Apulian hospital (Southern Italy). During the 2023-2024 influenza vaccination season, unvaccinated HCWs of Bari's Policlinico General Hospital were contacted. The e-mail reminded them of a regional law mandating influenza vaccination to all HCWs and offered an appointment for vaccination. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was also offered. In 2022-2023, 43.16 % of HCWs were vaccinated against influenza and 21.87 % against SARS-CoV-2. Coverage changed during the 2023-2024 season to 54.11 % and 13.58 %, respectively. A regression model showed that vaccination uptake's increase was associated with the e-mail reception and with the operator being a physician vs. non-medical personnel. On the contrary, subjects who received the e-mail did not show an increased SARS-CoV-2 vaccination uptake, which was on the contrary influenced by the worker's age, sex, job title, and area of risk. Our soft-mandate intervention was effective in increasing vaccination uptake by HCWs. Communication with a trained specialist was probably useful, and the possibility to access vaccination services with dedicated appointments increased convenience. Mandatory vaccination policies and active recall seem to synergically impact vaccination uptake.

Healthcare workers' perspectives on mandatory influenza vaccination: a scoping review

Background: Vaccination is efficacious at preventing influenza disease transmission, morbidity and mortality. Benefits of influenza vaccination for healthcare workers (HCW) are emphasized, yet vaccine uptake among HCW remains suboptimal. Mandatory vaccination programs may increase influenza vaccine uptake, however, attitudes and beliefs of HCW towards these mandates are not well known.Aims: This scoping review examined the attitudes and beliefs of HCW to ascertain the barriers and enablers to the implementation and acceptance of mandatory vaccination programs in healthcare settings.Design: Scoping review, guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews.Methods: Literature published between 2019 and 2023 was reviewed from five electronic databases, between June and October 2023.Data sources: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies were obtained. Studies were limited to full-text English articles, published within peer-reviewed journals over the last five years. Data were extracted by both authors and documented using a modified version of the JBI's scoping review data extraction instrument, and analyzed thematically.Results: The original search yielded 319 articles. Forty-two articles were screened, with 10 studies included. Most HCW had negative views towards mandatory influenza vaccination, influenced by geographical location, age and discipline. The protection of patients and affordability/accessibility of vaccination were described as enablers to the acceptance of mandatory measures. The belief that mandatory vaccination was a violation of autonomy and misconceptions concerning influenza transmission, vaccine mechanism of action, side effects and effectiveness, were described as common barriers.Conclusions: Health services must carefully consider the context in which mandatory vaccination programs are implemented and employ strategies that incorporate education and promote vaccine accessibility, affordability and HCW autonomy. The quality of evidence retrieved was moderate to poor, with high heterogeneity between studies. Minimal Australian research was evident, limiting the generalisability of findings. These results should be interpreted with caution and further high-quality research is recommended.

Serosusceptibility and hesitancy for booster HBV vaccination among health care workers in Italy: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of exposure to hepatitis B virus (HBV). The most effective prevention measure is vaccination, with a serum hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) titre > 10 mIU/ml considered protective. To date, the sociodemographic and occupational characteristics related to HBV serosusceptibility and factors associated with booster hesitancy remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors associated with maintaining a protective HBsAb titre in a large sample of HCWs and to evaluate factors potentially associated with hesitancy towards vaccine boosters.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs who underwent a health surveillance visit between 2017 and 2022. If the serum HBsAb titre was < 10 MIU/ml, a vaccine booster dose was offered. Based on their willingness to be vaccinated, employees were classified into three groups: acceptance, hesitation, and refusal. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to assess the association of demographic and occupational characteristics with serosusceptibility and attitudes towards vaccination.

RESULTS

A total of 1632 (27%) employees were shown to be nonimmune. A lower median age and being a physician were significantly associated with a protective HBsAb titre. A total of 706 nonimmune employees (43.3%) accepted the vaccination, 865 (53%) hesitated, and 61 (3.7%) refused. The median age of those who refused vaccination was significantly higher than that of those who hesitated and those who were vaccinated. Acceptance of vaccination was significantly higher among nurses, while nurse aides hesitated more; among nonmedical graduate staff both hesitation and refusal were higher than expected. In the multivariable analysis, higher age, female sex, and employment as an allied health care professional were shown to be significantly associated with hesitation/refusal, while being born abroad turned out to be protective.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that approximately a quarter of HCWs were not immune to HBV infection, and of these, more than half were hesitant towards or refused the booster dose. The risk of hesitation/refusal was higher with age in women and among allied health care staff. Based on these findings, further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate HBV seroprevalence, vaccination adherence, factors associated with hesitancy, and the effectiveness of health surveillance strategies in a high-risk population susceptible to infection.

Are COVID-19 vaccination mandates for healthcare workers effective? A systematic review of the impact of mandates on increasing vaccination, alleviating staff shortages and decreasing staff illness

INTRODUCTION

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines is a cornerstone in the global effort to combat the pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs), being at the forefront of the pandemic response, have been the focus of vaccine mandate policies. This review aims to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 vaccine mandates among HCWs, a critical step in understanding the broader implications of such policies in healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVE

The review seeks to synthesize available literature to contribute to greater understanding of the outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs including vaccine uptake, infection rates, and staffing.

METHODS

A systematic search of relevant literature published from March 2020 to September 2023 was conducted. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed for quality assessment of the included articles. A total of 4,779 publications were identified, with 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for the review. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyze these studies.

RESULTS

COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs were broadly successful in increasing vaccine uptake in most settings. Although the penalties imposed on unvaccinated HCWs did not lead to major disruption of health services, less well-resourced areas may have been more impacted. Furthermore, there is insufficient literature on the impact of the vaccine mandate on reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs have significant implications for public health policy and healthcare management. The findings underscore the need for tailored approaches in mandate policies, considering the specific contexts of healthcare settings and the diverse populations of HCWs. While mandates have shown potential in increasing vaccine uptake with minimal impacts to staffing, more work is needed to investigate the impacts of mandates across various contexts. In addition to these impacts, future research should focus on long-term effects and implications on broader public health strategies.

Effectiveness of interventions to increase healthcare workers' adherence to vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 1993 to 2022

BackgroundVaccination adherence among healthcare workers (HCWs) is fundamental for the prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) in healthcare. This safeguards HCWs' well-being, prevents transmission of infections to vulnerable patients and contributes to public health.AimThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to describe interventions meant to increase HCWs' adherence to vaccination and estimate the effectiveness of these interventions.MethodsWe searched literature in eight databases and performed manual searches in relevant journals and the reference lists of retrieved articles. The study population included any HCW with potential occupational exposure to VPDs. We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies presenting interventions aimed at increasing HCWs' adherence to vaccination against VPDs. The post-intervention vaccination adherence rate was set as the main outcome. We included the effect of interventions in the random-effects and subgroup meta-analyses.ResultsThe systematic review considered 48 studies on influenza and Tdap vaccination from database and manual searches, and 43 were meta-analysed. A statistically significant, positive effect was seen in multi-component interventions in randomised controlled trials (relative risk (RR) = 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13-1.66) and in observational studies (RR = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.29-1.58). Vaccination adherence rate was higher in community care facilities (RR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.49-1.68) than in hospitals (RR = 1.24; 95% CI: 0.76-2.05).ConclusionInterventions aimed at increasing HCWs' adherence to vaccination against VPDs are effective, especially multi-component ones. Future research should determine the most effective framework of interventions for each setting, using appropriate study design for their evaluation, and should compare intervention components to understand their contribution to the effectiveness.

Effective measures to improve influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers during and after COVID-19

The influenza vaccine is the most effective measure to prevent influenza. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of measures taken by the hospital on the influenza vaccination coverage of medical staff after implementation. We collected and compared the influenza vaccination of staff in key departments from 2018 to 2022. As the results, in 2018 and 2019, the influenza vaccination rates of staff in key departments in our hospital were generally as low as 10.3% and 11.6%, respectively. After the policy of free vaccination for staff in key departments was adopted in 2020 and other incentive measures, the overall influenza vaccination rates of key departments from 2020 to 2022 were 77.2%, 71.4%, and 81.3%, respectively, which were significantly higher than the pre-2020 vaccination rates in our hospital and healthcare workers in most regions of China. In conclusion, with the implementation of several measures to promote influenza vaccination, the rate of influenza vaccination among medical staff has significantly increased.

The effectiveness of interventions to improve the seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among nurses: A systematic review

Background

Seasonal influenza is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Despite annual recommendations, influenza vaccination uptake rates are disproportionately lower among nurses compared to other health care professionals, especially when compared to physicians. Nurses have an additional risk of exposure to influenza infection due to the nature of their work.

Aim

To determine the effectiveness of interventions in increasing seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among nurses.

Methods

Evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among nurses was systematically reviewed. A comprehensive search of six electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken. A minimum of two reviewers completed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently.

Results

One hundred and thirty-four studies were identified of which one cluster randomised trial met the inclusion criteria. The results of the included study found the implementation of an intervention with multiple components increased nurses' seasonal influenza vaccination rates during a single influenza season in geriatric healthcare settings in France. As the evidence in this review was very limited, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding which interventions were effective at increasing the seasonal influenza vaccination rate for nurses.

Conclusion

This systematic review highlights a lack of high-quality studies that assessed interventions to improve the seasonal influenza vaccination of nurses. In view of the likelihood of influenza and the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic occurring together, it is imperative to have evidence on effective interventions for the nursing workforce and for policy decision makers.

Identifying reasons for non-acceptance of influenza vaccine in healthcare workers: an observational study using declination form data

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers are sometimes required to complete a declination form if they choose not to accept the influenza vaccine. We analysed the declination data with the goal of identifying barriers to vaccination uptake across seasons, staff groups, and pre- and post- arrival of COVID-19.

METHODS

Reasons for declining the vaccine were gathered from N = 2230 declination forms, collected over four influenza seasons, 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021, from a single health board in the UK. Reasons were classified according to ten categories and the resulting distribution analysed across year and staff groups. A further analysis considered the two most prevalent categories in more detail.

RESULTS

Fear of adverse reactions and Lack of perception of own risk were identified as primary reasons for not accepting the vaccine across time and across staff groups. However, there was no evidence that Lack of concern with influenza, or Doubts about vaccine efficacy was prevalent, contrary to previous findings. Overall, reasons fitted a pattern of underestimating risk associated with influenza and overestimating risk of minor adverse reactions. There were also differences across years, χ2(24) = 123, p < .001. In particular, there were relatively fewer Lack of perception of own risk responses post-COVID-19 arrival than before, χ2(8) = 28.93, p = .002.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that data collected from declination forms yields sensible information concerning vaccine non-acceptance without the difficulties of retrospective or pre-emptive reasoning suffered by questionnaires. Our findings will aid messaging campaigns designed to encourage uptake of the influenza vaccine in healthcare workers. In particular, we argue for an approach focused on risk perception rather than correction of straightforward misconceptions.

A systematic review of barriers and enablers associated with uptake of influenza vaccine among care home staff

Barriers and enablers to vaccination of care home (CH) staff should be identified in order to develop interventions to address them that increase uptake and protect residents. We aimed to synthesis the evidence describing the barriers and enablers that affect the influenza vaccination uptake of care home (CH) staff.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, IBSS, SCOPUS to identify quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method studies. Data related to health or social care workers in CHs reported barriers or enablers were extracted and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF); the data within each domain were grouped and categorized into key factors affecting influenza vaccine uptake among CH staff.

RESULTS

We screened 4025 studies; 42 studies met our inclusion criteria. Thirty-four (81 %) were surveys. Five theoretical domains were frequently reported as mediators of influenza vaccine uptake: Beliefs about consequences (32 studies), Environmental context and resources (30 studies), Emotions (26 studies), Social influences (25 studies), Knowledge (22 studies). The low acceptance rate of the influenza vaccine among CH staff can be attributed to multiple factors, including insufficient understanding of the vaccine, its efficacy, or misconceptions about the vaccine (knowledge), perceiving the vaccine as ineffective and unsafe (beliefs about consequences), fear of influenza vaccine and its side effects (emotions), and experiencing limited accessibility to the vaccine (environmental context and resources).

CONCLUSION

Interventions aimed at increasing influenza vaccine uptake among CH staff should focus on addressing the barriers identified in this review. These interventions should include components such as enhancing knowledge by providing accurate information about vaccine benefits and safety, addressing negative beliefs by challenging misconceptions, managing concerns and fears through open communication, and improving accessibility to the vaccine through convenient on-site options. This review provides a foundation for the development of tailored Interventions to improve influenza vaccine uptake among CH staff.

Interventions for increasing the uptake of immunisations in healthcare workers: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systemic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the uptake of immunisation in healthcare workers (HCWs) compared to no or alternative interventions.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken (until March 2022) using a search strategy established a priori to capture studies that examined the effect of interventions on vaccination levels in HCWs. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster RCTs, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time-series (ITS) studies. We described studies descriptively and synthesized results with a fixed-effect or random-effects model meta-analysis, where appropriate. The risk of bias was assessed for each study; the quality evidence per comparison was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

We identified three RCTs, six cluster RCTs and four ITS studies. There was a diverse range of interventions; many included an educational component. Based on the evidence examined the following may be effective strategies in increasing the proportion of HCWs vaccinated: policy interventions, targeted and multicomponent strategies, tailored programs directed at management, physician delivered education with a vaccine 'champion' and individual decision analysis. Limited eligible studies restricted synthesis and interpretation of findings. No studies evaluated the effectiveness of legislation. Nor did we find studies evaluating the effectiveness of incentives on their own or studies focusing solely on improving access to vaccination. We judged all the studies as either unclear or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Few robust studies that evaluate interventions to increase vaccination in HCWs are available. A limitation of this systematic review is that interventions are diverse, poorly reported and few were sufficiently alike to combine in an evaluation. More research on the effects of interventions to increase vaccination in HCWs is required, this should address a variety of vaccines and not just influenza vaccination.

Social processes, practical issues, and COVID-19 vaccination among hesitant adults

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to examine relationships between COVID-19 vaccination, social processes, and the practical issues of healthcare coverage and workplace requirements. We examine these relationships among individuals who expressed some degree of hesitancy towards receiving the vaccine. Assessing relationships between COVID-19 vaccination, social processes, and practical issues among vaccine-hesitant individuals has implications for public health policy and intervention.

METHODS

We analyzed weighted data from a random sample phone survey of Arkansas adults (N = 2,201) between March 1st and March 28th, 2022 and constrained our analytical sample to those who had reported some degree of vaccine hesitancy (N = 1,251). Statistical analyses included weighted and unweighted descriptive statistics, weighted bivariate logistic regressions, and a weighted multivariate logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratios for COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

More than two-thirds (62.5 %) of respondents were vaccinated, despite their hesitancy. Adjusted odds of COVID-19 vaccination were greater among Black (OR = 2.55; 95 % CI[1.63, 3.97]) and Hispanic respondents (OR = 2.46; 95 % CI[1.53, 3.95]), respondents whose healthcare provider recommended vaccination (OR = 2.50; 95 % CI[1.66, 3.77]), and as perceptions of vaccination coverage (OR = 2.04; 95 % CI[1.71, 2.43]) and subjective social status increased (OR = 1.10; 95 % CI[1.01, 1.19]). Adjusted odds of COVID-19 vaccination were greater among respondents with a workplace that recommended (OR = 1.96; 95 % CI[1.03, 3.72]) or required vaccination (OR = 12.62; 95 % CI[4.76, 33.45]) and among respondents who were not employed (OR = 1.82; 95 % CI[1.10, 3.01]) compared to those whose workplace did not recommend or require COVID-19 vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Some hesitant individuals become vaccinated despite their hesitancy-a group we refer to as "hesitant adopters." Social processes and practical issues are important correlates of vaccination among those who are hesitant. Workplace requirements appear to be of particular importance for vaccination among hesitant individuals. Provider recommendations, norms, social status, and workplace policies may be effective points of intervention among those who express vaccine hesitancy.

Healthcare professionals' attitudes to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: Cross-sectional survey data from four European countries

Mandatory vaccinations are widely debated since they restrict individuals' autonomy in their health decisions. As healthcare professionals (HCPs) are a common target group of vaccine mandates, and also form a link between vaccination policies and the public, understanding their attitudes toward vaccine mandates is important. The present study investigated physicians' attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates in four European countries: Finland, France, Germany, and Portugal. An electronic survey assessing attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates and general vaccination attitudes (e.g. perceived vaccine safety, trust in health authorities, and openness to patients) was sent to physicians in the spring of 2022. A total of 2796 physicians responded. Across all countries, 78% of the physicians were in favor of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCPs, 49% favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the public, and 67% endorsed COVID-19 health passes. Notable differences were observed between countries, with attitudes to mandates found to be more positive in countries where the mandate, or similar mandates, were in effect. The associations between attitudes to mandates and general vaccination attitudes were mostly small to neglectable and differed between countries. Nevertheless, physicians with more positive mandate attitudes perceived vaccines as more beneficial (in Finland and France) and had greater trust in medical authorities (in France and Germany). The present study contributes to the body of research within social and behavioral sciences that support evidence-based vaccination policymaking.

Influenza Vaccination Uptake and Prognostic Factors among Health Professionals in Italy: Results from the Nationwide Surveillance PASSI 2015-2018

(1) Influenza causes a significant health and socio-economic burden every year, and health personnel (HP) are at higher risk of exposure to respiratory pathogens than the general population. (2) The study's purpose was to describe and compare influenza vaccine uptake and its prognostic factors among Medical Doctors (MDs) and Non-Medical Health Personnel (NMHP) vs. Non-HP (NHP). We analyzed 2014-2018 data (n = 105,608) from the Italian Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System PASSI that, since 2008, has been collecting health-related information continuously in sampled adults. (3) MDs and NMHP represented, respectively, 1.1% and 4.6% of the sample. Among HP, 22.8% (CI 19.8-26.1%) of MDs and 8.5% (CI 7.5-9.5%) of NMHP reported to have been vaccinated vs. 6.3% (CI 6.1-6.5%) in NHP. This difference is confirmed in the three categories (MDs, NMHP, NHP), even more across age groups: in 18-34 yy, respectively, 9.9%, 4.4%, 3.4% vs. 28.4%, 13.9%, 10.6% in 50-64 yy. PASSI surveillance shows an increasing influenza vaccination uptake over time, especially among MDs (22.2% in 2014 vs. 30.5% in 2018). (4) Despite such an increase, especially among younger HP, influenza vaccination uptake is low. Even more under pandemic scenarios, these figures represent key information to address effective strategies for disease prevention and health promotion.

Sustained Increase in Very Low Influenza Vaccination Coverage in Residents and Healthcare Workers of Long-Term Care Facilities in Austria after Educational Interventions

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are particularly at risk for influenza infections. We aimed to improve influenza vaccination coverage among residents and healthcare workers (HCWs) in four LTCFs by implementing educational programs and enhanced vaccination services. We compared vaccination coverage before and after the interventions (2017/18 and 2018/19 seasons). Data on vaccination adherence were recorded during a four-year observational period (2019/20 to 2022/23 seasons). Following the interventions, vaccination coverage increased significantly from 5.8% (22/377) to 19.1% (71/371) in residents and from 1.3% (3/234) to 19.7% (46/233) in HCWs (p < 0.001). During the observational period (2019/20 to 2022/23 seasons), vaccination coverage remained high in residents but decreased in HCWs. Vaccination adherence was significantly higher in residents and HCWs in LTCF 1 compared to the other three LTCFs. Our study suggests that a bundle of educational interventions and enhanced vaccination services can be an effective method for improving influenza vaccination coverage in LTCFs in both residents and HCWs. However, vaccination rates are still well below the recommended targets and further efforts are needed to increase vaccine coverage in our LTCFs.

Attitudes of University Students towards Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policies: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Rome, Italy

Mandatory vaccination (MV) against COVID-19 is a contentious topic. In this study, we used logistic regression models to identify attitudes among Sapienza University students towards MV for COVID-19. We considered three different scenarios: mandatory COVID-19 vaccination (MCV) for healthcare workers (HCWs) (Model 1), for all people aged ≥ 12 years (Model 2), and for admission to schools and universities (Model 3). We collected 5287 questionnaires over a six-month period and divided these into three groups (September-October 2021, November-December 2021, and January-February 2022). MCV for HCWs was the most strongly supported policy (69.8% in favour), followed by MCV for admission to schools and universities (58.3%), and MCV for the general population (54.6%). In a multivariable analysis, the models showed both similarities and differences. There was no association of socio-demographic characteristics with the outcomes, apart from being enrolled in non-healthcare courses, which negatively affected Models 2 and 3. A greater COVID-19 risk perception was generally associated with a more positive attitude towards MCV, although heterogeneously across models. Vaccination status was a predictor of being in favour of MCV for HCWs, whereas being surveyed in November-February 2022 favoured MCV for admission to schools and universities. Attitudes towards MCV were variable across policies; thus, to avoid unintended consequences, these aspects should be carefully considered by policymakers.

Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers beyond COVID-19

We provide ethical criteria to establish when vaccine mandates for healthcare workers are ethically justifiable. The relevant criteria are the utility of the vaccine for healthcare workers, the utility for patients (both in terms of prevention of transmission of infection and reduction in staff shortage), and the existence of less restrictive alternatives that can achieve comparable benefits. Healthcare workers have professional obligations to promote the interests of patients that entail exposure to greater risks or infringement of autonomy than ordinary members of the public. Thus, we argue that when vaccine mandates are justified on the basis of these criteria, they are not unfairly discriminatory and the level of coercion they involve is ethically acceptable-and indeed comparable to that already accepted in healthcare employment contracts. Such mandates might be justified even when general population mandates are not. Our conclusion is that, given current evidence, those ethical criteria justify mandates for influenza vaccination, but not COVID-19 vaccination, for healthcare workers. We extend our arguments to other vaccines.

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of health care workers in a cardiology department on influenza vaccination

BACKGROUND

Evidence has accrued that influenza vaccination may be effective in preventing myocardial infarction (MI). However, vaccination rates in both adults and health care workers (HCW) are low, and hospitalisation is often a missed opportunity for vaccination. We hypothesised that knowledge, attitude and practices of health care workers regarding vaccination impacts vaccine uptake in hospitals. The cardiac ward admits high-risk patients, many of whom are indicated for influenza vaccine, especially those caring for patients with acute MI.

AIM

To understand the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of HCW in cardiology ward within a tertiary institution, on influenza vaccination.

METHODS

We used focus group discussions with HCW caring for AMI patients in an acute cardiology ward, to explore the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of HCW regarding influenza vaccination for patients under their care. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed using NVivo software. In addition, participants completed a survey on their knowledge and attitudes towards the uptake of influenza vaccination.

RESULTS

A lack of awareness regarding the associations between influenza, vaccination and cardiovascular health was identified amongst HCW. Participants did not routinely discuss the benefits of influenza vaccination or recommend influenza vaccinations to patients under their care; this may be due to a combination of a lack of awareness, not seeing it as part of their job and workload issues. We also highlighted difficulties in access to vaccination, and concerns of adverse reactions to the vaccine.

CONCLUSION

There is limited awareness among HCW of the role of influenza on cardiovascular health and the benefits of influenza vaccine in the prevention of cardiovascular events. Improved vaccination of at-risk patients in hospital may need active engagement of HCW. Improving the health literacy of HCW regarding the benefits of vaccination as a preventative strategy may result in better health care outcomes for cardiac patients.

Experiences, risk perceptions, and COVID-19 vaccination outcomes among hospital workers

BACKGROUND

Although COVID-19 vaccinations have been available to hospital workers in the U.S. since December 2020, coverage is far from universal, even in groups with patient contact. The aim of this study was to describe COVID-19-related experiences at work and in the personal lives of nurses, allied health workers, and non-clinical staff with patient contact, and to assess whether these experiences relate to COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

Health care workers at a large Midwestern hospital in the U.S. were contacted to participate in an online cross-sectional survey during February 2021. A logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for vaccination by different experiences, and we assessed mediation through models that also included measures of risk perceptions.

RESULTS

Among 366 nurse practitioners / nurse midwives / physician assistant, 1,698 nurses, 1,798 allied health professionals, and 1,307 non-clinical staff with patient contact, the proportions who had received or intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccination were 94 %, 87 %, 82 %, and 88 %, respectively. Working and being physically close to COVID-19 patients was not significantly associated with vaccine intent. Vaccination intent was significantly lower among those with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis vs not (OR = 0.33, 95 % CI: 0.27, 0.40) and higher for those who knew close family members of friends hospitalized or died of COVID-19 (OR = 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.10, 1.60).

CONCLUSION

Even when COVID-19 vaccination was available in February 2021, a substantial minority of hospital workers with patient contact did not intend to be vaccinated. Moreover, their experiences working close to COVID-19 patients were not significantly related to vaccination intent. Instead, personal experiences with family members and friends were associated with vaccination intent through changes in risk perceptions. Interventions to increase uptake among hospital workers should emphasize protection of close family members or friends and the severity of COVID-19.

Factors influencing healthcare professionals' confidence in vaccination in Europe: a literature review

Health-care professionals (HCPs) have a fundamental role in vaccination, their own beliefs and attitudes affecting both their uptake and recommendation of vaccines. This literature review (n = 89) summarises evidence on HCPs’ perceptions of the risks and benefits of vaccination, trust, and perceptions of mandatory vaccination in Europe. HCPs across studies believed that vaccination is important to protect themselves and their patients. However, beliefs that some diseases such as influenza are less risky were reported by some HCPs as a reason for not getting vaccinated. Concerns about both short- and long-term side effects were identified among HCPs in most studies, such as those affecting the immune or neurological system. Mistrust toward health authorities and pharmaceutical industry was reported in some studies. The question of mandatory vaccination revealed mixed opinions, with some favoring self-determination and others viewing vaccination as a duty. This review highlights key factors influencing HCPs’ confidence in vaccination in Europe.

Racial/ethnic disparities in influenza risk perception and vaccination intention among Pima County residents in Arizona

While influenza cases in Arizona have nearly tripled since 2018, vaccination rates continue to lag. Statewide, Hispanics and African Americans had the lowest vaccination rates despite having higher influenza infection rates than Whites. Given Arizona's racial influenza vaccination disparity and the general increase in vaccination hesitancy due to COVID-19, the purpose of this study was to better understand the influences of seasonal influenza vaccination in Arizona during the COVID-19 pandemic using qualitative methods. Findings from this study revealed that many participants were motivated to get the influenza vaccine to protect their family and close friends. The heightened concern for COVID-19 prompted some Hispanic/Latino focus group discussion participants to consider getting vaccinated. However, many Hispanic/Latino participants also expressed that they stopped getting influenza vaccine due to negative vaccination experiences or concern about sickness following immunization. African American participants primarily discussed receiving the vaccine as part of their routine health visit. Compared to other races, more White participants believed that vaccination was unimportant because they were healthy, and the people they interacted with never got sick. Distinct factors influence risk perception and vaccination intention across different racial/ethnic groups. Effective interventions can account for these factors and be tailored to the target population to maximize vaccination uptake.

Prevalence and management of rubella susceptibility in healthcare workers in Italy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

In the pre-vaccination era, all adults acquired immunity status due to natural infections during childhood and adolescence, whereas universal mass vaccination has changed the seroepidemiology of rubella among adults, showing lack of immunity in some subgroups. National and international guidelines recommend evaluating all healthcare workers (HCWs) for their immune status to rubella and possibly vaccinating those who are seronegative. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the susceptibility rate to rubella among HCWs in Italy and to explore possible options for the management of those found to be susceptible.

Methods

Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis, selected from scientific papers available in the MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar (till page 10) databases between January 1, 2015 and November 30, 2021. The following terms were used for the search strategy: (sero* OR seroprevalence OR prevalence OR susceptibilit* OR immunit* OR immunogenict*) AND (healthcare worker* OR health personnel OR physician* OR nurse OR student*) AND (rubella OR german measles OR TORCH) AND (Italy)

Results

The prevalence of rubella-susceptible HCWs was 9.0 % (95 %CI: 6.4–12.1 %). In a comparison of female vs. male serosusceptible HCWs, the RR was 0.67 (95 %CI = 0.51–0.88). Occupational medicine examinations for rubella screening with possible subsequent vaccination of seronegatives and exclusion of susceptible HCWs from high-risk settings were common management strategies.

Conclusions

HCWs susceptible to rubella are an important epidemiological concern in Italy, and efforts to identify and actively offer the vaccine to this population should be increased.

Healthcare workers' attitudes on mandates, incentives, and strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake: A mixed methods study

Healthcare workers are a trusted health information source and are uniquely positioned to reduce the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this sequential exploratory mixed methods study was to understand attitudes of healthcare workers working in Massachusetts during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine utilization, including vaccine mandates and incentives. Fifty-two individuals completed one-on-one interviews between April 22nd and September 7th, 2021. The survey was developed based on findings from the interviews; 209 individuals completed the online survey between February 17th and March 23rd, 2022. Both the interview and survey asked about attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine and booster mandates, incentives, and strategies to improve vaccination rates. Most participants were female (79%-interview, 81%-survey), Caucasian (56%, 73%), and worked as physicians (37%, 34%) or nurses (10%, 18%). Overall, nuanced attitudes regarding vaccine and booster mandates were expressed; many supported mandates to protect their patients' health, others emphasized personal autonomy, while some were against mandates if job termination was the consequence of declining vaccines. Similarly, views regarding vaccine incentives differed; some considered incentives helpful, yet many viewed them as coercive. Strategies believed to be most effective to encourage vaccination included improving accessibility to vaccination sites, addressing misinformation, discussing vaccine safety, tailored community outreach via trusted messengers, and one-on-one conversations between patients and healthcare workers. Healthcare workers' experiences with strategies to improve utilization of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters have implications for public health policies. Generally, efforts to improve access and education were viewed more favorably than incentives and mandates.

The need for vaccination in adults with chronic (noncommunicable) diseases in India - lessons from around the world

Worldwide, chronic diseases (noncommunicable diseases [NCDs]) cause 41 million (71%) deaths annually. They are the leading cause of mortality in India, contributing to 60% of total deaths each year. Individuals with these diseases are more susceptible to vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) and have an increased risk of associated disease severity and complications. This poses a substantial burden on healthcare systems and economies, exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccines are an effective strategy to combat these challenges; however, utilization rates are inadequate. With India running one of the world’s largest COVID-19 vaccination programs, this presents an opportunity to improve vaccination coverage for all VPDs. Here we discuss the burden of VPDs in those with NCDs, the benefit of vaccinations, current challenges and possible strategies that may facilitate implementation and accessibility of vaccination programs. Effective vaccination will have a significant impact on the disease burden of both VPDs and NCDs and beyond.

What is already known on this topic?

Annually, chronic or noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) cause >40 million deaths worldwide and 60% of all deaths in India

Adults with these diseases are more susceptible to vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs); however, vaccine utilization is inadequate in this population

What is added by this report?

We highlight the benefits of vaccination in adults with NCDs that extend beyond disease prevention

We discuss key challenges in implementing adult vaccination programs and provide practical solutions

What are the implications for public health practice?

Raising awareness about the benefits of vaccinations, particularly for those with NCDs, and providing national guidelines with recommendations from medical societies, will increase vaccine acceptance

Adequate vaccine acceptance will reduce the VPD burden in this vulnerable population

Hesitancy for receiving regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis from the UK-REACH study

BACKGROUND

Regular vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 may be needed to maintain immunity in 'at-risk' populations, which include healthcare workers (HCWs). However, little is known about the proportion of HCWs who might be hesitant about receiving a hypothetical regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or the factors associated with this hesitancy.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of questionnaire data collected as part of UK-REACH, a nationwide, longitudinal cohort study of HCWs. The outcome measure was binary, either a participant indicated they would definitely accept regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination if recommended or they indicated some degree of hesitancy regarding acceptance (probably accept or less likely). We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with hesitancy for receiving regular vaccination.

RESULTS

A total of 5454 HCWs were included in the analysed cohort, 23.5% of whom were hesitant about regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Black HCWs were more likely to be hesitant than White HCWs (aOR 2.60, 95%CI 1.80-3.72) as were those who reported a previous episode of COVID-19 (1.33, 1.13-1.57 [vs those who tested negative]). Those who received influenza vaccination in the previous two seasons were over five times less likely to report hesitancy for regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination than those not vaccinated against influenza in either season (0.18, 0.14-0.21). HCWs who trusted official sources of vaccine information (such as NHS or government adverts or websites) were less likely to report hesitancy for a regular vaccination programme. Those who had been exposed to information advocating against vaccination from friends and family were more likely to be hesitant.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, nearly a quarter of UK HCWs were hesitant about receiving a regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We have identified key factors associated with hesitancy for regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which can be used to identify groups of HCWs at the highest risk of vaccine hesitancy and tailor interventions accordingly. Family and friends of HCWs may influence decisions about regular vaccination. This implies that working with HCWs and their social networks to allay concerns about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could improve uptake in a regular vaccination programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN11811602.

Use of financial incentives to increase adult vaccination coverage: A narrative review of lessons learned from COVID-19 and other adult vaccination efforts

To encourage COVID-19 vaccination, governments have offered a wide range of incentives to their populations ranging from cash to cows. Often these programs were rolled out at scale before assessing potential effectiveness. To inform future policy, we conducted a narrative review to understand the evidence base informing these programs and the extent to which they are effective. While we found evidence on cash transfers increasing both the coverage and intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19 and other adult vaccines, improvements in coverage were limited. With mixed evidence, lottery programs did not appear to have a consistent meaningful impact on vaccination for COVID-19, and no evidence was identified on the positive effects of other non-cash incentives for COVID-19 or other adult vaccines. We conclude that the impact of cash transfers in incentivizing adult vaccination is marginal and their effectiveness in addressing vaccine hesitancy remains inconclusive.

Effectiveness of a pay-it-forward intervention compared with user-paid vaccination to improve influenza vaccine uptake and community engagement among children and older adults in China: a quasi-experimental pragmatic trial

BACKGROUND

China has low seasonal influenza vaccination rates among priority populations. In this study, we aimed to evaluate a pay-it-forward strategy to increase influenza vaccine uptake in rural, suburban, and urban settings in China.

METHODS

We performed a quasi-experimental pragmatic trial to examine the effectiveness of a pay-it-forward intervention (a free influenza vaccine and an opportunity to donate financially to support vaccination of other individuals) to increase influenza vaccine uptake compared with standard-of-care user-paid vaccination among children (aged between 6 months and 8 years) and older people (≥60 years) in China. Recruitment took place in the standard-of-care group until the expected sample size was reached and then in the pay-it-forward group in primary care clinics from a rural site (Yangshan), a suburban site (Zengcheng), and an urban site (Tianhe). Participants were introduced to the influenza vaccine by project staff using a pamphlet about influenza vaccination and were either asked to pay out-of-pocket at the standard market price (US$8·5-23·2; standard-of-care group) or to donate any amount anonymously (pay-it-forward group). Participants had to be eligible to receive an influenza vaccine and to have not received an influenza vaccine in the past year. The primary outcome was vaccine uptake. Secondary outcomes were vaccine confidence and costs (from the health-care provider perspective). Regression methods compared influenza vaccine uptake and vaccine confidence between the two groups. This trial is registered with ChiCTR, ChiCTR2000040048.

FINDINGS

From Sept 21, 2020, to March 3, 2021, 300 enrolees were recruited from patients visiting three primary care clinics. 55 (37%) of 150 people in the standard-of-care group (40 [53%] of 75 children and 15 [20%] of 75 older adults) and 111 (74%) of 150 in the pay-it-forward group (66 [88%] of 75 children and 45 [60%] of 75 older adults) received an influenza vaccine. People in the pay-it-forward group were more likely to receive an influenza vaccine compared with those in the standard-of-care group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6·7 [95% CI 2·7-16·6] among children and 5·0 [2·3-10·8] among older adults). People in the pay-it-forward group had greater confidence in vaccine safety (aOR 2·2 [95% CI 1·2-3·9]), importance (3·1 [1·6-5·9]), and effectiveness (3·1 [1·7-5·7]). In the pay-it-forward group, 107 (96%) of 111 participants donated money for subsequent vaccinations. The pay-it-forward group had a lower economic cost (calculated as the cost without subtraction of donations) per person vaccinated (US$45·60) than did the standard-of-care group ($64·67).

INTERPRETATION

The pay-it-forward intervention seemed to be effective in improving influenza vaccine uptake and community engagement. Our data have implications for prosocial interventions to enhance influenza vaccine uptake in countries where influenza vaccines are available for a fee.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK National Institute for Health Research.

The Role of Psychological Factors and Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs in Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy and Uptake among Jordanian Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Vaccination to prevent influenza virus infection and to lessen its severity is recommended among healthcare workers (HCWs). Health professionals have a higher risk of exposure to viruses and could transmit the influenza virus to vulnerable patients who are prone to severe disease and mortality. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the levels of influenza vaccine acceptance and uptake as well as its determinants, among Jordanian HCWs over the last influenza season of 2021/2022. This study was based on a self-administered electronic survey that was distributed in March 2022. Psychological determinants of influenza vaccine acceptance and vaccine conspiracy beliefs were assessed using the previously validated 5C scale questionnaire (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation and collective responsibility) and the vaccine conspiracy beliefs scale. The study sample comprised a total of 1218 HCWs: nurses (n = 412, 33.8%), physicians (n = 367, 30.1%), medical technicians (n = 182, 14.9%), pharmacists (n = 161, 13.2%) and dentists (n = 87, 7.1%), among others. About two-thirds of the study sample expressed willingness to receive influenza vaccination if provided free of charge (n = 807, 66.3%), whereas less than one-third were willing to pay for the vaccine (n = 388, 31.9%). The self-reported uptake of the influenza vaccine in the last influenza season was 62.8%. The following factors were significantly associated with higher acceptance of influenza vaccination if provided freely, as opposed to vaccine hesitancy/rejection: male sex; physicians and dentists among HCW categories; higher confidence and collective responsibility; and lower complacency, constraints and calculation. Higher influenza vaccine uptake was significantly correlated with nurses and physicians among HCW categories, older age, a higher monthly income, higher confidence and collective responsibility, lower complacency and constraints and lower embrace of general vaccine conspiracy beliefs. The results of the current study can provide helpful clues to improve influenza vaccine coverage among HCWs in Jordan. Consequently, this can help to protect vulnerable patient groups and reserve valuable resources in healthcare settings. Psychological determinants appeared to be the most significant factors for vaccine acceptance and uptake, whereas the embrace of general vaccine conspiracy beliefs was associated with lower rates of influenza vaccine uptake, which should be considered in educational and interventional measures aiming to promote influenza vaccination.

Decisions to Choose COVID-19 Vaccination by Health Care Workers in a Southern California Safety Net Medical Center Vary by Sociodemographic Factors

BACKGROUND

Limited information exists regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs). Our previous survey analyzed the reasons for HCWs' decisions to accept vaccination, suggesting that a "one-size fits all" approach may not suffice to increase vaccine uptake.

METHODS

Based on the vaccination acceptance group (acceptor, hesitant, refuser), we examined differences by sociodemographic factors (race/ethnicity, household income, education) from Likert Scale responses to fourteen influences affecting a decision to be vaccinated using the Kruskal-Wallis test and multinomial logistic regression with mutual adjustment for these sociodemographic factors, age, and sex.

RESULTS

Non-Hispanic White vaccine acceptors ranked lower confidence in preventing, withstanding, or treating COVID-19, while Non-Hispanic Blacks more highly regarded the motivation of a religious leader, colleague, or family member. Social media was ranked more influential among Non-Hispanic Asians. Acceptors with lower incomes ranked a job requirement influential; conversely, higher income vaccine hesitant HCWs highly rated this reason. More highly educated acceptors ranked being motivated by colleagues, family, and other HCWs higher. Adjustment weakened some but not all the differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociodemographic factors affect HCWs' decisions to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Our findings may help develop more focused and tailored strategies to improve vaccination acceptance.

Addressing vaccine hesitancy and resistance for COVID-19 vaccines

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has had various degrees of success in different countries. Achieving high levels of vaccine coverage is key to responding to and mitigating the impact of the pandemic on health and aged care systems and the community. In many countries, vaccine hesitancy, resistance, and refusal are emerging as significant barriers to immunisation uptake and the relaxation of policies that limit everyday life. Vaccine hesitancy/ resistance/ refusal is complex and multi-faceted. Individuals and groups have diverse and often multiple reasons for delaying or refusing vaccination. These reasons include: social determinants of health, convenience, ease of availability and access, health literacy understandability and clarity of information, judgements around risk versus benefit, notions of collective versus individual responsibility, trust or mistrust of authority or healthcare, and personal or group beliefs, customs, or ideologies. Published evidence suggests that targeting and adapting interventions to particular population groups, contexts, and specific reasons for vaccine hesitancy/ resistance may enhance the effectiveness of interventions. While evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to address vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake is limited and generally unable to underpin any specific strategy, multi-pronged interventions are promising. In many settings, mandating vaccination, particularly for those working in health or high risk/ transmission industries, has been implemented or debated by Governments, decision-makers, and health authorities. While mandatory vaccination is effective for seasonal influenza uptake amongst healthcare workers, this evidence may not be appropriately transferred to the context of COVID-19. Financial or other incentives for addressing vaccine hesitancy may have limited effectiveness with much evidence for benefit appearing to have been translated across from other public/preventive health issues such as smoking cessation. Multicomponent, dialogue-based (i.e., communication) interventions are effective in addressing vaccine hesitancy/resistance. Multicomponent interventions that encompasses the following might be effective: (i) targeting specific groups such as unvaccinated/under-vaccinated groups or healthcare workers, (ii) increasing vaccine knowledge and awareness, (iii) enhanced access and convenience of vaccination, (iv) mandating vaccination or implementing sanctions against non-vaccination, (v) engaging religious and community leaders, (vi) embedding new vaccine knowledge and evidence in routine health practices and procedures, and (vii) addressing mistrust and improving trust in healthcare providers and institutions via genuine engagement and dialogue. It is universally important that healthcare professionals and representative groups, as often highly trusted sources of health guidance, should be closely involved in policymaker and health authority decisions regarding the establishment and implementation of vaccine recommendations and interventions to address vaccine hesitancy.

Flu and COVID-19 Vaccination: What Happens to the Flu Shot When the Campaigns Overlap? Experience from a Large Italian Research Hospital

Influenza represents a threat to global health and health care workers (HCWs) have an increased risk of contracting the influenza virus in the workplace. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought back the importance of influenza vaccination, as the influenza virus can circulate together with SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this report is to describe the actual flu vaccination coverage among healthcare workers of a research hospital and the trend changes, with respect to the past flu vaccination campaigns, in light of the present pandemic and COVID-19 vaccination. A Pearson’s χ2 test was used to test the correlation of flu vaccination coverage, across all professional categories, between the last two years. A linear regression model was adopted to predict the total vaccination coverage of this year. A statistically significant decrease (p < 0.01) was observed in vaccination coverage among all the professional categories with a 50% reduction in vaccination trends between the last two years. Analyzing the data from the previous six flu vaccination campaigns, the expected value, according to the linear regression model, was estimated to be 38.5% while the observed value was 24%. The decrease in vaccination coverage may be due to the fear of the pandemic situation and especially to the uncertainty related to the consequences of a concurrent administration which may overload the immune system or may be more reactogenic. The COVID-19 pandemic represents an opportunity to promote and support large-scale influenza vaccination among HCWs through structured programs, adequate funding, and tailored communication strategies.

Evaluation of vaccination status of health care workers for recommended vaccines and their acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

Introduction

Health care workers (HCWs) are disproportionately exposed to infectious diseases and play a role in nosocomial transmission, making them a key demographic for vaccination. HCW vaccination rates are not optimal in many countries; hence, compulsory vaccination policies have been implemented in some countries. Although these policies are effective and necessary under certain conditions, resolving HCWs’ hesitancies and misconceptions about vaccines is crucial. HCWs have the advantage of direct contact with patients; hence, they can respond to safety concerns, explain the benefits of vaccination, and counter antivaccine campaigns that escalate during pandemics, as has been observed with COVID-19.

Method

A short survey was carried out in May–June 2020 on the vaccination status of HCWs working with pediatric patients with COVID-19. The survey inquired about their vaccination status (mumps/measles/rubella [MMR], varicella, influenza, and diphtheria/tetanus [dT]) and willingness to receive hypothetical future COVID-19 vaccines. The respondents were grouped according to gender, age, occupation, and region.

Results

In total, 4927 HCWs responded to the survey. Most were young, healthy adults. The overall vaccination rates were 57.8% for dT in the past 10 years, 44.5% for MMR, 33.2% for varicella, and 13.5% for influenza. Vaccination rates were the highest among physicians. The majority of HCWs (81%) stated that they would be willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines.

Conclusion

Although vaccination rates for well-established vaccines were low, a majority of HCWs were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines when available. Education and administrative trust should be enhanced to increase vaccination rates among HCWs.

COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers-A Review

The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated vaccine have highlighted vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCWs). Vaccine hesitancy among this group existed prior to the pandemic and particularly centered around influenza vaccination. Being a physician, having more advanced education, and previous vaccination habits are frequently associated with vaccine acceptance. The relationship between age and caring for patients on COVID-19 vaccination is unclear, with studies providing opposing results. Reasons for hesitancy include concerns about safety and efficacy, mistrust of government and institutions, waiting for more data, and feeling that personal rights are being infringed upon. Many of these reasons reflect previous attitudes about influenza vaccination as well as political beliefs and views of personal autonomy. Finally, several interventions to encourage vaccination have been studied, including education programs and non-monetary incentives with the most effective studies using a combination of methods.

Increased Influenza Vaccination Coverage among Members of the Athens Medical Association Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic

Healthcare workers are at high risk of influenza virus infection as well as of transmitting the infection to vulnerable patients who may be at high risk of severe illness. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the prevalence and related factors of influenza vaccination coverage (2020-2021flu season), among members of the Athens Medical Association in Greece. This survey employed secondary analysis data from a questionnaire-based dataset on COVID-19 vaccination coverage and associated factors from surveyed doctors, registered within the largest medical association in Greece. All members were invited to participate in the anonymous online questionnaire-based survey over the period of 25 February to 13 March 2021. Finally, 1993 physicians (60% males; 40% females) participated in the study. Influenza vaccination coverage was estimated at 76%. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that older age (OR = 1.02; 95% C.I. = 1.01-1.03), history of COVID-19 vaccination (OR = 2.71; 95% C.I. = 2.07-3.56) and perception that vaccines in general are safe (OR = 16.49; 95% C.I. = 4.51-60.25) were found to be independently associated factors with the likelihood of influenza vaccination coverage. Public health authorities should maximize efforts and undertake additional actions in order to increase the percentage of physicians/health care workers (HCWs) being immunized against influenza. The current COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to focus on tailored initiatives and interventions aiming to improve the influenza vaccination coverage of HCWs in a spirit of synergy and cooperation.

'Leading from the front' implementation increases the success of influenza vaccination drives among healthcare workers: a reanalysis of systematic review evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers (HCW) is widely recommended to protect staff and patients. A previous systematic review examined interventions to encourage uptake finding that hard mandates, such as loss of employment for non-vaccination, were more effective than soft mandates, such as signing a declination form, or other interventions such as incentives. Despite these overarching patterns the authors of the review concluded that 'substantial heterogeneity' remained requiring further analysis. This paper reanalyses the evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to examine whether the strategies used to implement interventions explain the residual heterogeneity.

METHODS

We used ICA to extract implementation features and trialists' reflections on what underpinned the success of the intervention they evaluated. The ICA findings then informed and structured two QCA analyses to systematically examine associations between implementation features and intervention outcomes. Analysis 1 examined hard mandate studies. Analysis 2 examined soft mandates and other interventions.

RESULTS

In Analysis 1 ICA revealed the significance of 'leading from the front' rather than 'top-down' implementation of hard mandates. Four key features underpinned this: providing education prior to implementation; two-way engagement so HCW can voice concerns prior to implementation; previous use of other strategies so that institutions 'don't-go-in-cold' with hard-mandates; and support from institutional leadership. QCA revealed that either of two configurations were associated with greater success of hard mandates. The first involves two-way engagement, leadership support and a 'don't-go-in-cold' approach. The second involves leadership support, education and a 'don't-go-in-cold' approach. Reapplying the 'leading from the front' theory in Analysis 2 revealed similar patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of intervention type a 'leading from the front' approach to implementation will likely enhance intervention success. While the results pertain to flu vaccination among HCWs, the components identified here may be relevant to public health campaigns regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

Predictors of nurses' intention to accept COVID-19 vaccination: A cross-sectional study in five European countries

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate nurses' intention in accepting COVID-19 vaccination and the factors affecting their decision.

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccination has started in most European countries with healthcare personnel being the first group receiving the vaccine shots. Their attitude towards vaccination is of paramount significant as their role in the frontline could help in the awareness of general population.

METHODS

A study was conducted in Albania, Cyprus, Greece, Spain and Kosovo with the use of an online questionnaire. The Fear of COVID-19 Scale was used. The STROBE checklist was followed for this cross-sectional study.

RESULTS

Study population consisted of 1135 nurses. Mean age of the participants was 38.3 years, while most of them were female gender (84.7%) and married (53.1%). Acceptance of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine was higher among Greek (79.2%) and Spanish (71.6%) nurses, followed by Cypriot (54%), Albanian (46.3%) and Kosovo (46.2%) nurses. Key factors for willingness to get vaccinated were male gender, living in a country with a high mortality rate in comparison with low mortality, being not infected with COVID-19, having high level of knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines and having been vaccinated for influenza in the last 2 years. Moreover, trusting the government and doctors regarding the information about the COVID-19 and having high level of fear about this virus were key factors for willingness to get vaccinated.

CONCLUSION

Vaccination of healthcare personnel is a crucial issue not only for their own safety but also for their patients'. Healthcare acceptance to get vaccinated can work as a role model for general population.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Gender, country, mortality rate, trust in government and health professionals and the level of fear were key factors that should be managed in clinical practice.

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Among Nursing Home Staff via Statewide Policy: The Mississippi Vaccinate or Test Out Policy

Objectives. To examine whether COVID-19 vaccine mandates that allow a test-out exemption for nursing home staff are associated with increased staff vaccination rates in nursing homes. Methods. Using the National Healthcare Safety Network data, we conducted analyses to test trends over time in statewide staff vaccination rates between June 1, 2021, and August 29, 2021, in Mississippi, 4 adjacent states, and the United States overall. Results. COVID-19 staff vaccination rates increased slowly following Mississippi enacting a vaccinate-or-test-out policy, achieving small, but statistically greater gains than most comparator states. Yet, staff vaccination rates in Mississippi remained well below the national average and similar numerically to surrounding states without mandates. Conclusions. Mississippi's COVID-19 vaccinate-or-test policy was ineffective in meaningfully increasing staff vaccination rates. For COVID-19 nursing home mandates to be effective while still balancing the staff turnover risks, facilities might consider a more stringent or hybrid approach (e.g., test-out option not offered to new staff). Public Health Implications. Statewide COVID-19 vaccine mandates, when given a test-out option, do not appear to be an effective strategy to meaningfully increase nursing home staff COVID-19 vaccination. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(5):762-765. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306800).

COVID-19 Vaccination Should not be Mandatory for Health and Social Care Workers

A COVID-19 vaccine mandate is being introduced for health and social care workers in England, and those refusing to comply will either be redeployed or have their employment terminated. We argue that COVID-19 vaccination should not be mandatory for these workers for several reasons. First, it ignores their genuine concerns, and fails to respect their moral integrity and bodily autonomy. Second, it risks causing psychological reactance, potentially worsening vaccine hesitancy. Third, Black and minority ethnic workers are less likely to have been vaccinated and therefore may be disproportionately impacted by the implications of the mandate. Fourth, a mandate could have a significant negative effect on service provision. Fifth, waning immunity and new variants mean that booster doses are increasingly likely to be regularly required, meaning that what constitutes being 'fully vaccinated' will be a constantly shifting target. Finally, vaccine mandates may have an adverse effect on health and social care recruitment. We argue that daily rapid antigen testing is a viable alternative to a vaccine mandate that is non-coercive and fair. This could also be supplemented by monetary incentives to be vaccinated.

Evaluating the Findings of the IMPACT-C Randomized Clinical Trial to Improve COVID-19 Vaccine Coverage in Skilled Nursing Facilities

IMPORTANCE

Identifying successful strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccination among skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents and staff is integral to preventing future outbreaks in a continually overwhelmed system.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a multicomponent vaccine campaign would increase vaccine rates among SNF residents and staff.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a cluster randomized trial with a rapid timeline (December 2020-March 2021) coinciding with the Pharmacy Partnership Program (PPP). It included 133 SNFs in 4 health care systems across 16 states: 63 and 70 facilities in the intervention and control arms, respectively, and participants included 7496 long-stay residents (>100 days) and 17 963 staff.

INTERVENTIONS

Multicomponent interventions were introduced at the facility level that included: (1) educational material and electronic messaging for staff; (2) town hall meetings with frontline staff (nurses, nurse aides, dietary, housekeeping); (3) messaging from community leaders; (4) gifts (eg, T-shirts) with socially concerned messaging; (5) use of a specialist to facilitate consent with residents' proxies; and (6) funds for additional COVID-19 testing of staff/residents.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes of this study were the proportion of residents (from electronic medical records) and staff (from facility logs) who received a COVID-19 vaccine (any), examined as 2 separate outcomes. Mixed-effects generalized linear models with a binomial distribution were used to compare outcomes between arms, using intent-to-treat approach. Race was examined as an effect modifier in the resident outcome model.

RESULTS

Most facilities were for-profit (95; 71.4%), and 1973 (26.3%) of residents were Black. Among residents, 82.5% (95% CI, 81.2%-83.7%) were vaccinated in the intervention arm, compared with 79.8% (95% CI, 78.5%-81.0%) in the usual care arm (marginal difference 0.8%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 3.7%). Among staff, 49.5% (95% CI, 48.4%-50.6%) were vaccinated in the intervention arm, compared with 47.9% (95% CI, 46.9%-48.9%) in usual care arm (marginal difference: -0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 3.1%). There was no association of race with the outcome among residents.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A multicomponent vaccine campaign did not have a significant effect on vaccination rates among SNF residents or staff. Among residents, vaccination rates were high. However, half the staff remained unvaccinated despite these efforts. Vaccination campaigns to target SNF staff will likely need to use additional approaches.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04732819.

Effect of a multimodal strategy for prevention of nosocomial influenza: a retrospective study at Grenoble Alpes University Hospital from 2014 to 2019

Background

A multimodal strategy to prevent nosocomial influenza was implemented in 2015–2016 in Grenoble Alpes University Hospital. Three modalities were implemented in all units: promotion of vaccination among healthcare workers, epidemiologic surveillance and communication campaigns. Units receiving a high number of patients with influenza implemented 2 additional modalities: improvement of diagnosis capacities and systematic surgical mask use. The main objective was to assess the effectiveness of the strategy for reducing the risk of nosocomial influenza.

Methods

A study was conducted retrospectively investigating 5 epidemic seasons (2014–2015 to 2018–2019) including all patients hospitalized with a positive influenza test at Grenoble Alpes University Hospital. The weekly number of nosocomial influenza cases was analyzed by Poisson regression and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated.

Results

A total of 1540 patients, resulting in 1559 stays, were included. There was no significant difference between the 5 influenza epidemic seasons in the units implementing only 3 measures. In the units implementing the 5 measures, there was a reduction of nosocomial influenza over the seasons when the strategy was implemented compared to the 2014–2015 epidemic season (IRR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.23–1.34 in 2015–2016; IRR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.19–0.81 in 2016–2017; IRR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.24–1.03 in 2017–2018; IRR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.23–0.97 in 2018–2019).

Conclusions

Our data mainly suggested that the application of the strategy with 5 modalities, including systematic surgical mask use and rapid diagnosis, seemed to reduce by half the risk of nosocomial influenza. Further data, including medico-economic studies, are necessary to determine the opportunity of extending these measures at a larger scale.

Ethical review of COVID-19 vaccination requirements for transplant center staff and patients

Transplant centers seeking to increase coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine coverage may consider requiring vaccination for healthcare workers or for candidates. The authors summarize current data to inform an ethical analysis of the harms, benefits, and individual and societal impact of mandatory vaccination, concluding that vaccine requirements for healthcare workers and transplant candidates are ethically justified by beneficence, net utility, and fiduciary duty to patients and public health. Implementation strategies should mitigate concerns about respect for autonomy and transparency for both groups. We clarify how the same arguments might be applied to related questions of caregiver vaccination, allocation of other healthcare resources, and mandates for non-COVID-19 vaccines. Finally, we call for effort to achieve global equity in vaccination as soon as possible.

Support among healthcare workers for the new mandatory seasonal influenza vaccination policy and its effects on vaccination coverage

INTRODUCTION

Finland was the first European country to introduce a nation-wide mandatory seasonal influenza vaccination policy for healthcare workers (HCWs) by mandating that administrators of health care institutions only employ vaccinated HCWs. In this study, we examine the effects of the new policy and the view of HCWs on the new policy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in Kuopio University Hospital among HCWs working in close patient contact. The statistics on vaccination coverage were obtained from the hospital's own databases, where employees were asked to self-report their suitability for work. An anonymous survey was sent to HCWs in 2015-2016 (n = 987) and 2018-2019 (n = 821).

RESULTS

Vaccination coverage increased from 59.5 to 99.6%, according to the hospital's own records. Among the survey respondents, the seasonal influenza vaccination coverage of HCWs increased from 68.2 to 95.4%. 83.8% of doctors and 49.4% of nurses supported the new policy. 12.7% of doctors and 41.5% of nurses found the new mandate coercive or that it restricted their self-determination.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the positive effects of mandating the administrators of health care institutions to only employ vaccinated HCWs. The majority (57.9%) of all HCWs supported the new policy, with doctors being more compliant than nurses. Key messages Finland became the first European country to mandate influenza vaccination for HCWs by mandating that administrators of health care institutions only employ vaccinated HCWs. After the new act, the vaccination coverage of HCWs increased close to 100%. Most of the HCWs supported the new act and did not find it coercive.

Issues surrounding incentives and penalties for COVID-19 vaccination: The Israeli experience

The purpose of this study was to examine patterns of COVID-19 vaccination in Israel and how these relate to different proposals made about benefits for those vaccinated, and to present the legal and ethical dilemmas surrounding these issues. A retrospective study of COVID-19 vaccination rates in Israel was conducted, with data obtained from the Ministry of Health (MOH). Information on benefits proposed or offered for vaccination and restrictions for non-vaccination were obtained from the MOH and presented in a timeline. By March 1st, 51% of the total population, and 91% of those aged 60 and over, had received their first COVID-19 vaccine. Exemption from quarantine was granted to vaccinated or recovered people from 17th January 2021. The 'green pass' incentive scheme, granting access to social, cultural and sporting events for those fully vaccinated or immune, was proposed in December 2020, and came into effect on February 21st 2021. Incentive schemes which impose limitations on those who choose not to vaccinate may motivate some people to take action. Policymakers should use a measured approach to protect public health, with minimum infringement on citizens' rights. Providing transparent and culturally appropriate information on immunization and ensuring maximal and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines may help build trust.

Could mandatory vaccination increase coverage in health-care Workers? The experience of Bari Policlinico General Hospital

Influenza is a major issue for health-care systems all over the world and health-care workers (HCWs) are a subgroup at increased risk of exposure to respiratory pathogens, including influenza, with potential threat for both their own and their patients’ health. Despite this and despite the anti-influenza vaccination being offered to all HCWs, vaccination coverage among them is still low in Europe, generally less than 30%. During 2020s influenza season, influenza vaccination begun mandatory in Puglia (Italy) and Bari Policlinico General Hospital designed an active call system in order to increase its employees’ compliance to vaccination. This system was able to determine an increase of vaccination coverage from 23.1% to 77.6%.

Strategies associated with COVID-19 vaccine coverage among nursing home staff

Background

After the first of three COVID‐19 vaccination clinics in U.S. nursing homes (NHs), the median vaccination coverage of staff was 37.5%, indicating the need to identify strategies to increase staff coverage. We aimed at comparing the facility‐level activities, policies, incentives, and communication methods associated with higher staff COVID‐19 vaccination coverage.

Methods

Design. Case–control analysis.

Setting. Nationally stratified random sample of 1338 U.S. NHs participating in the Pharmacy Partnership for Long‐Term Care Program.

Participants. Nursing home leadership.

Measurement. During February 4–March 2, 2021, we surveyed NHs with low (<35%), medium (40%–60%), and high (>75%) staff vaccination coverage, to collect information on facility strategies used to encourage staff vaccination. Cases were respondents with medium and high vaccination coverage, whereas controls were respondents with low coverage. We used logistic regression modeling, adjusted for county and NH characteristics, to identify strategies associated with facility‐level vaccination coverage.

Results

We obtained responses from 413 of 1338 NHs (30.9%). Compared with facilities with lower staff vaccination coverage, facilities with medium or high coverage were more likely to have designated frontline staff champions (medium: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.6, 95% CI 1.3–10.3; high: aOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.1–7.7) and set vaccination goals (medium: aOR 2.4, 95% 1.0–5.5; high: aOR 3.7, 95% CI 1.6–8.3). NHs with high vaccination coverage were more likely to have given vaccinated staff rewards such as T‐shirts compared with NHs with low coverage (aOR 3.8, 95% CI 1.3–11.0). Use of multiple strategies was associated with greater likelihood of facilities having medium or high vaccination coverage: For example, facilities that used ≥9 strategies were three times more likely to have high staff vaccination coverage than facilities using <6 strategies (aOR 3.3, 95% CI 1.2–8.9).

Conclusions

Use of designated champions, setting targets, and use of non‐monetary awards were associated with high NH staff COVID‐19 vaccination coverage.

Nudging influenza vaccination among health care workers

Our online randomized controlled trial on 6230 healthcare workers (HCWs) tests the impact that three nudges - social norms, reminding the impact on beneficiaries, and defaults - have on the intention to vaccinate against seasonal influenza across job families. Willingness to get a flu shot was higher among subjects invited to imagine themselves working at the local health authority (LHA) with the greatest immunization coverage within their region relative to their counterparts prompted to imagine working at the LHA with the lowest coverage. Reminding the impact of flu vaccination on beneficiaries had different effects across job families, with physicians caring more benefits for themselves, nurses about patients' benefits, and technicians about family and friends. Default responses anchoring toward a high rather than a low vaccination intention increased the willingness to immunize among all HCW except physicians. Targeted nudges can be considered in developing interventions to promote influenza vaccination among HCWs.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Uptake among Nursing Staff during an Active Vaccine Rollout

Even with the availability of COVID-19 vaccines, factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and uptake among nurses are unknown. This study evaluated COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake of nursing staff during one of the first COVID-19 vaccine rollouts in the United States. A cross-sectional survey was conducted during February 2021 among nursing staff working in a large medical center in central United States. There were 276 respondents; 81.9% of participants were willing to receive the vaccine during the initial rollout, 11.2% were hesitant, and only 5.1% were unwilling. The hesitant group was likely to report having inadequate information to make an informed decision about whether to receive the vaccine (45.2%) and about vaccine expectations (32.3%). The majority (83.3%) received at least one dose of the vaccine. Having greater than 10 years’ work experience (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.16–7.9) and confidence in vaccine safety (OR 7.78, 95% CI 4.49–13.5) were significantly associated with vaccine uptake. While our study indicates higher vaccine uptake among nursing staff during an active vaccine rollout, there remains sustained hesitancy and unwillingness to uptake. For those hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, public health efforts to provide more data on side effects and efficacy may help increase vaccine uptake.

Multisociety statement on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination as a condition of employment for healthcare personnel

This consensus statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA), the Association for Professionals in Epidemiology and Infection Control (APIC), the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) recommends that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination should be a condition of employment for all healthcare personnel in facilities in the United States. Exemptions from this policy apply to those with medical contraindications to all COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States and other exemptions as specified by federal or state law. The consensus statement also supports COVID-19 vaccination of nonemployees functioning at a healthcare facility (eg, students, contract workers, volunteers, etc).

Current understandings of the impact of mandatory vaccination laws in Europe

Vaccinations are among the most successful preventive tools to protect collective health. In response to alarming vaccines preventable diseases (VPDs) outbreaks resurgence, decreased vaccination coverage and vaccine refusal, several European countries have recently revised their vaccination policies introducing or extending mandatory vaccinations. This review examines the health, political and ethical aspects of mandatory vaccination.The authors first clarify terms and definitions and propose a conceptual framework of mandatory policies. Second, they describe the current status of mandatory childhood immunization programmes in Europe, assessing selected mandatory laws. Third, as the authors conduct a systematic review of the literature (retrieving from Medline 17 relevant records between 2010 and 2020), they take an analytical approach to measure the impact of mandatory vaccination policies on both VPDs control and immunization coverage, but also on population attitudes toward vaccines. 40% of European countries currently have mandatory vaccination policies; however, policies vary widely and, although there is evidence of increased vaccine uptake, their impact on informed adherence to preventive behaviors is scant.Although mandatory vaccination policies might be needed to protect collective health in times of emergency, public health goals of VPD prevention and health promotion should primarily be pursued through health education and population empowerment.

Intention to Be Vaccinated for COVID-19 among Italian Nurses during the Pandemic

BACKGROUND

While the COVID-19 pandemic has spread globally, health systems are overwhelmed by both direct and indirect mortality from other treatable conditions. COVID-19 vaccination was crucial to preventing and eliminating the disease, so vaccine development for COVID-19 was fast-tracked worldwide. Despite the fact that vaccination is commonly recognized as the most effective approach, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), vaccine hesitancy is a global health issue.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of nurses in four different regions in Italy between 20 and 28 December 2020 to obtain data on the acceptance of the upcoming COVID-19 vaccination in order to plan specific interventions to increase the rate of vaccine coverage.

RESULTS

A total of 531 out of the 5000 nurses invited completed the online questionnaire. Most of the nurses enrolled in the study (73.4%) were female. Among the nurses, 91.5% intended to accept vaccination, whereas 2.3% were opposed and 6.2% were undecided. Female sex and confidence in vaccine efficacy represent the main predictors of vaccine intention among the study population using a logistic regression model, while other factors including vaccine safety concerns (side effects) were non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine, intention to be vaccinated was suboptimal among nurses in our sample. We also found a significant number of people undecided as to whether to accept the vaccine. Contrary to expectations, concerns about the safety of the vaccine were not found to affect the acceptance rate; nurses' perception of vaccine efficacy and female sex were the main influencing factors on attitudes toward vaccination in our sample. Since the success of the COVID-19 immunization plan depends on the uptake rate, these findings are of great interest for public health policies. Interventions aimed at increasing employee awareness of vaccination efficacy should be promoted among nurses in order to increase the number of vaccinated people.