Knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of hospital health-care workers regarding influenza A/H1N1: a cross sectional survey

Knowledge, attitudes, concern, behaviors, and barriers associated with the readiness to receive seasonal influenza vaccine among healthcare workers in oncology setting during the COVID-19 pandemic

This study examines the knowledge, attitudes, concerns, behaviors, and barriers related to seasonal influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the oncology setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective is to assess the readiness of HCWs to receive the influenza vaccine. A cross-sectional study was conducted at the King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC) in Amman, Jordan. HCWs were surveyed using a self-administered web-based questionnaire between October 2021 and November 2021. Among 223 participants, the coverage rates for seasonal influenza vaccination ranged from 65% to 81% during the autumns of 2019 and 2020, respectively. These vaccination rates showed a significant increase despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, 89.1% of the participants expressed their intention to receive the vaccine in the autumn of 2021. The analysis revealed a significant association between receiving the influenza vaccine in 2020 and the participants' work experience (P < .001, respectively). Additionally, receiving the influenza vaccination was significantly associated with higher knowledge levels (P = .036, 0.015). Although knowledge about the influenza vaccine was generally high, concerns and barriers were identified. This study demonstrates a high rate of influenza vaccination among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The participants also expressed a strong willingness to receive the vaccine in the post-pandemic season and exhibited good knowledge about it. However, concerns and barriers related to vaccination remain. These findings emphasize the importance of addressing these concerns and barriers to further enhance influenza vaccination rates among HCWs.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

INTRODUCTION

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

INCLUSION CRITERIA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and practice toward seasonal influenza and its vaccine: A cross-sectional study from a country of conflict

Background

The seasonal influenza vaccine is an important preventive measure against influenza and its associated complications. In Yemen, there is no seasonal influenza vaccination policy, and the influenza vaccine is excluded from the national immunization program. Data on vaccination coverage remain scarce with no previous surveillance programs or awareness campaigns implemented in the country. The current study aims to assess the awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of the public in Yemen toward seasonal influenza and their motivators and perceived barriers to receiving its vaccine.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was carried out using a self-administered questionnaire that was distributed to eligible participants using convenience sampling.

Results

A total of 1,396 participants completed the questionnaire. The respondents showed a median knowledge score of influenza of 11.0/15.0, and most of them (70%) were able to recognize its modes of transmission. However, only 11.3% of the participants reported receiving the seasonal influenza vaccine. Physicians were the respondents' most preferred information source for influenza (35.2%), and their recommendation (44.3%) was the most cited reason for taking its vaccine. On the contrary, not knowing about the vaccine's availability (50.1%), concerns regarding the safety of the vaccine (17%), and not considering influenza as a threat (15.9%) were the main reported barriers to getting vaccinated.

Conclusion

The current study showed a low uptake of influenza vaccines in Yemen. The physician's role in promoting influenza vaccination seems to be essential. Extensive and sustained awareness campaigns would likely increase the awareness of influenza and remove misconceptions and negative attitudes toward its vaccine. Equitable access to the vaccine can be promoted by providing it free of charge to the public.

Flu Vaccination among Healthcare Professionals in Times of COVID-19: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior

The seasonal flu vaccine is the most important way to prevent influenza epidemics, so it is useful to increase the awareness of health professionals. The aim of our study is to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and behavior about flu vaccination among healthcare professionals in times of COVID-19. Methods: A cross sectional study was carried out between November 2020 and April 2021. Participants were recruited in teaching hospital ‘Policlinico Umberto I’ of Rome. A survey of 24 questions about flu vaccination was administered, evaluating their knowledge, attitude, and practice about this topic. Results: 872 healthcare professionals were involved in the study (36.9% men, 63.1% women). More than 90% of the HCWs, especially physicians, recognize the importance of getting influenza vaccination: The main reasons for not getting vaccinated were fear of vaccine side effects (20.3%) and fear of the needle (6.4%). Nevertheless, 40.7% of the healthcare providers consider mandatory vaccination as unethical, especially if they work in low-intensity wards. Conclusion: a high percentage of healthcare workers agree with the importance of influenza vaccination and only a small percentage is still opposed. It is therefore important to continue to promote the influenza vaccination through communication and health education programs.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs of Pediatric Health Care Workers: Understanding the Response to COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

This research aims to assess knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of PHCW regarding COVID-19.

METHOD

Data collected using an electronic survey sent to pediatric health care workers.

RESULTS

Age was not likely to influence willingness to care for patients with COVID-19. Males were more likely to be willing to care for patients than female. Nurse practitioners were more likely to be willing to care for patients with COVID-19 than physicians. Availability of proper personal protective equipment, COVID-19 knowledge, and training did not influence willingness to care for COVID-19 patients. Healthcare workers with a higher risk of COVID-19-related sickness, and who received most of their COVID-19 information from social media, were less likely to be willing to care for COVID positive patients. As perception of hospital preparedness increased, reluctance to care for COVID-19 positive patients decreased.

DISCUSSION

Hospital preparedness and social media exposure play a significant role in willingness to care for patients with COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Sana'a, Yemen

Background and Aim: The development of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is ongoing. This study aimed to prepare for public acceptance of the vaccine. There is a need to identify the current acceptance and potential barriers to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in Yemen. Understanding the hesitancy and acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine are crucial to develop local evidence-based interventions. Materials and Methods: Twenty students were interviewed in this study. An interview guide was developed and it addressed the willingness to accept a future COVID-19 vaccine. In-depth interviews were conducted, transcribed, and manually analyzed. Results: The majority of participants agreed that they would take a COVID-19 vaccine for several reasons, including protection for themselves, their families, and others and to stop the spread of COVID-19, for which the vaccine is important, as in other routine vaccinations. However, some participants shared that they would not take the COVID-19 vaccine due to the following reasons: Concerns regarding the safety of the vaccine; feeling fit and healthy, and thus considering themselves to have strong immunity; feeling that the vaccine was manufactured in a rushed manner and thus it would require approval by the World Health Organization; being previously infected with COVID-19 and considering themselves protected, and placing their trust in God and believing no vaccine was needed. Conclusion: The willingness to receive a future COVID-19 vaccine was high among medical students. However, some students hesitated to take the vaccine. Therefore, mass media interventions are required to maximize vaccine uptake.

[Influenza vaccine hesitancy among health workers, Bahia State, Brazil]

The World Health Organization acknowledges vaccine hesitancy as one of the ten most serious global health threats. The study investigated the association between confidence, convenience, and complacency and influenza vaccine hesitancy among male and female health workers. The study included 453 workers in primary and medium-complexity health services in a medium-sized city in the state of Bahia, Brazil. Vaccine-hesitant individuals were defined as those who had not received an influenza vaccine in 2019. Structural equation models were used to assess interrelations between target predictive variables and vaccine hesitancy. One-fourth of the workers (25.4%) hesitated to be vaccinated for influenza. Lower confidence (standardized coefficient - SC = 0.261; p = 0.044) and higher complacency (SC = 0.256; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy. Convenience was not associated with vaccine hesitancy. Workers not involved in patient care, workers in medium-complexity services, and male workers reported less receptiveness from the health professional administering the vaccines. Fear of needles was associated with both lower confidence and greater vaccine hesitancy. History of vaccine reactions was not associated directly with vaccine hesitancy, but it was associated with greater complacency, that is, less perception of risk from vaccine-preventable diseases. Since annual influenza vaccination is recommended, influenza vaccine hesitancy can increase the burden of this disease in the population. The data back the hypothesis that factors related to confidence and complacency produce harms in this vaccine´s acceptance and should be considered in the development of strategies and actions for greater adherence to vaccination.

Willingness to Receive the Booster COVID-19 Vaccine Dose in Poland

COVID-19 vaccinations are essential to mitigate the pandemic and prevent severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, the serum antibody levels in vaccinated individuals gradually decrease over time, while SARS-CoV-2 is undergoing an evolution toward more transmissible variants, such as B.1.617.2, ultimately increasing the risk of breakthrough infections and further virus spread. This cross-sectional online study of adult Poles (n = 2427) was conducted in September 2021 (before a general recommendation to administer a booster COVID-19 vaccine dose in Poland was issued) to assess the attitude of individuals who completed the current vaccination regime toward a potential booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and identify potential factors that may influence it. Overall, 71% of participants declared willingness to receive a booster COVID-19 dose, with a low median level of fear of receiving it of 1.0 (measured by the 10-point Likert-type scale), which was increased particularly in those having a worse experience (in terms of severity of side effects and associated fear) with past COVID-19 vaccination. The lowest frequency of willingness to receive a booster dose (26.7%) was seen in the group previously vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S. The majority of individuals vaccinated previously with mRNA vaccines wished to receive the same vaccine, while in the case of AZD1222, such accordance was observed only in 9.1%. The main reasons against accepting a booster COVID-19 dose included the side effects experienced after previous doses, the opinion that further vaccination is unnecessary, and safety uncertainties. Women, older individuals (≥50 years), subjects with obesity, chronic diseases, and pre-vaccination and post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infections, and those with a history of vaccination against influenza were significantly more frequently willing to receive a booster COVID-19 dose. Moreover, the majority of immunosuppressed individuals (88%) were willing to receive an additional dose. The results emphasize some hesitancy toward potential further COVID-19 vaccination in the studied group of Poles and indicate the main groups to be targeted with effective science communication regarding the booster doses.

Public fear of COVID-19 vaccines in Iraqi Kurdistan region: a cross-sectional study

Background

Vaccines remain one of the most effective methods to control infectious diseases; however, COVID-19 vaccines are challenging and novel. Vaccine support is still substantial in general, although vaccination fear has increased dramatically in recent decades. This is the first study aimed to determine the fear of the COVID-19 vaccination and the role of factors and reasons associated with fear in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.

Results

A total of 1188 participants responded to the questionnaire about their fears of the COVID-19 vaccine. The majority of participants had a medium level of fear (56.7%). Fear was significantly (p < 0.001) associated with major demographic characteristics, social media use (51.8%), and losing family members, while other variables (previous seasonal influenza vaccine, previous infection, chronic medical diseases) show no relationship. Fear of side effects such as blood clotting was reported by the majority (45.03%) and indicated positive relation (p < 0.016). On the other hand, a high proportion, 39.9% and 34.01%, were afraid of AstraZeneca and Pfizer (p < 0.001), respectively; however, only about 4.63% had fear of Sinopharm.

Conclusions

The fear of COVID-19 vaccination was widespread in the Iraqi Kurdistan region. In this way, fear was related to significant variables. To reduce the fear of vaccines and increase public acceptance, authorities and the Ministry of Health should initiate a public awareness campaign. As a result, the public health crisis will significantly improve.

Healthcare Workers' Willingness to Receive Influenza Vaccination in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey in Southern Italy

This cross-sectional survey was designed to evaluate hospital healthcare workers’ (HCWs) willingness to receive the influenza vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify the related determinants, since it is plausible that the two epidemics will coexist in future winters. Overall, 68% out of 490 participants expressed their willingness to receive influenza vaccination in the 2020/21 season, with 95% of those ever and 45.8% of those never vaccinated in the previous six influenza seasons. Belief that influenza vaccine is useful in distinguishing influenza symptoms from those of COVID-19 and that the influenza vaccine is useful to prevent influenza in hospital settings, willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination, having no concern about influenza vaccine side effects, concern about the possibility to transmit influenza to hospitalized patients, and influenza vaccination in previous years were all predictors of willingness to receive influenza vaccination. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, a relevant increase in the willingness to undergo influenza vaccination was reported. Therefore, interventions focused primarily on enabling factors are needed to promote the adherence to influenza vaccination in future seasons among HCWs.

Knowledge and attitude of Kenyan healthcare workers towards pandemic influenza disease and vaccination: 9 years after the last influenza pandemic

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of exposure and transmission of infectious respiratory pathogens like influenza. Despite the potential benefits, safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination, vaccines are still underutilized in Africa, including among HCWs.

METHOD

From May-June 2018, we conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, written survey among HCWs from seven counties in Kenya and assessed their knowledge attitudes and perceptions towards pandemic influenza disease and vaccination. Using regression models, we assessed factors that were associated with the HCW's knowledge of pandemic influenza and vaccination.

RESULTS

A total of 2,035 HCWs, representing 49% of the targeted respondents from 35 health facilities, completed the question. Sixty eight percent of the HCWs had ever heard of pandemic influenza, and 80.0% of these were willing to receive pandemic influenza vaccine if it was available. On average, Kenyan HCWs correctly answered 55.0% (95% CI 54.0-55.9) of the questions about pandemic influenza and vaccination. Physicians (65.6%, 95% CI 62.5-68.7) and pharmacists (61.7%, 95% CI 57.9-65.5) scored higher compared to nurses (53.1%, 95% CI 51.7-54.5). HCWs with 5 or more years of work experience (55.8, 95% CI 54.5-57.0) had marginally higher knowledge scores compared to those with less experience (53.9%, 95% CI 52.5-55.3). Most participants who were willing to receive pandemic influenza vaccine did so to protect their relatives (88.7%) or patients (85.9%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest moderate knowledge of pandemic influenza and vaccination by HCWs in Kenya, which varied by cadre and years of work experience. These findings highlight the need for continued in-service health education to increase the HCW's awareness and knowledge of pandemic influenza to increase acceptance of influenza vaccination in the case of a pandemic.

Knowledge of infection prevention and control among healthcare workers and factors influencing compliance: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures among healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial for effective IPC. Compliance with IPC measures has critical implications for HCWs safety, patient protection and the care environment.

AIMS

To discuss the body of available literature regarding HCWs' knowledge of IPC and highlight potential factors that may influence compliance to IPC precautions.

DESIGN

A systematic review. A protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis [PRISMA] statement.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Proquest, Wiley online library, Medline, and Nature) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 January 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: knowledge, awareness, healthcare workers, infection, compliance, comply, control, prevention, factors. 3417 papers were identified and 30 papers were included in the review.

RESULTS

Overall, the level of HCW knowledge of IPC appears to be adequate, good, and/or high concerning standard precautions, hand hygiene, and care pertaining to urinary catheters. Acceptable levels of knowledge were also detected in regards to IPC measures for specific diseases including TB, MRSA, MERS-CoV, COVID-19 and Ebola. However, gaps were identified in several HCWs' knowledge concerning occupational vaccinations, the modes of transmission of infectious diseases, and the risk of infection from needle stick and sharps injuries. Several factors for noncompliance surrounding IPC guidelines are discussed, as are recommendations for improving adherence to those guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Embracing a multifaceted approach towards improving IPC-intervention strategies is highly suggested. The goal being to improve compliance among HCWs with IPC measures is necessary.

The Perception and Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccines: A Cross-Sectional Study in Poland

Vaccine hesitancy is a major threat to the success of COVID-19 vaccination programs. The present cross-sectional online survey of adult Poles (n = 1020) expressing a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was conducted between February and March 2021 and aimed to assess (i) the general trust in different types of vaccines, (ii) the level of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines already in use in Poland (BNT162b2 by BioNTech/Pfizer, mRNA-1273 by Moderna and AZD1222 by Oxford/AstraZeneca) as well as eight vaccines approved outside European Union (EU) or in advanced stages of clinical trials, (iii) level of fear of vaccination against COVID-19, and (iv) main sources of information on COVID-19 vaccination. Among all major vaccine technology, the highest level of trust was observed for the mRNA platform, with a considerable number of surveyed (>20%) not aware of the existence of vaccines produced using the traditional approach (inactivated and live attenuated vaccines). The age of participants was the main factor differentiating the level of trust in a particular vaccine type. Both BNT162b and mRNA-1273 received a high level of acceptance, contrary to AZD1222. From eight vaccines unauthorized in the EU at the moment of study, the CVnCoV (mRNA; CureVac) was met with the highest level of trust, followed by Ad26.COV2.S (vector; Janssen/Johnson&Johnson) and NVX-CoV2373 (protein; Novavax). Sputnik V (vector; Gamaleya Research Institute) was decidedly the least trusted vaccine. The median level of fear (measured by the 10-point Likert-type scale) in the studied group was 4.0, mostly related to the risk of serious allergic reactions, other severe adverse events and unknown long-term effects of vaccination. Female, individuals with a lower level of education and those not seeking any information on the COVID-19 vaccines revealed a higher fear of vaccination. Experts' materials were the major source of information on COVID-19 vaccines in the studied group. The study shows the level of trust in COVID-19 vaccines can vary much across the producers while the mRNA vaccines are received with a high level of acceptance. It also emphasizes the need for effective and continuous science communication when fighting the pandemic as it may be an ideal time to increase the general awareness of vaccines.

Influenza vaccination and healthcare workers: barriers and predisposing factors

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK

Influenza is a disease that affects a large part of the world's population annually, with major health, social and economic impacts. Active immunisation practices have always been recommended to counter influenza, especially for people at risk. The recommendations of major health agencies strongly advise influenza vaccination for all healthcare workers, mostly for those in contact with at-risk or immunocompromised individuals. Yet, the influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers remains rather low worldwide. This review explore barriers and the facilitators of health care professional toward influenza's vaccination.

METHODS

Narrative review  consulting the databases: PubMed, CINAHL by combining keywords health care worker, flu, influenza, vaccination, barrier, resistence, hesitangy, between November 2019 and February 2020 Results. From the 1031 records initially, twenty-two primary studies were included in this narrative review. Our results show that the identified facilitators are: desire for self-protection, protection for loved ones and community. Instead, the barriers to vaccination identified are: fear of contracting influenza from the vaccination itself; not considering themselves at risk; to believing believe that their immune system is capable of managing a trivial disease; disease considered trivial, laziness; false beliefs.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Adherence rate on influenza vaccination among health professionals is quite low. The interventions that make it "complex and traceable" flu vaccination refusal increase adherence to this type of vaccination. The results show that current vaccination campaigns do not increase the rate of adherence by healthcare workers. Identifying the predisposing factors and barriers to such vaccination can help to create, develop and test targeted educational programmes.

KAP-COVIDGLOBAL: a multinational survey of the levels and determinants of public knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

The adherence to public health recommendations to control COVID-19 spread is influenced by public knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP). We performed this cross-sectional study to assess the levels and determinants of public KAP towards COVID-19 in a large, multinational sample.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study (survey).

SETTING

The questionnaire was distributed to potential respondents via online platforms.

PARTICIPANTS

71 890 individuals from 22 countries.

METHODS

We formulated a four-section questionnaire in English, followed by validation and translation into seven languages. The questionnaire was distributed (May to June 2020) and each participant received a score for each KAP section.

RESULTS

Overall, the participants had fair knowledge (mean score: 19.24±3.59) and attitudes (3.72±2.31) and good practices (12.12±1.83) regarding COVID-19. About 92% reported moderate to high compliance with national lockdown. However, significant gaps were observed: only 68.2% knew that infected individuals may be asymptomatic; 45.4% believed that antibiotics are an effective treatment; and 55.4% stated that a vaccine has been developed (at the time of data collection). 71.9% believed or were uncertain that COVID-19 is a global conspiracy; 36.8% and 51% were afraid of contacting doctors and Chinese people, respectively. Further, 66.4% reported the pandemic had moderate to high negative effects on their mental health. Female gender, higher education and urban residents had significantly (p≤0.001) higher knowledge and practice scores. Further, we observed significant correlations between all KAP scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the public have fair/good knowledge and practices regarding COVID-19, significant gaps should be addressed. Future awareness efforts should target less advantaged groups and future studies should develop new strategies to tackle COVID-19 negative mental health effects.

Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes towards the Influenza Vaccine among Future Healthcare Workers in Poland

The flu vaccine is the best treatment for avoiding the flu and its complications. The aim of the study was to evaluate the knowledge of the flu vaccine and attitude towards the influenza vaccine among medical students in four majors of study (Nursing, Midwifery, Pharmacy, and Public health) in all years of study. A total number of 1137 subjects took part in the study. Most of the vaccinated students assessed the flu vaccine positively (78.5%, 73.7%, 60.7%, and 65.1%, according to their respective majors) and reported that they did not get the flu during the period of vaccination (90.4%, 92.1%, 87.4%, and 97.7%, respectively). Therefore, 65% of the students of Pharmacy, 78% of Midwifery, and 83% of Nursing who were vaccinated once in the last three years recommended the influenza vaccination, and 100% of all students received a regular vaccination every year. The univariate and multivariate logistic regressions showed that a maximum of four factors had a significant impact on the students’ knowledge of the influenza vaccine. Knowledge about the flu vaccine was the highest among Pharmacy students and lowest among Public health students. Final-year students answered the questions better than the younger ones (p < 0.05). Their place of residence and flu vaccination status also appeared to influence their answers. Although all students demonstrated good knowledge of the flu vaccine and demonstrated positive attitudes towards the vaccine, their rate of immunization was low. Therefore, health promotion programs are needed to improve immunization coverage among medical students who are future healthcare workers.

Point-of-care training program on COVID-19 infection prevention and control for pediatric healthcare workers: a multicenter, cross-sectional questionnaire survey in Shanghai, China

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effectiveness of training on knowledge and practice of infection prevention and control (IPC) among pediatric health care workers (HCW) in Shanghai, China, in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An online training program was designed by the Shanghai Pediatric Clinical Quality Control Center (SPQCC) during the early phase of COVID-19 pandemic on disease knowledge and practice of IPC. Training took place in the 81 partner hospitals affiliated with SPQCC. A multicenter, cross-sectional questionnaire survey was designed with a 25-item self-administered questionnaire to evaluate the knowledge gained from the training. Stratified-random sampling was used to select HCW according to three professionals (i.e., pediatricians, nurses and administrators) within each partner hospital. Awareness and knowledge of COVID-19 and its related infection control and practice were assessed by comparing survey results between different types of hospitals, professionals and professional ranks. A higher survey score meant that the respondent was more prepared and knowledgeable about COVID-19 and its infection control measures.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were returned from 1,062 subjects (385 pediatricians, 410 nurses, and 267 administrators), giving a response rate of 96.5%. Overall, awareness of clinical information related to COVID-19, importance of personal hygiene and isolation policy was high among the respondents. No statistical difference of scores on knowledge of COVID-19, IPC and relevant practice between the tertiary and peripheral hospitals. Among all respondents, middle-ranked health care personnel were most knowledgeable and achieved the highest score.

CONCLUSIONS

Majority of pediatric HCW showed good recognition and practice in infection protection and control measures. The online training was able to achieve its aim to enhance knowledge and awareness and could have contributed to the zero infection rate among HCW caring for confirmed COVID-19 cases in Shanghai.

The Use of Facemasks During the COVID-19 Pandemic by the Brazilian Population

Objective

To evaluate the use of facemasks by the Brazilian population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional study involved 1277 participants who answered a web-based open survey with questions about the use of facemasks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistics with percentages was performed, and the responses were analyzed with chi-square and independent t-tests.

Results

A total of 1277 answered the questionnaire, and most participants were female (81.8%). Almost all the participants (99.1%) reported wearing facemasks, and 34.2% are wearing just because it is mandatory; 65.8% would continue to wear masks even if it was not mandatory. Most subjects (50.4%) believe that masks' use effectively prevents infection by the novel coronavirus. Reusable fabric facemasks are the most used by the participants (49.5%). Almost all subjects were wearing masks to go to crowded and public places. Most respondents (67.3%) are bothered with the use of facemasks, and the most cited reason for the discomfort was feeling trapped or suffocated (58.9%).

Discussion

The use of facemasks can help prevent the COVID-19, but it is most effective at reducing the spread of the virus when the general population's compliance is high. Some factors that limit the population's compliance with the use of masks are discomfort and a sense of embarrassment. Media campaigns and public health promotion activities supported by governmental agencies can increase the use of facemasks by the population.

Conclusion

The mean level of anxiety with the COVID-19 pandemic was 6.18. Almost all the participants were wearing facemasks, and they believe that its use effectively prevents infection by the novel coronavirus. Reusable fabric facemasks are the most used by the participants. Almost all subjects were wearing masks to go to crowded and public places. The great majority of the participants feel more protected with the use of facemasks.

Barriers and facilitators to seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among nurses: A mixed methods study

AIM

To identify the barriers and facilitators to seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among nurses.

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza causes significant mortality and morbidity among older people and high-risk groups. Vaccinating nurses against influenza is an essential public health measure to reduce the burden of disease. Yet despite annual recommendations, nurses' influenza vaccine uptake rates remain low.

DESIGN

An explanatory sequential mixed methods study design.

DATA SOURCES

Qualified nurses attending mandatory training in two large acute hospitals in Ireland.

METHODS

A paper-based questionnaire assessing nurses' knowledge, risk perception, health beliefs and influenza vaccination practices was distributed to a convenience sample of qualified nurses (N = 462) between September 2017 - February 2018. A self-selected sample of 35 nurses who completed the questionnaire participated in five focus groups to explore in depth the barriers and facilitating factors associated with their vaccination practices between September 2018 - October 2018. The questionnaire data were analysed statistically and thematic analysis was applied to the qualitative data. The quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated using the Pillar Integration Process.

RESULTS

Seven themes emerged: (a) the influence of nurses' knowledge on vaccine uptake; (b) dissemination of information; (c) vaccine fears and concerns; (d) protection, risk and vulnerability: self and others; (e) influencers; (f) accessibility; and (g) organizational pressure.

CONCLUSION

Achieving high vaccine uptake rates among nurses through voluntary vaccination programmes remains a challenge. Multi-faceted influenza campaigns based on the HBM should be prioritized to address dissemination of evidence-based knowledge, accessibility, and external cues to action.

IMPACT

Low influenza vaccine uptake among nurses compromises patient safety and contributes to a significant burden on health services. This study identified factors associated with vaccine practices among nurses and will inform the development of specific tailored interventions for nurses.

Healthcare Workers' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices about Vaccinations: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy

The cross-sectional study assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the recommended vaccinations and factors affecting such outcomes among a sample of healthcare workers (HCWs) in public hospitals in Italy. Only 14.1% knew all the recommended vaccinations for HCWs. Physicians and those who had received information about vaccinations from scientific journals, educational activities, or professional associations were more likely to have this knowledge, while those aged 36–45 were more likely to have less knowledge than those in the age group below 36 years. Only 57.3% agreed that the information received about vaccinations was reliable. Respondents who had children, who worked in pediatric/neonatal wards, who were more knowledgeable, or who did not need further information about vaccinations considered the available information to be reliable. Only 17.7% of respondents always recommended vaccinations to their patients. This behavior was more likely to occur in physicians, in HCWs, in pediatric/neonatal wards, in those who considered the information received about vaccinations reliable, and in those who considered themselves to be at high risk of transmitting an infectious disease to their patients. Health promotion programs and efforts are needed to improve the level of knowledge about vaccinations and immunization coverage among HCWs.

Healthcare workers' knowledge, beliefs, and coverage regarding vaccinations in critical care units in Italy

BACKGROUND

Low rates of vaccine coverage have resulted in a resurgence of several vaccine-preventable diseases in many European countries. Routine vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) is important to reduce disease transmission, and to promote vaccine awareness and acceptance in the population. The objectives of this cross-sectional study were to investigate knowledge and beliefs about vaccines and to evaluate self-reported immunization coverage with vaccines recommended for HCWs. Additionally, the effects of several factors on these outcomes have been evaluated.

METHODS

A survey was conducted between September and November 2018 among a random sample of HCWs in cardiac, adult, and neonatal critical care units of 8 randomly selected hospitals across the Campania and Calabria Regions in Italy. Multivariate logistic and linear regression analysis has been performed.

RESULTS

A total 531 HCWs returned the questionnaire for a response rate of 54.9%. Based on a vaccination knowledge score ranging from 0 to 9, more than half of the participants (55.4%) knew few of the vaccines recommended for HCWs (≤3 correct answers), 16.2% knew some vaccines (4-6 correct answers), and 28.4% knew most vaccines (≥7 correct answers), and only 13.2% knew all the vaccines recommended for HCWs. However, two-thirds (62.2%) knew that hepatitis B and influenza vaccines were recommended, and this knowledge was significantly higher among females (p < 0.001), among HCWs aged between 50 and 59 years (p = 0.01) compared with those aged < 30 years, and in those who search for information about recommended vaccines for HCWs (p = 0.012). The vaccine knowledge was significantly lower among nurses and nursing supporting staff compared with physicians (p = 0.032). Approximately two-thirds (62.7%) of HCWs considered themselves at risk of contracting vaccine-preventable infectious diseases during their professional practice. High rates of coverage were self-reported for hepatitis B (96.3%), tetanus and pertussis (93.7%), whereas they were lower for measles/mumps/rubella (80.5%), chickenpox (65.3%), and influenza (35.8%). Only 9.2% of HCWs reported prior receipt of all recommended vaccines. Male HCWs were less likely to report prior receipt of all recommended vaccines (p = 0.011). HCWs aged between 30 and 39 years compared with those aged < 30 years (p = 0.001) and those who knew some (p < 0.001) and most (p = 0.007) of all vaccines recommended for HCWs were more likely to self-report to be immunized.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional training about the vaccinations is needed to improve HCWs knowledge and to address specific concerns which may lead to better uptake among this group.

Assessment of the factors influencing primary care physicians' approach to vaccination of adult risk groups in Istanbul, Turkey

Background

We aimed to assess the factors influencing primary care physicians’ (PCPs) approach to adult vaccination in specific risk groups and evaluate the compliance to adult immunization guidelines.

Methods

This cross-sectional study performed between January 2016 and April 2016 in İstanbul, Turkey. A questionnaire designed to obtain physicians’ demographical data, experience, immunization status, and attitude on prescribing or recommending vaccines for adults in the risk group. Healthy individuals older than 65 and patients suffer from chronic diseases or had splenectomy before are considered as a risk group. The questionnaire was sent via email to a randomly selected group of 1,500 PCPs. The data of 221 physicians who responded emails were recorded for statistical analysis.

Results

Of the 221 participants (123 women, 98 men), the majority were aged 31–40 years. Their vaccination rates were 74.2% for hepatitis B, 54.3% for seasonal influenza, and 47.1% for tetanus. Among participants, the highest recommendation and prescription rate of adult vaccines was recorded in PCPs aged 31–40 years. In addition, PCPs with <10 years occupational experience were found to prescribe adult vaccines more frequently than PCPs with longer occupational experience.

Conclusions

Primary care physicians with lower age and relatively less experience are more intent to prescribe adult vaccines to patients that are in risk groups. This result may be due to increased awareness of adult immunization among PCPs who had more recent medical training. However, many other factors could have caused this difference, including physicians’ approach to primary medical care.

Influenza vaccination: opinions of health care professionals working in pediatric emergency departments

Background

Vaccine coverage of health care professionals against influenza is still low in Italy, as well as in other European countries.

Methods

Between March and May 2018, this study was performed to collect the opinions of Pediatric health care professionals, working in emergency departments, regarding the efficacy and safety of the influenza vaccine. An anonymous online survey was employed to evaluate socio-demographic and professional characteristics, knowledges, beliefs and attitudes.

Results

Five hundred four health care professionals completed the survey: 331 physicians, 140 nurses and 33 other health are professionals. During the 2017–18 season, 55.8% of physicians, 19.3% of nurses and 12.1% of other health care professionals had vaccinated against the influenza virus. Not vaccinated physicians and nurses with less than 40 years of age were fewer than not vaccinated physicians and nurses with more than 40 years of age. Nurses and other health care professionals were less trustworthy of the influenza vaccination, less aware of the possibility of contracting and transmitting influenza and other vaccine-preventable diseases.

Conclusions

Insufficient adherence to the influenza vaccination in physicians, nurses and other health care professionals is a concern for those assisting high-risk patients, especially in emergency departments. Therefore, it is vital to promote education of health care professionals and students regarding vaccinations. High vaccine coverage should be embedded in the safe hospital paradigm and should become a goal for the hospital's directors.

Knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) towards vaccinations in the school settings: an explorative survey

Background

Past researches have shown that schoolteachers’ (STs) interventions maximize the consent for vaccination programs. European data regarding knowledge, attitudes and practices of STs towards vaccination are otherwise lacking.

Objectives

The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate knowledge and attitudes of STs regarding vaccinations in a sample from North Italy.

Material and methods

In this cross sectional study, 154 STs from Lombardy region (Northern Italy) responded to a specific questionnaire assessing their attitude towards vaccination and vaccine related knowledge.

Results

In general, 88.3% of subjects were somehow favourable to vaccinations. The main reason for declining vaccination was the risk of side effects whereas the main reason to be vaccinated was to avoid to be infected by VPDs (67.6%). Main information sources were health professionals (75.3%), and new media (13.1%), and the latter were STs more frequently associated with a negative attitude towards vaccinations (p < 0.001). Eventually, regression analysis identified risk perception as positively associated with propensity towards vaccinations, both for Students- and STs-recommended vaccinations (B = 0.372, 95% CI 0.247 to 0.496 and B = 0.005, 95%CI 0.004 to 0.006, respectively).

Conclusions

Our results are consistent with previous reports suggesting a significant knowledge gap in STs, with the risk perception of infectious diseases as the main predictor for vaccine propensity. Moreover, the better knowledge of official vaccination recommendations and policies among STs identifying Health Professionals as information source enlightens the role of the School Physicians and Occupational Physicians, whose intervention may ultimately increase the vaccination acceptance and vaccination rates.

Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices of Occupational Physicians towards seasonal influenza vaccination: a cross-sectional study from North-Eastern Italy

INTRODUCTION

The present study aims to characterize personal attitudes and knowledge of a sample of Italian Occupational Physicians (OPh) towards Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (SIV) in healthcare workers (HCWs).

METHODS

In total, 92 OPh (42.4% males, 57.6% females, mean age of 47.3 ± 10.4 years, 50 specialists in Occupational Medicine, 42 specialists in Hygiene and Public Health) were asked about their attitudes towards influenza vaccine, their general knowledge of vaccine practice, their propensity towards vaccines and, eventually, their risk perception about the influenza and influenza vaccine was investigated. A regression analysis was then performed in order to better characterize predictive factors for vaccine propensity.

RESULTS

Influenza was recognized as a vaccination recommended for HCWs in 89/92 of the sampled OPh (96.7%). However, prevalence of misconceptions about vaccines was relatively high, with 26/92 (28.3%) and 24/92 (26.1%) referring vaccinations as eliciting allergic and autoimmune diseases, respectively and identifying lethargic encephalitis (18/92, 19.6%), autism (17/92, 18.5%), diabetes mellitus (15/92, 16.3%) and multiple sclerosis (13/92, 14.1%) as causatively vaccine-related. Propensity towards influenza vaccination found a significant predictor in the general knowledge (beta coefficient 0.213, p value = 0.043), risk perception (beta coefficient 0.252, p value = 0.018) and general propensity towards vaccinations (beta coefficient 0.384, p value = 0.002).

DISCUSSION

In spite of a diffuse propensity towards SIV, adherence of OPh was still < 50% of the sample. Moreover, sharing of misbeliefs and misconceptions was significant. As knowledge and risk perceptions were identified as significant predictors of vaccine propensity, our results suggest that information and training programs for OPh should be appropriately designed.

Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviours towards Recommended Vaccinations among Healthcare Workers

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are an important group of professionals exposed to biological risk during their work activities. So, the aim of this study is to perform a survey on the knowledge, attitude and behaviour of Italian HCWs towards the vaccinations recommended by the Ministry of Health. A cross-sectional study was carried out during the period September 2014–August 2015 in the Lazio region. The study was conducted by recruiting HCWs and biomedical students. The sample was comprised of 571 responders, of whom 12.4% were physicians, 18.9% were nurses, 34.3% were other HCW, and 34.3% were biomedical students (medical and nurses students). Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is perceived as a risk for personal health by 457 (80%) participants; TB is also worrying (434; 76%). Moreover, HBV (70.9%) and tuberculosis (TB) (79.2%) are perceived as a risk for health, while influenza is not considered so by most participants (46.2%). There is an underestimation of the role of influenza, perceived as a risk for 137 respondents (24%). The vaccination rate among these HCWs is highest for Hepatitis B virus (HBV) (82%), and lowest for influenza (28.5%) and varicella (40.3%). The vast majority of responders are in favour of HBV (77.8%) and TB (64.8%) vaccines. For other vaccinations there is less interest (between 33% and 40% for measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis and influenza). This study shows that knowledge of recommended occupational vaccinations is insufficient in HCWs, with few exceptions represented by HBV and TB. There is a need for novel approaches in this field, with the aim of enhancing vaccine coverage among HCW.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

An assessment of the level of concern among hospital-based health-care workers regarding MERS outbreaks in Saudi Arabia

Background

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) is caused by MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV). More than 80% of reported cases have occurred in Saudi Arabia, with a mortality exceeding 50%. Health-care workers (HCWs) are at risk of acquiring and transmitting this virus, so the concerns of HCWs in Saudi Arabia regarding MERS were evaluated.

Methods

An anonymous, self-administered, previously validated questionnaire was given to 1031 HCWs at three tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from October to December, 2014. Concerns regarding the disease, its severity and governmental efforts to contain it, as well as disease outcomes were assessed using 31 concern statements in five distinct domains. A total concern score was calculated for each HCW. Multiple regression analyses were used to identify predictors of high concern scores.

Results

The average age of participants was 37.1 ± 9.0 years, 65.8% were married and 59.1% were nurses. The majority of respondents (70.4%) felt at risk of contracting a MERS-CoV infection at work, 69.1% felt threatened if a colleague contracted MERS-CoV, 60.9% felt obliged to care for patients infected with MERS-CoV and 87.8% did not feel safe at work using standard precautions. In addition, 87.7% believed that the government should isolate patients with MERS in specialized hospitals, 73.7% agreed with travel restriction to and from areas affected by MERS and 65.3% agreed with avoiding inviting expatriates from such areas. After adjustment for covariates, high concern scores were significantly associated with being a Saudi national (p < 0.001), a non-physician (p < 0.001) and working in the central region (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The majority of respondents reported concern regarding MERS-CoV infection from exposure at work. The overall level of concern may be influenced by previous experience of MERS outbreaks and related cultural issues. The concerns of HCWs may affect their overall effectiveness in an outbreak and should be addressed by incorporating management strategies in outbreak planning.

Knowledge, awareness and practices towards seasonal influenza and its vaccine: implications for future vaccination campaigns in Jordan

BACKGROUND

Influenza is an underestimated contributor to morbidity and mortality. Population knowledge regarding influenza and its vaccination has a key role in enhancing vaccination coverage.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the gaps of knowledge among Jordanian population towards influenza and its vaccine, and to identify the major determinants of accepting seasonal influenza vaccine in adults and children in Jordan.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that enrolled 941 randomly selected adults in Amman, Jordan. A four-section questionnaire was used which included questions about the sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge about influenza and the factors that affect seasonal influenza vaccine acceptance and refusal.

RESULTS

Only 47.3% of the participants were considered knowledgeable. About half of the participants (51.9%) correctly identified the main influenza preventative measures. Lack of knowledge about the important role of seasonal influenza vaccine in disease prevention was observed. Low vaccination rate (20% of adults) was reported. The most critical barrier against vaccination in adults and children was the concern about the safety and the efficacy of the vaccine, while the most important predictors for future vaccination in adults and children were physician recommendation and government role. In children, the inclusion of the vaccine within the national immunization program was an important determinant of vaccine acceptance.

CONCLUSION

Formulating new strategies to improve the population's level of knowledge, assuring the population about the safety and the efficacy of the vaccine and the inclusion of the vaccine within the national immunization program are the essential factors to enhance vaccination coverage in Jordan.

Knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of the Italian population towards Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus pneumoniae and HPV diseases and vaccinations: A cross-sectional multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

This study addressed knowledge of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis and human papillomavirus (HPV), and attitudes and behaviours towards vaccines against them.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional, multicentre study.

METHODS

Data were collected through a questionnaire administered to 530 adults who accessed four Departments of Prevention of the Italian National Health Service in 2013.

RESULTS

Less than 50% of people gave the right answer to all the questions concerning the three diseases, but 96.2%, 94% and 92.7% agreed with the importance of vaccination against N. meningitidis, S. pneumoniae and HPV, respectively, and 58.4% expressed own willingness to have their children vaccinated with N. meningitidis B vaccine. The attitude towards vaccination was more positive in women for N. meningitidis and in people having children for HPV. Furthermore, individuals giving correct answers to all knowledge items were more in favour of both HPV and S. pneumoniae vaccination. A total of 68.8%, 82.6% and 84.5% of respondents vaccinated their own children against N. meningitidis C, S. pneumoniae and HPV, respectively. About 50% of the respondents reported paediatricians' or other health professionals' recommendations as the main reason for vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccinations may be promoted through actions aimed at increasing citizens' knowledge. Health professionals should be educated to actively provide information on vaccinations in a clear, comprehensive and effective way.

Attitudinal variables and a possible mediating mechanism for vaccination practice in health care workers of a local hospital in L'Aquila (Italy)

Active immunization is an important concern for health care workers (HCWs) susceptible subjects and potential sources of infection for patients. However, the vaccine coverage for vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) is below recommended standards. The aims of the study were to estimate the hospitals' HCWs' susceptibility and vaccination coverage rates for VPDs and to analyze the role of HCWs' attitudes and knowledge as determinants of the immunization practices. A cross-sectional study enrolled 334 HCWs (physicians, nurses, others) at local hospital in L'Aquila (Italy). By means of an anonymous questionnaire, self-report data about history of disease and active vaccination for seasonal influenza, chickenpox, measles-mumps-rubella and hepatitis B were collected, as well as attitudes and knowledge about vaccination in HCWs. The employees showed high levels of susceptibility and insufficient vaccination coverage rates, particularly for influenza. Specific trends were detected for different VPDs across age strata and professional categories, not always consistent with literature. Overall, the level of knowledge about recommended vaccination for HCWs was low, in all categories. The active immunization status against influenza was found the most clearly associated with difference levels in 3 psychometric variables: personal responsibility, beliefs on usefulness and beliefs on risk of vaccination. A mediation mechanism was analyzed between these constructs, and an interesting indirect effect was highlighted for beliefs that could enhance the advantage of increased responsibility for HCWs. Further effort in research is needed to evaluate the black-box of longitudinal intervention studies (education, environmental changes, policies), to improve HCWs immunization.

Uptake and effectiveness of facemask against respiratory infections at mass gatherings: a systematic review

•

Approximately half of the attendees of mass gatherings use facemask

•

Facemask seems to be effective against respiratory infections at Hajj

•

Effectiveness of facemask against specific respiratory infections is not proven

Objectives

The risk of acquisition and transmission of respiratory infections is high among attendees of mass gatherings (MGs). Currently used interventions have limitations yet the role of facemask in preventing those infections at MG has not been systematically reviewed. We have conducted a systematic review to synthesise evidence about the uptake and effectiveness of facemask against respiratory infections in MGs.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using major electronic databases such as, Medline, EMBASE, SCOPUS and CINAHL.

Results

Of 25 studies included, the pooled sample size was 12710 participants from 55 countries aged 11 to 89 years, 37% were female. The overall uptake of facemask ranged from 0.02% to 92.8% with an average of about 50%. Only 13 studies examined the effectiveness of facemask, and their pooled estimate revealed significant protectiveness against respiratory infections (relative risk [RR] = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.84-0.94, p < 0.01), but the study end points varied widely.

Conclusion

A modest proportion of attendees of MGs use facemask, the practice is more widespread among health care workers. Facemask use seems to be beneficial against certain respiratory infections at MGs but its effectiveness against specific infection remains unproven.

Beliefs and Opinions of Health Care Workers and Students Regarding Influenza and Influenza Vaccination in Tuscany, Central Italy

Immunization of health care workers (HCWs) against influenza has been associated with improvements in patient safety. The aim of this study is to assess the beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge of HCWs and health profession students regarding influenza. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to HCWs in three local Florentine healthcare units, at Careggi University Teaching Hospital, and to students in health profession degree programs. A total of 2576 questionnaires were fully completed. A total of 12.3% of subjects responded that they were "always vaccinated" in all three of the seasonal vaccination campaigns studied (2007-2008 to 2009-2010), 13.1% had been vaccinated once or twice, and 74.6% had not received vaccinations. Although the enrolled subjects tended to respond that they were "never vaccinated," they considered influenza to be a serious illness and believed that the influenza vaccine is effective. The subjects who refused vaccination more frequently believed that the vaccine could cause influenza and that it could have serious side effects. More than 60% of the "always vaccinated" group completely agreed that HCWs should be vaccinated. Self-protection and protecting family members or other people close to the respondent from being infected and representing potential sources of influenza infection can be considered motivating factors for vaccination. The results highlight the importance of improving vaccination rates among all HCWs through multi-component interventions. Knowledge of influenza should be reinforced.

An effective strategy for influenza vaccination of healthcare workers in Australia: experience at a large health service without a mandatory policy

Background

Annual influenza vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) is recommended in Australia, but uptake in healthcare facilities has historically been low (approximately 50%). The objective of this study was to develop and implement a dedicated campaign to improve uptake of staff influenza annual vaccination at a large Australian health service.

Methods

A quality improvement program was developed at Alfred Health, a tertiary metropolitan health service spanning 3 campuses. Pre-campaign evaluation was performed by questionnaire in 2013 to plan a multimodal vaccination strategy. Reasons for and against vaccination were captured. A campaign targeting clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers was then implemented between March 31 and July 31 2014. Proportional uptake of influenza vaccination was determined by campus and staff category.

Results

Pre-campaign questionnaire responses were received from 1328/6879 HCWs (response rate 20.4%), of which 76% were vaccinated. Common beliefs held by unvaccinated staff included vaccine ineffectiveness (37.1%), that vaccination makes staff unwell (21.0%), or that vaccination is not required because staff are at low risk for acquiring influenza (20.2%). In 2014, 6009/7480 (80.3%) staff were vaccinated, with significant improvement in uptake across all campuses and amongst nursing, medical and allied health staff categories from 2013 to 2014 (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

A non-mandatory multimodal strategy utilising social marketing and a customised staff database was successful in increasing influenza vaccination uptake by all staff categories. The sustainability of dedicated campaigns must be evaluated.