Assessing Interventions To Improve Influenza Vaccine Uptake Among Health Care Workers

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.

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.

Flu Shots Unveiled: A Global Systematic Review of Healthcare Providers' Uptake of, Perceptions, and Attitudes toward Influenza Vaccination

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Influenza, with its potential for widespread transmission and significant health repercussions for individuals and populations, demands the immediate implementation of effective preventive measures. Vaccination stands as a long-standing evidence-based strategic approach to bolster immunity, especially for healthcare providers at heightened risk due to repeated exposure. Nevertheless, studies indicate a variance in adherence to recommended vaccination protocols and a notable prevalence of hesitancy and negative attitudes toward influenza vaccination among this critical group globally. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of attitudes is essential for the development of targeted interventions and strategies tailored to address the specific concerns and motivations of healthcare providers. To this end, this study synthesized the evidence gathered from an exhaustive systematic review of studies on healthcare providers' uptake of and perceptions and attitudes toward influenza vaccination.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted across the databases PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, using Covidence for screening. The process involved 4970 references, with 2684 screened after duplicate removals and 1891 excluded, leaving 793 full texts evaluated, resulting in a final 368 selected references for analysis. Due to the considerable heterogeneity observed among the studies, a narrative synthesis method was employed.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged from the systematic review's analysis, offering a multifaceted perspective on healthcare providers' attitudes toward influenza vaccination: (1) fostering positive views: factors promoting attitudes toward influenza vaccines; (2) navigating hesitancy: barriers and challenges to attitudes on influenza vaccines; (3) empowering change: interventions and their impact on healthcare providers' attitudes; (4) pandemic overlap: intersecting attitudes toward influenza and COVID-19 vaccines; and (5) twin challenges: the impact of mandatory policy on attitudes and influenza vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare providers' attitudes toward influenza vaccination are complex and influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, barriers, demographics, organizational factors, interventions, pandemic contexts, and policy considerations. Effective strategies for promoting influenza vaccination should be multifaceted, adaptable, and tailored to address these interconnected aspects, ultimately contributing to improved vaccination rates and public health outcomes.

Perspectives on research needs in healthcare epidemiology and antimicrobial stewardship: what's on the horizon - Part I

In this overview, we articulate research needs and opportunities in the field of infection prevention that have been identified from insights gained during operative infection prevention work, our own research in healthcare epidemiology, and from reviewing the literature. The 10 areas of research need are: 1) transmissions and interruptions, 2) personal protective equipment and other safety issues in occupational health, 3) climate change and other crises, 4) device, diagnostic, and antimicrobial stewardship, 5) implementation and de-implementation, 6) health care outside the acute care hospital, 7) low- and middle-income countries, 8) networking with the "neighbors", 9) novel research methodologies, and 10) the future state of surveillance. An introduction and chapters 1-5 are presented in part I of the article, and chapters 6-10 and the discussion in part II. There are many barriers to advancing the field, such as finding and motivating the future IP workforce including professionals interested in conducting research, a constant confrontation with challenges and crises, the difficulty of performing studies in a complex environment, the relative lack of adequate incentives and funding streams, and how to disseminate and validate the often very local quality improvement projects. Addressing research gaps now (i.e., in the postpandemic phase) will make healthcare systems more resilient when facing future crises.

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.

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.

Exploring COVID-19 education to support vaccine confidence amongst the general adult population with special considerations for healthcare and long-term care staff: A scoping review

Background

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of approved COVID-19 vaccines, high levels of hesitancy were observed in the first few months of the COVID-19 vaccines' rollout. Factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy are well-described in the literature. Among the various strategies for promoting vaccine confidence, educational interventions provide a foundationally and widely implemented set of approaches for supporting individuals in their vaccine decisions. However, the evidence around the measurable impact of various educational strategies to improve vaccine confidence is limited. We conducted a scoping review with the aim of exploring and characterizing educational interventions delivered during the pandemic to support COVID-19 vaccine confidence in adults.

Methods

We developed a search strategy with a medical information scientist and searched five databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, as well as grey literature. We considered all study designs and reports. Interventions delivered to children or adolescents, interventions on non-COVID-19 vaccines, as well as national or mass vaccination campaigns without documented interaction(s) between facilitator(s) and a specific audience were excluded. Articles were independently screened by three reviewers. After screening 4602 titles and abstracts and 174 full-text articles across two rounds of searches, 22 articles met our inclusion criteria. Ten additional studies were identified through hand searching. Data from included studies were charted and results were described narratively.

Results

We included 32 studies and synthesized their educational delivery structure, participants (i.e., facilitators and priority audience), and content. Formal, group-based presentations were the most common type of educational intervention in the included studies (75%). A third of studies (34%) used multiple strategies, with many formal group-based presentations being coupled with additional individual-based interventions (29%). Given the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccines and the unique current context, studies reported personalized conversations, question periods, and addressing misinformation as important components of the educational approaches reviewed.

Conclusions

Various educational interventions were delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many initiatives involving multifaceted interventions utilizing both formal and informal approaches that leveraged community (cultural, religious) partnerships when developing and facilitating COVID-19 vaccine education. Train-the-trainer approaches with recognized community members could be of value as trust and personal connections were identified as strong enablers throughout the review.

Individual and Work-Related Characteristics Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination Status among Ohio Nurses

Uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine by nurses lags behind that of other health care professionals with minimal empirical evidence to understand this phenomenon. In this secondary analysis, we examined nurses' individual and work-related characteristics and their association with COVID-19 vaccination status. Alumni of three Ohio nursing colleges and members of a professional organization were invited to complete questionnaires from June through August 2021. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations between nurse characteristics and vaccination status. Among 844 respondents, 754 (80.30%) had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Older age, having a bachelor's degree or higher, and working in critical care were associated with vaccination. Providing direct care for COVID-19 patients in the last 7 days and a higher perception of one's work being affected by COVID-19 were significantly associated with being vaccinated, whereas prior COVID-19 infection was inversely associated with vaccination status. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccine uptake among nurses is influenced by a host of factors related to virus knowledge, beliefs, and risk perceptions. Awareness of these factors can aid the development of interventions to increase nurses' acceptance of vaccines.

Evaluation of the Approach towards Vaccination against COVID-19 among the Polish Population-In Relation to Sociodemographic Factors and Physical and Mental Health

Due to the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, the world has faced a huge challenge with their general acceptance, including Poland. For this reason, we attempted to determine the sociodemographic factors influencing the decision of positive or negative attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. The analysis included 200,000 Polish participants-80,831 women (40.4%) and 119,169 men (59.6%). The results revealed that the most common reasons for vaccine refusal and hesitancy were the fear of post-vaccination complications and their safety (11,913/31,338, 38.0%; 9966/31,338, 31.8%). Negative attitudes were observed more often among male respondents with primary or secondary education (OR = 2.01, CI95% [1.86-2.17] and OR = 1.52, CI95% [1.41-1.63], respectively). On the other hand, older age ≥ 65 (OR = 3.69; 95%CI [3.44-3.96]), higher education level (OR = 2.14; 95%CI [2.07-2.22]), living in big cities with a range of 200,000-499,999 inhabitants and more than 500,000 inhabitants (OR = 1.57, CI95% [1.50-1.64] and OR = 1.90, CI95% [1.83-1.98], respectively), good physical conditions (OR = 2.05; CI95% [1.82-2.31]), and at last normal mental health conditions (OR = 1.67, CI95% [1.51-1.85]) were significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Our study indicates which population group should be further supplied with data and information by health education, the government, and healthcare professionals to alleviate the negative attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines.

Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Intention among Nurses Who Have Been Fully Vaccinated against COVID-19: Evidence from Greece

Seasonal influenza continues to be a significant public health issue causing hundreds of thousands of deaths annually. Nurses are a priority risk group for influenza vaccination and a high vaccine uptake rate among them is crucial to protect public health. Thus, the aim of our study was to estimate the levels of influenza vaccine acceptance, as well as its determinants, among nurses for the 2022/2023 season. We conducted a cross-sectional study with a convenience sample in Greece. We collected data via an online survey in September 2022. Most of the nurses in the study possessed a MSc/PhD diploma (56.2%) and had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 (70.3%). Among nurses, 57.3% were willing to accept the influenza vaccine, 19% were hesitant, and 23.7% were unwilling. Older age, higher levels of perceived support from significant others, and higher COVID-19-related physical exhaustion were positively related to influenza vaccination intention. In contrast, more side effects because of COVID-19 vaccination and higher levels of exhaustion due to measures taken against COVID-19 were negatively associated with vaccination intention. Since the influenza vaccination acceptance rate among nurses was moderate, policymakers should develop and implement measures tailored specifically to nurses in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic to decrease vaccine hesitancy.

Monitoring influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a three-year survey in a large university hospital in North-Western Italy

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are one of the highest priority groups recommended for seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV). Greater awareness of the importance of influenza vaccination was observed among HCWs after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to analyze SIV coverage rates in the 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 seasons among HCWs employed at the IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in Genoa, in order to observe how coverage has changed since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center study was conducted among HCWs working at the IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in Genoa. The vaccinated population was stratified by gender, age, qualification and area of activity, and the characteristics of vaccinated HCWs were analyzed.

RESULTS

While SIV coverage was below the recommended target in all seasons, a sharp increase was observed in 2020/2021 (12.8%; 40.9% and 23% in 2019/2020, 2020/2021 and 2021/2022, respectively). The mean and median age of vaccinees also increased during the 2020/2021 vaccination campaign (46.7 and 49 years, respectively) in comparison with the 2019/2020 season (43.5 and 45, respectively). In the 2019/2020 and 2021/2022 seasons, a higher proportion of vaccinees were physicians. Vaccinated females outnumbered males, but the coverage rate resulted greater in males than females in all three seasons. While a higher proportion of vaccinated subjects worked in medical areas, the most evident increase over the three years was seen among subjects working in the services area.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey highlights the importance of studying the determinants that influence vaccination adherence and how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected SIV coverage.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant women worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the death of many people worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared vaccine resistance as one of the greatest health threats in the world even before the COVID-19 epidemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine in pregnant women.

METHOD

We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We applied the standard search strategy to the PubMed/Medline, Web of Science (ISI), Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and EBSCO databases, and the Google Scholar search engine. Heterogeneity between studies was relatively high and therefore meta-analyses were performed based on random effects model with 95% CI using STATA version 16.

RESULTS

In 16 articles with a sample size of 19219 pregnant women, the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine was estimated 53.46% (95%CI: 47.64%-59.24%). Subgroup analysis was performed based on continent (p = 0.796), data collection method (p = 0.450) and meta-regression based on the month of the study (P<0.001), and only meta-regression was significant based on the month of the study. The effect of some variables such as graviad (OR = 1.02 [95%CI: 0.90-1.16]), maternal age was (OR = 1.02 [95%CI: 0.93-1.11]) and history of influenza vaccination (OR = 0.87 [95%CI: 0.71-1.06]) on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was evaluated, which was not significant.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in pregnant women was 53.46%, which was much lower than the general COVID-19 vaccination. Therefore, necessary interventions should be taken to increase the acceptance of the vaccine, address safety concerns and educate about it.

Seasonal influenza vaccine uptake among healthcare workers in tertiary care hospitals, Bangladesh: Study protocol for influenza vaccine supply and awareness intervention

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs), such as doctors, nurses, and support staffs involved in direct or indirect patient care, are at increased risk of influenza virus infections due to occupational exposures. Vaccination is the most effective way to prevent influenza. Despite the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations, Bangladesh lacks a seasonal influenza vaccination policy for HCWs, and thus vaccination rates remain low. The current project aims to investigate the effect of interventions on influenza vaccine awareness and availability of vaccine supply, explore HCWs’ knowledge and perceptions about influenza vaccination, understand the barriers and motivators for influenza vaccine uptake, and understand policymakers' views on the practicality of influenza vaccination among HCWs.

Method

We will conduct the study at four tertiary care teaching hospitals in Bangladesh, using a cluster randomized controlled trial approach, with the hospital as the unit of randomization and intervention. The study population will include all types of HCWs.The four different types of intervention will be randomly allocated and implemented in four study hospitals separately. The four interventions will be: i) ensuring the availability of influenza vaccine supply; ii) developing influenza vaccine awareness; iii) both ensuring influenza vaccine supply and developing influenza vaccine awareness and iv) control arm with no intervention. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches will be applied to assess the intervention effect. We will estimate the Difference in Differences (DID) with 95% CI of the proportion of vaccine uptake between each intervention and control (non-intervention) arm, adjusting for the clustering effect. The qualitative data will be summarised using a framework matrix method.

Discussion

The results of this study will inform the development and implementation of a context-specific strategy to enhance influenza vaccination rates among Bangladeshi HCWs.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05521763. Version 2.0 was registered in September 2022, and the first participant enrolled in March 2022. Retrospectively registered.

Vaccine hesitancy and health care providers: Using the preferred cognitive styles and decision- making model and empathy tool to make progress

Low vaccination rates among health care providers (HCPs) pose a risk to themselves, their colleagues, their patients, and the general public. This paper seeks to frame the issues surrounding health care provider vaccine hesitancy and vaccination rates, as well as explore factors influencing respective decision-making, including health care occupation and demographic characteristics. This paper will then propose the use of the Preferred Cognitive Style and Decision-Making (PCSDM) Model and the Empathy Tool to increase health care provider vaccination rates, and will end by discussing several recommendations. It is important while discussing HCP vaccination rates to not view them as a monolithic group or apply “one-size-fits-all” approaches, and thus it is essential to present information and engage in conversations in ways that align with how the HCP takes in and processes information and decisions. Furthermore, it is vital to increase health literacy across the spectrum of HCP programs and professions. To this end, it is important to teach and incorporate the PCSDM Model and Empathy Tool, along with information about how individuals think and make decisions, into vaccine education programs and training sessions.

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.

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.

Vaccination against COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of acceptability and its predictors

We aimed to estimate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine acceptance rate and identify predictors associated with acceptance. To this end, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases until November 4, 2020. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate the rate with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Predictors were identified to be associated with vaccination intention based on the health belief model framework. Thirty-eight articles, with 81,173 individuals, were included. The pooled COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate was 73.31% (95%CI: 70.52, 76.01). Studies using representative samples reported a rate of 73.16%. The pooled acceptance rate among the general population (81.65%) was higher than that among healthcare workers (65.65%). Gender, educational level, influenza vaccination history, and trust in the government were strong predictors of COVID-19 vaccination willingness. People who received an influenza vaccination in the last year were more likely to accept COVID-19 vaccination (odds ratio: 3.165; 95%CI: 1.842, 5.464). Protecting oneself or others was the main reason for willingness, and concerns about side effects and safety were the main reasons for unwillingness. National- and individual-level interventions can be implemented to improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance before large-scale vaccine rollout. Greater efforts could be put into addressing negative predictors associated with willingness.

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).

Non-EPI Vaccine Hesitancy among Chinese Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is paramount to curtailing the pandemic. However, the impact of the Non-Expanded Program on Immunization (non-EPI) and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on vaccine uptake among Chinese adults remain unclear. This study was an online survey performed in Eastern, Central, and Western China between February 2021 and March 2021 using proportional sampling (n = 7381). Adults aged ≥ 18 years were included, especially younger people (aged < 65). Vaccine hesitancy was assessed using the 3C model and relative scales; logistic regression was used to explore the factors affecting vaccination uptake; structural equation modeling was used to evaluate the correlations between variables. Overall, 67.6% and 24.7% of adults reported vaccine hesitancy toward the non-EPI and COVID-19 vaccines, respectively. Participants (66.3%) reported taking the vaccine mainly based on recommendations from medical staff. Vaccine-hesitant participants (60.5%) reported a fear of side effects as the deciding factor in vaccine rejection. Vaccine hesitancy interacted negatively with confidence (β = −0.349, p < 0.001) and convenience (β = −0.232, p < 0.001), and positively with complacence (β = 0.838, p < 0.001). Nonmedical personnel, adults who had previously received the influenza vaccine, and older people had lower vaccine hesitancy than their counterparts. Most Chinese adults have non-EPI but not COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine safety remains a concern.

Implementation of a program to improve influenza vaccination rates among medical students: a comparative study involving two university affiliated hospitals

Background and objectives: Influenza vaccination rates among medical students (MSs) are below the standards recommended in hospitals where influenza vaccination is not mandatory. We carried out a comparative study in two Spanish university hospitals to reassert this fact and evaluated the impact on vaccination rates of a specific program aimed at promoting influenza vaccination among MSs.Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed describing influenza vaccination rates and motivations for vaccination during the 2017/18 campaign among MSs in two hospitals affiliated to the same university. We subsequently performed a community-based intervention study during the 2018/19 campaign evaluating the impact of a strategy for promoting influenza vaccination, comparing the hospital where the intervention took place (hospital A) with the one where it did not take place (hospital B).Results: During de 2017/18 campaign the overall influenza vaccination rate was 44.8%, with no differences between hospitals A and B (difference: 3.9%; 95% CI: -4.36-12.16; p-value = .4). During the 2018/19 campaign, vaccination rate increased to 76.4% in hospital A, with significant differences compared with the previous campaign in the same hospital (29.8%; OR 5.00; 95% CI: 3.14-8.3; p-value = .0001) and with that observed in hospital B in the same campaign (21.1%; 95% CI: 13.38-28.82; p-value <.001).Conclusions: Influenza vaccination rates among MSs in two Spanish university affiliated hospitals were below the recommended standards. A new reproducible strategy for promoting influenza vaccination with a specific approach toward MSs achieved a significant improvement in vaccination rate.

Influenza Vaccination Campaign during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Experience of a Research and Teaching Hospital in Milan

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, more than ever, optimal influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial to avoid absenteeism and disruption of health services, as well as in-hospital influenza outbreaks. The aim of this study is to analyze the 2020 influenza vaccination campaign, comparing it with the previous year’s in a research and teaching hospital in Northern Italy. Methods: adopting an approach based on combined strategies, three interventions were deployed: a promotional and educational campaign, vaccination delivery through both ad hoc and on-site ambulatories, and a gaming strategy. Personal data and professional categories were collected and analyzed using univariate logistic regression. Vaccinated HCWs were asked to fill in a questionnaire to describe their reasons for vaccination adherence. Results: the vaccination coverage rate (VCR) was 43.1%, compared to 21.5% in 2019. The highest increase was registered among administrative staff (308.3%), while physicians represent the most vaccinated category (n = 600). Moreover, residents (prevalence ratio (PR): 1.12; 95% CI 1.04–1.20), as well as intensive care (PR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.24–1.69) and newborn workers (PR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.20–1.65) were, respectively, the categories most frequently vaccinated for the first time. Conclusion: the significant increase in vaccination coverage rate confirms the suitability of the combined strategy of delivering the flu vaccination campaign and represents a first step towards reaching WHO recommended vaccination rates.

Analysis of the Feasibility of a Vaccination Campaign against Influenza Epidemic and COVID-19 Pandemic in French Emergency Departments: A National Survey

Background: Vaccination is one of the most effective ways to fight the influenza epidemic and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which represent a major public issue. The objective was to investigate the adherence of heads of French emergency departments (ED) and nursing departments on a potential vaccination campaign of healthcare workers (HCW) and patients in ED. Method: In February 2021, ED and nursing department heads were asked to answer a national survey. It included 24 questions designed to cover some dimensions, including characteristics of the hospital and emergency departments (ED) and questions on vaccination. Results: 414 responses out of 800 questionnaires (51.8%) were collected. Scores out of 10 were, respectively, 7 (6–8) and 8 (6–9) for vaccination against influenza and COVID-19 for HCW and 2 (2–3) and 2 (2–4) for ED patients (H = 989.3; p < 0.0001). Multivariate logistic regression found that the existence of a vaccine program in the hospital and the use of point of care influenza PCR in ED were positively associated with the acceptance of influenza vaccination campaign for HCW (p = 0.003) and patients (p = 0.015). Factors limiting adherence to a vaccination program of HCW and patients were lack of medical staff (p = 0.041 for HCW and p < 0.0001 for patients), overcrowded ED (p < 0.001), and the inability to follow up with patients after the ED visit (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: There have been many missed opportunities for influenza vaccination, and there is pressure to vaccinate against COVID-19 as soon as possible. Vaccination campaigns in ED could help to improve vaccination coverage. ED staff are more likely to vaccinate HCW than patients. There are factors that support the implementation of such programs, which can be grouped into a culture of diagnosis, control, and prevention of viral infectious diseases within the hospital and ED. On the other hand, there are limiting factors, such as overcrowding and lack of personnel.

Vaccine Hesitancy: COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccine Willingness among Parents in Wuxi, China-A Cross-Sectional Study

Objectives: We aimed to (1) assess parental hesitancy about category A (Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI)) and B (non-EPI) vaccines, (2) assess parental willingness for COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations, and (3) explore the association of vaccination hesitancy of parents and healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: The study was performed in Wuxi, eastern China between 21 September 2020 and 17 October 2020. Parents of children aged <18 years and HCWs were recruited from the selected immunization clinics. Vaccine hesitancy was assessed using the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) vaccine hesitancy survey (VHS) by summing the total score for 10 items (maximum 50 points). Results: A total of 3009 parents and 86 HCWs were included in the analysis. The category A VHS scores were significantly higher than the category B VHS scores (p = 0.000). Overall, 59.3% and 52.4% of parents reported willingness to avail COVID-19 and influenza vaccination for their children, respectively; 51.2% of the HCWs wanted to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Parental category B VHS scores were associated with HCW category B VHS scores (r = 0.928, p = 0.008). Conclusions: In China, parents are more hesitant about category B vaccines than category A vaccines. More than 40% of parents showed hesitancy and a refusal to use COVID-19 and influenza vaccines.

Mandatory vaccination for seasonal influenza: what are nurses' views?

BACKGROUND

Preventing seasonal influenza is a public health priority but, although the benefits of vaccinating healthcare workers (HCWs) are emphasised, seasonal influenza vaccine uptake rates remain low. Voluntary vaccination policies have been less successful in achieving high vaccine uptake when compared to mandatory policies and the persistently low vaccine uptake among HCWs has fuelled debate on whether mandatory vaccination programmes should be implemented in the interest of patient safety.

AIM

This study explored nurses' views on mandatory vaccination policy for seasonal influenza.

METHODS

A self-selected sample (n=35) of qualified nurses working in two large hospital sites in Ireland participated in five focus groups. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's framework.

FINDINGS

Two themes were identified: (1) mixed views on mandatory vaccination and (2) leave nurses to make their own choice on vaccination.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an understanding of nurses' views regarding mandatory vaccination policy for seasonal influenza and highlights that individual choice and autonomy are crucial for vaccine acceptance.

A new strategy to promote flu vaccination among health care workers: Molinette Hospital's experience

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Seasonal flu represents a major public health issue, especially for health care workers (HCWs). WHO highlights the need of higher awareness and flu vaccine coverage among HCWs. In Europe the coverage is less than 30-40%. Italy reports some of the lowest rates. The paper aims to illustrate the 2017/2018 flu vaccination campaign within Molinette, the third Italian hospital for dimensions, to provide inputs about strategies for increasing HCWs coverage. The campaign objective was to increase the administered doses at least of 30%.

METHODS

The intervention included informational material, direct educational sessions for workers, extension of the access time to Occupational Medicine Service, elimination of the reservation requirement, composition of "moving vaccination units" (MVUs), and organisation of vaccination sessions within departments.

RESULTS

In 2017/2018, 593 doses were administered. The doses percentage change between 2017/2018 and 2016/2017 vaccination seasons was +46.06%, while it was +84.74% compared with the previous 5-year period mean. The majority was administered by Occupational Medicine Service, while 6.75% by MVUs. Among the total doses, 72.68% were administered to workers, 13.49% to residents, 6.75% to students, and 7.08% to "other". So, 7.68% of total workforce was vaccinated. Only 0.3% of vaccinated people presented mild adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined campaign, that includes actions for education, increase of awareness, improved access to facilities and active offers to workers has potentiality but there is still work to do. The vaccination increase was determined mostly by the re-organization of the occupational medicine, while the MVUs were useful to HCWs of detached offices.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Influenza Vaccination Coverage and Timing in Tropical and Subtropical Climate Settings: A Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

The lack of seasonality in influenza epidemics in the tropics makes the application of well-established temperate zone national vaccination plans challenging.

OBJECTIVES

We developed an individual-based simulation model to study optimal vaccination scheduling and assess cost-effectiveness of these vaccination schedules in scenarios of no influenza seasonality and the seasonality regimes of Singapore, Taipei, and Tokyo.

METHODS

The simulation models heterogeneities in human contact networks, levels of protective antibodies following infection, the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine, and seasonality. Using a no intervention baseline, we consider 3 alternative vaccination strategies: (1) annual vaccination for a percentage of the elderly, (2) biannual vaccination for a percentage of the elderly, and (3) annual vaccination for all elderly and a fraction of the remaining population. We considered 5 vaccination uptake rates for each strategy and modeled the estimated costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), indicating the cost-effectiveness of each scenario.

RESULTS

In Singapore, annual vaccination for a proportion of elderly is largely cost-effective. However, with fixed uptake rates, partial biannual vaccination for the elderly yields a higher ICER than partial annual vaccination for the elderly, resulting in a cost-ineffective ICER. The most optimal strategy is the total vaccination of all the elderly and a proportion of individuals from other age groups, which results in a cost-saving ICER. This finding is consistent across different seasonality regimes.

CONCLUSIONS

Tropical countries like Singapore can have comparably cost-effective vaccination strategies as found in countries with winter epidemics. The vaccination of all the elderly and a proportion of other age groups is the most cost-effective strategy, supporting the need for an extensive national influenza vaccination program.

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.

Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using AMSTAR and ROBIS checklists

Introduction: Systematic reviews (SRs) are the backbone of evidence-based health care, but no gold standard exists to assess their methodological quality. Although the AMSTAR tool is accepted for analyzing the quality of SRs, the ROBIS instrument was recently developed. This study compared the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs of interventions for improving vaccination coverage.Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in the Cochrane Library and PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened the search output, assessed study eligibility, and extracted data from eligible SRs; resolving differences through consensus. We conducted Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in Stata 14 to determine similarities and differences between AMSTAR and ROBIS.Results: A total of 2322 records were identified through the search and 75 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility, of which 57 met inclusion criteria. Using AMSTAR, we found 32%, 60% and 9% of SRs to have high, moderate and low quality, respectively. With ROBIS, we judged 74%, 14% and 12% of SRs to have low, unclear and high risk of bias. PCA showed that SRs with low risk of bias in ROBIS clustered together with SRs having high-quality in AMSTAR, and SRs with high risk of bias in ROBIS clustered with low-quality SRs in AMSTAR.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there is an association between methodological quality and risk of bias in SRs of interventions focused on improving vaccination coverage. Therefore, either AMSTAR or ROBIS checklists can be used to evaluate methodological quality of SRs in vaccinology.

Reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage: compliance with PRISMA guidelines

Systematic reviews have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice and policy; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and quality of SRs of interventions to improve immunization coverage in different settings. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using the recommended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline.PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched to identify SRs of interventions to improve immunization coverage, indexed up to May 2016. Two authors independently screened the search output, assessed study eligibility, and extracted data from eligible SRs using a 27-item data collection form derived from PRISMA. Discrepancies in reviews assessments were resolved by discussion and consensus.A total of 57 reviews were included in this study with a mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items that were met across all studies of 66% (range 19-100%) and median compliance of 70%. 39 out of the 57 reviews were published after the release of the PRISMA statement in 2009. Highest compliance was observed in items related to the "description of rational", "description of eligibility criteria", "synthesis of results" and "provision of a general interpretation of the results" (items #3, #6, #14 and #26, respectively). Compliance was poorest in the items "describing summary of evidence" (item 24, 19%), "describing indication of review protocol and registration" (item 5, 26%) and "describing results of risk of bias across studies (item 22, 33%).The overall reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions to improve vaccination coverage requires significant improvement. There remains a need for additional research targeted at addressing potential barriers to compliance and strategies to improve compliance with PRISMA guideline.

Seasonal influenza vaccination in healthcare personnel in Greece: 3-year report

Influenza vaccination rates of healthcare personnel (HCP) have been largely unsatisfactory in Greece. In September 2016, the Ministry of Health established a Steering Committee in order to raise influenza vaccine uptake by HCP. Hereby, we present the results of the actions undertaken by the Steering Committee during the first 2 years of operation. From the 2015–2016 through the 2017–2018 influenza season, influenza vaccination rates among HCP rose from 10.9 to 24.9% in hospitals, and from 24.3 to 40.2% in primary healthcare centers (increases of 128 and 65%, respectively). Rewards were consistently associated with higher vaccine uptake rates among HCP. The following strategies were also significantly associated with increased vaccination rates: vaccination on-site, vaccination of the heads of the departments and promotion of a culture of safety and ethical duty in the workplace.

Web-based analysis of adherence to influenza vaccination among French healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Influenza is recognized as a public health threat. However, vaccine hesitancy and poor vaccine uptake have been seen in French healthcare workers (HCWs). As a result, authorities have considered implementing mandatory influenza vaccination for HCWs.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe factors associated with influenza vaccine adherence or non-adherence in French HCWs and to collect their perception about mandatory influenza vaccination.

STUDY DESIGN

In February 2017, during the influenza season, a standardized questionnaire was sent electronically to the professional email addresses of French HCWs. Analyses were performed having collected 3000 responses.

RESULTS

Between February 1 and 16, 2017, a 14-question survey was sent to HCWs professional email addresses. After a two week period had elaspsed, 3000 answers were collected for analysis. Overall, 45.7% of responders reported they had received influenza vaccination in 2016-2017, with statistical differences relating to professional status, age and practice. In addition, 92.2% reported caring for at-risk patients and 62.9% had a community-based practice. Finally, accepting mandatory influenza vaccination was statistically associated with higher age, a higher socio-professional category, and seasonal influenza vaccine uptake, but not with management of at-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Electronically submitted questionnaires are a rapid and easy tool that can be used to describe factors associated with influenza vaccine uptake in HCWs. In our study, differences in receiving influenza vaccination related to age, practice and professional categories, and provided an insight into potential adherence to mandatory influenza vaccination in HCWs. If repeated, these surveys may also monitor the evolution of vaccine uptake by professional categories.

Workplace Interventions and Vaccination-Related Attitudes Associated With Influenza Vaccination Coverage Among Healthcare Personnel Working in Long-Term Care Facilities, 2015‒2016 Influenza Season

OBJECTIVES

Influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel working in long-term care (LTC) facilities can reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality among healthcare personnel and among resident populations who are at increased risk for complications from influenza and who may respond poorly to vaccination. The objective of this study was to investigate workplace interventions and healthcare personnel vaccination-related attitudes associated with higher influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel working in LTC facilities.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Data were obtained from an online survey of healthcare personnel conducted in April 2016 among a nonprobability sample of 2258 healthcare personnel recruited from 2 preexisting national opt-in Internet panels. Respondents were asked about influenza vaccination status, workplace vaccination policies and interventions, and their attitudes toward vaccination. Analyses were restricted to the 332 healthcare personnel who worked in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or other LTC facilities.

MEASURES

Logistic regression models were used to assess the independent associations between each workplace intervention and higher influenza vaccination coverage compared with referent levels, controlling for occupation, age, and race/ethnicity. Prevalence ratios were calculated under the assumption of simple random sampling.

RESULTS

Approximately 77% of healthcare personnel working in LTC facilities reported receiving influenza vaccination in the 2015‒2016 influenza season. Influenza vaccination was independently associated with an employer vaccination requirement (prevalence ratio (PR) [95% confidence interval] = 1.28 [1.11, 1.47]), being offered free onsite vaccination (PR = 1.20 [1.04, 1.39]), and employers publicizing vaccination coverage level to employees (PR = 1.24 [1.09, 1.41]). Vaccination was most highly associated with a combination of 3 or more workplace interventions. Most healthcare personnel working in LTC facilities reported positive attitudes toward the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Implementing employer vaccination interventions in LTC facilities, including employer vaccination requirements and free on-site influenza vaccination that is actively promoted, could increase influenza vaccination among healthcare personnel.

The views of key stakeholders around mandatory influenza vaccination of hospital and aged care staff: Examining the current climate in Australia

BACKGROUND

Healthcare worker (HCW) vaccination against seasonal influenza is considered a key preventative measure within hospitals and aged-care facilities (ACFs) to reduce the risk of transmission and related disease. Despite this, many facilities experience persistently low vaccination coverage rates and mandatory vaccination has been explored as a potential strategy to improve coverage. This study explored the current climate around staff vaccination in Australia from the perspective of opinion leaders and key stakeholders.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted between April and July 2018 with 22 individuals involved in vaccination policy and program development and implementation from a range of organisations including state health departments, hospitals and ACFs across Australia. In addition, interviews were undertaken with individuals from aged care and nursing peak bodies/colleges. Interviews were transcribed, and thematic analysis was undertaken using NVivo 12 software.

RESULTS

Major themes emerging from the interviews included a sense that attitudes around staff vaccination are changing; the persistence of administrative and resource barriers; the importance of positive workplace culture towards influenza vaccination; and the need for individualised and personal communication strategies. Perspectives were diverse on the necessity of introducing stronger policies, with participants divided in their support mandatory influenza vaccinations. Some advocated that key performance indicators should be used as an alternative to vaccine mandates.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides policy makers with useful insights into the current Australian context around occupational vaccination policies, to inform acceptable and effective strategies to improve influenza vaccination uptake among Australian hospital and aged care staff.

Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action

Vaccination is one of the great achievements of the 20th century, yet persistent public-health problems include inadequate, delayed, and unstable vaccination uptake. Psychology offers three general propositions for understanding and intervening to increase uptake where vaccines are available and affordable. The first proposition is that thoughts and feelings can motivate getting vaccinated. Hundreds of studies have shown that risk beliefs and anticipated regret about infectious disease correlate reliably with getting vaccinated; low confidence in vaccine effectiveness and concern about safety correlate reliably with not getting vaccinated. We were surprised to find that few randomized trials have successfully changed what people think and feel about vaccines, and those few that succeeded were minimally effective in increasing uptake. The second proposition is that social processes can motivate getting vaccinated. Substantial research has shown that social norms are associated with vaccination, but few interventions examined whether normative messages increase vaccination uptake. Many experimental studies have relied on hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate that altruism and free riding (i.e., taking advantage of the protection provided by others) can affect intended behavior, but few randomized trials have tested strategies to change social processes to increase vaccination uptake. The third proposition is that interventions can facilitate vaccination directly by leveraging, but not trying to change, what people think and feel. These interventions are by far the most plentiful and effective in the literature. To increase vaccine uptake, these interventions build on existing favorable intentions by facilitating action (through reminders, prompts, and primes) and reducing barriers (through logistics and healthy defaults); these interventions also shape behavior (through incentives, sanctions, and requirements). Although identification of principles for changing thoughts and feelings to motivate vaccination is a work in progress, psychological principles can now inform the design of systems and policies to directly facilitate action.

The Cost of Interventions to Increase Influenza Vaccination: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Influenza vaccination rates remain below Healthy People 2020 goals. This project sought to systematically review economic evaluations of healthcare-based quality improvement interventions for improving influenza vaccination uptake among general populations and healthcare workers.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The databases MEDLINE, Econlit, Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, Greylit, and Worldcat were searched in July 2016 for papers published from January 2004 to July 2016. Eligible studies evaluated efforts by bodies within the healthcare system to encourage influenza vaccination by means of an organizational or structural change. For each study, program costs per enrollee and per additional enrollee vaccinated were derived (excluding vaccine costs, standardized to 2017 U.S. dollars). Complete economic evaluations were examined when available.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Of 2,350 records, 18 articles were eligible and described 29 unique interventions. Most interventions improved vaccine uptake. Among 23 interventions in general populations, the median program cost was $3.27 (interquartile range, $0.82-$11.53) per enrollee and $50.78 (interquartile range, $27.85-$124.84) per additional enrollee vaccinated. Among ten complete economic evaluations in general populations, three studies reported net cost savings, four reported costs <$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and three reported costs <$60,000 per life saved. Among six interventions in healthcare workers, the median program cost was $8.09 (interquartile range, $5.03-$10.31) per worker enrolled and $125.24 (interquartile range, $96.06-$171.38) per additional worker vaccinated (there were no complete economic analyses).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality improvement interventions for influenza vaccination involve per-enrollee costs that are similar to the cost of the vaccine itself ($11.78-$36.08/dose). Based on limited available evidence in general populations, quality improvement interventions may be cost saving to cost effective for the health system.

Socialization, Indifference, and Convenience: Exploring the Uptake of Influenza Vaccine Among Medical Students and Early Career Doctors

The Chief Medical Officer recommends that all health care workers receive an influenza vaccination annually. High vaccination coverage is believed to be the best protection against the spread of influenza within a hospital, although uptake by health care workers remains low. We conducted semistructured interviews with seven medical students and nine early career doctors, to explore the factors informing their influenza vaccination decision making. Data collection and analysis took place iteratively, until theoretical saturation was achieved, and a thematic analysis was performed. Socialization was important although its effects were attenuated by participants' previous experiences and a lack of clarity around the risks and benefits of vaccination. Many participants did not have strong intentions regarding vaccination. There was considerable disparity between an individual's opinion of the vaccine, their intentions, and their vaccination status. The indifference demonstrated here suggests few are strongly opposed to the vaccination-there is potential to increase vaccination coverage.

Workplace interventions associated with influenza vaccination coverage among health care personnel in ambulatory care settings during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 influenza seasons

BACKGROUND

Vaccination of health care personnel (HCP) can reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality among HCP and their patients. This study investigated workplace policies associated with influenza vaccination among HCP who work in ambulatory care settings without influenza vaccination requirements.

METHODS

Data were obtained from online surveys conducted during April 2014 and April 2015 among nonprobability samples of HCP recruited from 2 preexisting national opt-in Internet panels. Respondents were asked about their vaccination status and workplace policies and interventions related to vaccination. Logistic regression models were used to assess the independent associations between each workplace intervention and influenza vaccination while controlling for occupation, age, and race or ethnicity.

RESULTS

Among HCP working in ambulatory care settings without a vaccination requirement (n = 866), 65.7% reported receiving influenza vaccination for the previous influenza season. Increased vaccination coverage was independently associated with free onsite vaccination for 1 day (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.78 or >1 day PR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.29-1.94) and employers sending personal vaccination reminders (PR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99-1.46). Age ≥65 years (PR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.56) and working as a clinical professional (PR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50) or clinical nonprofessional (PR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.03-1.60) were also associated with higher coverage. Vaccination coverage increased with increasing numbers of workplace interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing workplace vaccination interventions in ambulatory care settings, including free onsite influenza vaccination that is actively promoted, could help increase influenza vaccination among HCP.

Influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: A comprehensive critical appraisal of the literature

Influenza imposes a significant burden worldwide from the healthcare and socio-economic standpoints. This is also due to suboptimal vaccination coverage among the target population, even though immunization is recommended since many years and still remains the fundamental tool for its prevention. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of exposure to respiratory pathogens compared with the general population, including flu, with potential threat for their health and for patients' safety. Nevertheless, despite recommendation for immunization of this work-category in most of Western Countries, inadequate flu vaccine uptake is reported during the last decade in the European area. According to recent systematic reviews on this topic, the main determinants of vaccine acceptance among HCWs have been largely investigated and include desire for self-protection and to protect family rather than absolute disease risk or desire to protect patients, among the main drivers. On the other hand, concerns regarding safety of the vaccines resulted in decreased vaccine uptake. Moreover, influenza vaccine hesitancy among HCWs was also associated with several issues such as low risk perception, denial of the social benefit of influenza vaccination, low social pressure, lack of perceived behavioral control, negative attitude toward vaccines, not having been previously vaccinated against influenza, not having previously had influenza, lack of adequate influenza-specific knowledge, lack of access to vaccination facilities, and socio-demographic variables. The topic of influenza vaccination among HCWs is challenging, full of ethical issues. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of interventions for improving vaccine uptake among HCWs found that combined strategies were more effective than isolate approaches. Mandatory policies are currently under debate in several countries. High quality studies would help policy-makers and stake-holders to shape evidence-based initiatives and programs to improve the control of influenza.

Workplace availability, risk group and perceived barriers predictive of 2016-17 influenza vaccine uptake in the United States: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza, though mostly self-limited in the healthy adult, may lead to severe disease and/or complications in subpopulations. Annual influenza vaccination is available in many countries with coverage goals rarely being met. We conducted a cross-sectional study of influenza vaccine uptake and explored socio-demographic, economic, and psychological factors that explained vaccine uptake.

METHODS

The survey was administered via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to United States residents in January 2017, using the Qualtrics platform. Using principal axis factor analysis, we reduced the 25 items theory-based psychological determinants into the primary constructs they measure if/when internal consistency was sufficient (Cronbach's alpha >0.60). Logistic regression models were used to quantify the association of socio-demographic, economic, and psychological factors with reported vaccine behavior in the 2016-17 flu season.

RESULTS

1007 participants completed the survey, sex distribution was even, 67% had 25-44years of age, and 61% annual household income of $30-99 thousand United States dollars. About 25% had the flu shot offered at their workplace and 20% reported belonging to a group for whom the flu shot is recommended. Vaccine uptake was 31.5%. Eight predictors remained in the final adjusted model (R²=0.489), having the vaccine offered at the workplace, belonging to a group for whom the vaccine is recommended, and higher perceived barriers were the strongest predictors of vaccine uptake, increasing (and decreasing in the case of barriers) the odds by >3-fold. Additionally, higher household income, higher perceived susceptibility and higher perceived benefits also independently predicted vaccine uptake.

DISCUSSION

We found evidence that perceived barriers significantly impaired vaccine uptake to the same extent that having the vaccine offered at the workplace or belonging to a group for whom the vaccine is recommended facilitated uptake. Ideally, a better understanding of drivers of vaccine hesitancy will result in improved interventions to increase vaccine uptake.

The social network around influenza vaccination in health care workers: a cross-sectional study

Background

Influenza vaccination coverage remains low among health care workers (HCWs) in many health facilities. This study describes the social network defined by HCWs’ conversations around an influenza vaccination campaign in order to describe the role played by vaccination behavior and other HCW characteristics in the configuration of the links among subjects.

Methods

This study used cross-sectional data from 235 HCWs interviewed after the 2010/2011 influenza vaccination campaign at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona (HCB), Spain. The study asked: “Who did you talk to or share some activity with respect to the seasonal vaccination campaign?” Variables studied included sociodemographic characteristics and reported conversations among HCWs during the influenza campaign. Exponential random graph models (ERGM) were used to assess the role of shared characteristics (homophily) and individual characteristics in the social network around the influenza vaccination campaign.

Results

Links were more likely between HCWs who shared the same professional category (OR 3.13, 95% CI = 2.61–3.75), sex (OR 1.34, 95% CI = 1.09–1.62), age (OR 0.7, 95% CI = 0.63–0.78 per decade of difference), and department (OR 11.35, 95% CI = 8.17–15.64), but not between HCWs who shared the same vaccination behavior (OR 1.02, 95% CI = 0.86–1.22). Older (OR 1.26, 95% CI = 1.14–1.39 per extra decade of HCW) and vaccinated (OR 1.32, 95% CI = 1.09–1.62) HCWs were more likely to be named.

Conclusions

This study finds that there is no homophily by vaccination status in whom HCWs speak to or interact with about a workplace vaccination promotion campaign. This result highlights the relevance of social network analysis in the planning of health promotion interventions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0522-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.