A Wide Range of Strategies to Cope with Healthcare Workers' Vaccine Hesitancy in A North-Eastern Italian Region: Are They Enough?

Attitudes toward influenza vaccination in healthcare workers in Italy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are among the at-risk groups for whom influenza vaccination is strongly recommended. To assess the proportion of Italian HCWs with positive attitudes toward influenza vaccination, we conducted a systematic review of relevant literature and a meta-analysis. Our focus was on the influenza seasons from 2017/18 to 2021/22. The prevalence of favorable attitudes toward vaccination varied, ranging from 12% during the 2017/18 influenza season to 59% in the 2020/21 season. The significant increase in the 2020/21 season can be attributed to adaptations necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. During the 2021/22 influenza season, there was a decline in vaccination coverage (37%), likely due to the absence of a robust preventive culture. Various strategies have been employed to enhance HCWs' attitudes to achieve higher vaccination rates, but none of them have demonstrated satisfactory results. Policymakers should consider implementing a policy of mandatory vaccination to ensure elevated vaccination coverage 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.

Effectiveness of on-site influenza vaccination strategy in Italian healthcare workers: a systematic review and statistical analysis

INTRODUCTION

One of the main determinants of non-adherence to influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs) is lack of time to attend vaccination services. Therefore, international Public Health Organizations have recommended on-site influenza vaccination in order to improve vaccination coverage among HCWs.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a systematic narrative review of the relevant literature to evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy among HCWs in Italy. Fifteen studies, selected among scientific articles available in MEDLINE/PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus and published from January 1^st, 2018, to May 31^st, 2022, were included. A significant relationship was evidenced between influenza vaccine uptake and adoption of an on-site outpatient clinic (OR = 2.06; 95%CI = 1.43-2.95). The review highlighted a significant increase in VC when on-site vaccination was implemented (even exceeding +150% compared to the previous season), among other measures. Nevertheless, none of the reported experiences proved to meet the minimum target of 75% VC among HCWs.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite strategies to achieve greater willingness to immunize in this category, mandatory vaccination appears to be the only one that can guarantee protection for HCWs and the patients they care for.

Vaccinating Front-Line Healthcare Workers: Results of a Pre-Pandemic Cross-Sectional Study from North-Eastern Italy on First Responders

First responders are front-line healthcare workers who are potentially exposed to different infectious agents. Characterizing their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards immunization, therefore, has the potential to significantly improve occupational health and safety. A cross-sectional study was performed in October 2018 using a sample of 161 first responders from the Parma Province (mean age 45.1 ± 14.1 years; seniority 10.8 ± 8.6 years). The participants were questioned on three recommended vaccinations (i.e., the seasonal influenza, measles, and pertussis vaccines) and on meningococcal vaccines (not officially recommended for first responders). The participant’s knowledge status and risk perception were assessed as percentage values through a specifically designed questionnaire. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for factors associated with vaccination status were calculated by means of a binary logistic regression analysis. The internal consistency result, calculated using a general knowledge test, was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.894), but the corresponding score was unsatisfying (46.5% ± 32.4), evidencing uncertainties surrounding the recommendations for measles and meningococcal vaccines (39.1% and 34.2% incorrect answers, respectively). While the large majority of respondents were favorable towards the meningococcal (89.4%), measles (87.5%), and pertussis vaccines (83.0%), 55.3% exhibited a favorable attitude toward the seasonal influenza vaccine, the uptake of which in 2018, was reported by 28.0% of respondents, compared to the self-reported lifetime status for meningitis (26.1%), measles (42.2%), and pertussis (34.8%). Not coincidentally, all assessed infections were associated with a low-risk perception score, particularly influenza (33.9% ± 18.4). Interestingly enough, neither knowledge status nor risk perception were associated with vaccination rates. More precisely, the main predictor for being vaccinated against seasonal influenza in 2018 was a seniority of ≥10 years (aOR 3.26, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.35–7.91), while both pertussis and measles were positively associated with higher educational achievement (aOR 3.27, 95%CI 1.29–8.30; and aOR 2.69, 95%CI 1.09–6.65, respectively). The reasons for vaccination gaps among the sampled first responders, apparently, did not find their roots in inappropriate knowledge status and risk perception alone. However, the very low rates of sampled immunization lead us to recommend stronger and more appropriate information campaigns.

When a Neglected Tropical Disease Goes Global: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Italian Physicians towards Monkeypox, Preliminary Results

Monkeypox (MPX) has been regarded as a neglected tropic disease of Western and Central Africa since the early 70s. However, during May 2022, an unprecedent outbreak of MPX has involved most of European Countries, as well as North and South America. While the actual extent of this outbreak is being assessed by health authorities, we performed a pilot study on specific knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) in a sample of Italian medical professionals (24-30 May 2022; 10,293 potential recipients), focusing on Occupational Physicians (OP), Public Health Professionals (PH), and General Practitioners (GP), i.e., medical professionals more likely involved in the early management of incident cases. More specifically, we inquired into their attitude on the use of variola vaccine in order to prevent MPX infection. From a total of 566 questionnaire (response rate of 5.5%), 163 participants were included in the final analyses. Knowledge status was quite unsatisfying, with substantial knowledge gaps on all aspect of MPX. In turn, analysis of risk perception suggested a substantial overlooking of MPX as a pathogen, particularly when compared to SARS-CoV-2, TB, HIV, and HBV. Overall, 58.6% of respondents were somehow favorable to implement variola vaccination in order to prevent MPX, and the main effectors of this attitude were identified in having been previously vaccinated against seasonal influenza (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 6.443, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 1.798-23.093), and being favorable to receive variola vaccine (aOR 21.416; 95%CI 7.290-62.914). In summary, the significant extent of knowledge gaps and the erratic risk perception, associated collectively stress the importance of appropriate information campaigns among first-line medical professionals.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in Italian healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

As for other vaccines, vaccination hesitancy may be a determining factor in the success (or otherwise) of the COVID-19 immunization campaign in healthcare workers (HCWs).

AREAS COVERED

To estimate the proportion of HCWs in Italy who expressed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, we conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature and a meta-analysis. Determinants of vaccine compliance and options suggested by these studies to address vaccine hesitancy among HCWs were also analyzed. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review, selected from scientific articles available in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus databases between January 1, 2020 and January 25, 2022. The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs was 13.1% (95%CI: 6.9-20.9%). The vaccine hesitancy rate among HCWs investigated before and during the vaccination campaign was 18.2% (95%CI=12.8-24.2%) and 8.9% (95%CI=3.4-16.6%), respectively. That main reasons for vaccine hesitation were lack of information about vaccination, opinion that the vaccine is unsafe, and fear of adverse events.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite strategies to achieve a greater willingness to immunize in this category, mandatory vaccination appears to be one of the most important measures that can guarantee the protection of HCWs and the patients they care for.

COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccination Campaign in a Research and University Hospital in Milan, Italy

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are a historical key target of influenza vaccination programs. For the 2021–2022 season, WHO considered the coadministration of a flu and a COVID-19 vaccine as acceptable and recommended it to allow for higher uptake of both vaccines. The aim of this study was to investigate demographic and occupational features of vaccinated HCWs, reasons behind flu vaccine acceptance and a possible effect of the coadministration of a COVID-19 vaccine, in order to potentially draw general conclusions on HCWs’ attitude towards flu vaccination and inform further strategies for consistent improvement of vaccine acceptance. Methods: a promotional and educational campaign, a gaming strategy, and vaccination delivery through both a large central hub and on-site ambulatories, were the implemented strategies. In the central hub, the flu/COVID-19 vaccine coadministration was offered. Statistical descriptive analysis, multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and logistic regression models were performed. Results: 2381 HCWs received the flu vaccine, prompting a vaccination coverage rate (VCR) of 52.0% versus 43.1% in the 2020–2021 campaign. Furthermore, 50.6% vaccinated HCWs belonged to the 18–39 years-old age group. The most expressed reasons for vaccine uptake were “Vaccination is the most effective strategy of prevention” (n = 1928, 81.0%), “As HCW it’s my duty to get vaccinated to protect my patients” (n = 766, 32.2%), and the group of COVID-19-related reasons (n = 586, 24.6%). In addition, 23.3% HCWs received the flu vaccine in the current campaign but not in the previous one (newly vaccinated) and the flu/COVID-19 vaccine coadministration was more frequent in this group. A total of 51.0% HCWs were hesitant towards the coadministration, while residents and nurses showed the highest propensity to receive it. Conclusions: in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fondazione’s influenza VCR continued to increase, with the greatest participation among HCWs aged 18–39 years. A potential propelling role of the COVID-19 vaccine coadministration was highlighted.

Tetanus Vaccination Status and Vaccine Hesitancy in Amateur Basketball Players (Italy, 2020)

Basketball is among the third most popular team sport in Italy. Albeit not usually perceived as being at high risk for tetanus, the Italian legal framework (Law No. 292 of 1963; Presidential Decree 1301/1965) requires tetanus vaccination (TeV) even for amateur practice. Even though some previous reports have suggested a relatively low adherence towards vaccination practice among basketball player, corresponding knowledge, attitudes and practices towards TeV remain largely unknown. Our study specifically investigated such topics in a total of 270 amateur basketball players participating into an internet-based survey by completing a structured questionnaire. Of them, 73.0% had a proper vaccination status, but a third of respondents (33.3%) exhibited some degree of vaccine hesitancy. The average understanding of TeV and tetanus (79.8% with a potential range 0–100) as well as the risk perception for natural infection (63.9% ± 26.6) were quite good. Even though unmotivated fears towards TeV were more scarcely reported (14.0% ± 15.4), they still represented the main reasons for having missed vaccination shots (63.0%). Knowledge status and risk perception for natural infection and TeV were well correlated (R = 0.22 and R = −0.64, respectively). Appropriate TeV status was more likely in respondents not exhibiting vaccine hesitancy (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.114, 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) 0.059–0.225). In turn, vaccine hesitancy was more frequently reported among individuals of male gender (OR 3.148, 95%CI 1.072–9.244), while better formal education (OR 0.065, 95%CI 0.013–0.319) and working in healthcare settings (OR 0.042, 95%CI 0.007–0.265) were characterized as negative effectors. Vaccinations in athletes represent an often overlooked issue, with a considerable lack of available evidence. The results stress the opportunity for appropriate TeV screening programs among amateur athletes and the potential relevance of interventions aimed at raising the perceived significance of TeV in order to cope with a significant share of vaccine-hesitant athletes.

Vaccine Production Process: How Much Does the General Population Know about This Topic? A Web-Based Survey

Background: Vaccine hesitancy has been recognized as a major global health threat by the World Health Organization. Many studies have investigated vaccine safety as a determinant for vaccine hesitancy; however, not much attention has been paid to vaccine production and quality control during the vaccine production process or whether knowledge about this topic may influence vaccine confidence. The aim of this study was to characterize the common knowledge about the vaccine production process. Methods: A freely accessible online questionnaire was developed on Google Modules and disseminated through social networks. A descriptive analysis of the collected answers was performed, and the chi-square test was used to assess significant differences for the sociodemographic characteristics of the study population (age, gender, work or education and training in the healthcare setting, minor offspring). A binary logistic regression model was performed considering these socio-demographic categories as independent variables. Results: The number of collected questionnaire was 135. Most of the participants (127/135, 94.1%) were aware that quality control measures are carried out during manufacturing, although some knowledge gaps emerged in specific aspects of the vaccine production process, without statistically significant differences between age groups. Working in the healthcare setting or being educated in healthcare may be considered predictors for a better understanding that more than 50% of the production time is spent on quality control (AOR = 3.43; 95% CI: 1.84–8.14, p = 0.01) and that considering quality control performed during the vaccine production process is adequate for avoiding contamination (AOR = 7.90; 95% CI: 0.97–64.34; p = 0.05). Conclusions: This study allowed for a characterization of common knowledge about the vaccine production process. It highlighted the need to implement specific strategies to spread correct information about the vaccine production process. This study may contribute to increased confidence and trust in vaccines and vaccination among the general population.