Factors Influencing the Implementation of Flu Vaccination in Healthcare Professionals: Pros and Cons

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on flu vaccine uptake in healthcare workers in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Influenza immunization policies in Europe primarily target at-risk and vulnerable subjects. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are a key focus of vaccination campaigns. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the role of the COVID-19 pandemic on influenza vaccine uptake among HCWs since the 2020/21 influenza season.

AREAS COVERED

Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis and systematic review, selected from scientific articles available in MEDLINE/PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus databases between 1 January 2021 and 15 January 2023 The analysis revealed a significant relationship between influenza vaccine uptake and COVID-19 related determinants, such as willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination, fear of COVID-19, and differentiating between influenza and COVID-19 symptoms (OR = 5.70; 95%CI = 2.08-15.60). Several studies reported higher vaccination coverages in the 2020/21 season compared to previous seasons, with VC values ranging from + 17% to + 38% compared to the 2019/20 season. The included studies identified a shift in HCWs' attitudes toward influenza vaccination, attributed to increased awareness due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

EXPERT OPINION

Vaccine hesitancy is common among HCWs in Europe, necessitating mutual strategies across all European countries. So far, mandatory vaccination policies have shown the most potential in achieving high and sustainable influenza vaccination rates among HCWs.

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.