Article

Factors mediating seasonal and influenza A (H1N1) vaccine acceptance among ethnically diverse populations in the urban south

Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Vaccine (Impact Factor: 3.49). 04/2012; 30(28):4200-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.04.053
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We examined the acceptability of the influenza A (H1N1) and seasonal vaccinations immediately following government manufacture approval to gauge potential product uptake in minority communities. We studied correlates of vaccine acceptance including attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and influenza immunization experiences, and sought to identify communication approaches to increase influenza vaccine coverage in community settings.
Adults ≥18 years participated in a cross-sectional survey from September through December 2009. Venue-based sampling was used to recruit participants of racial and ethnic minorities.
The sample (N=503) included mostly lower income (81.9%, n=412) participants and African Americans (79.3%, n=399). Respondents expressed greater acceptability of the H1N1 vaccination compared to seasonal flu immunization (t=2.86, p=0.005) although H1N1 vaccine acceptability was moderately low (38%, n=191). Factors associated with acceptance of the H1N1 vaccine included positive attitudes about immunizations [OR=0.23, CI (0.16, 0.33)], community perceptions of H1N1 [OR=2.15, CI (1.57, 2.95)], and having had a flu shot in the past 5 years [OR=2.50, CI (1.52, 4.10). The factors associated with acceptance of the seasonal flu vaccine included positive attitudes about immunization [OR=0.43, CI (0.32, 0.59)], community perceptions of H1N1 [OR=1.53, CI (1.16, 2.01)], and having had the flu shot in the past 5 years [OR=3.53, CI (2.16, 5.78)]. Participants were most likely to be influenced to take a flu shot by physicians [OR=1.94, CI (1.31, 2.86)]. Persons who obtained influenza vaccinations indicated that Facebook (χ(2)=11.7, p=0.02) and Twitter (χ(2)=18.1, p=0.001) could be useful vaccine communication channels and that churches (χ(2)=21.5, p<0.001) and grocery stores (χ(2)=21.5, p<0.001) would be effective "flu shot stops" in their communities.
In this population, positive vaccine attitudes and community perceptions, along with previous flu vaccination, were associated with H1N1 and seasonal influenza vaccine acceptance. Increased immunization coverage in this community may be achieved through physician communication to dispel vaccine conspiracy beliefs and discussion about vaccine protection via social media and in other community venues.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Saad B Omer, Jul 25, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
125 Views
  • Source
    • "Some of these characteristics of the state vaccine supply included the number of locations where vaccine was available , prioritization of the ACIP-recommended target groups, the type of providers to whom vaccine was directed, and the leadtime between vaccine allocation and availability in a state, which largely reflects differences in states' ordering processes. Because other factors affect uptake, as evidenced by state-to-state variation in seasonal influenza coverage and individual-level studies [15] [16] [17] [18], underlying population differences such as demographic characteristics , utilization of preventive health services, and healthcare infrastructure were also examined. It is relevant to mention that individual-level studies differ from those with a regional or ecological view. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: During the 2009-2010 H1N1 pandemic, vaccine in short supply was allocated to states pro rata by population, yet the vaccination rates of adults differed by state. States also differed in their campaign processes and decisions. Analyzing the campaign provides an opportunity to identify specific approaches that may result in higher vaccine uptake in a future event of this nature. OBJECTIVE: To determine supply chain and system factors associated with higher state H1N1 vaccination coverage for adults in a system where vaccine was in short supply. METHODS: Regression analysis of factors predicting state-specific H1N1 vaccination coverage in adults. Independent variables included state campaign information, demographics, preventive or health-seeking behavior, preparedness funding, providers, state characteristics, and H1N1-specific state data. RESULTS: The best model explained the variation in state-specific adult vaccination coverage with an adjusted R-squared of 0.76. We found that higher H1N1 coverage of adults is associated with program aspects including shorter lead-times (i.e., the number of days between when doses were allocated to a state and were shipped, including the time for states to order the doses) and less vaccine directed to specialist locations. Higher vaccination coverage is also positively associated with the maximum number of ship-to locations, past seasonal influenza vaccination coverage, the percentage of women with a Pap smear, the percentage of the population that is Hispanic, and negatively associated with a long duration of the epidemic peak. CONCLUSION: Long lead-times may be a function of system structure or of efficiency and may suggest monitoring or redesign of distribution processes. Sending vaccine to sites with broad access could be useful when covering a general population. Existing infrastructure may be reflected in the maximum number of ship-to locations, so strengthening routine influenza vaccination programs may help during emergency vaccinations also. Future research could continue to inform program decisions.
    Vaccine 05/2013; 32(25). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.05.069 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To assess influenza vaccination coverage and timeliness among children requiring two doses in a season. METHODS: This study examined seasonal influenza vaccination of 17,800 children from five academically-affiliated clinics in New York City using hospital and city immunization registries. Eligible children were 6months-8years and needed two influenza vaccine doses in a given season between 2004-05 and 2009-10. Any (≥1 dose) and full (2 doses) vaccination coverage by December 15 and March 31 as well as interval between doses were calculated. Vaccination trends over time, determinants, and missed opportunities were assessed. RESULTS: Children were primarily Latino and publicly insured. Full coverage by March 31 increased between the 2004-05 and 2009-10 seasons (9% vs. 29%, p<0.001). Few children received both doses by December 15 (2-13%). The interval between doses was almost twice as long as recommended and increased over time (2004-05: 52days; 2009-10: 64days; p<0.001). Older age and Latino ethnicity were negative predictors of full vaccination by March 31. Missed opportunities for the second dose were common. CONCLUSION: Despite improvements, low-income, minority children requiring two influenza vaccine doses remain at risk of incomplete and delayed vaccination. Barriers to and strategies for timely full vaccination should be explored.
    Preventive Medicine 12/2012; 56(3-4). DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.11.018 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Vaccination coverage is still below the Healthy People 2010 and 2020 goals. Technology use in the US is widespread by patients and providers including text message, email, internet, social media and electronic health records. Health information technology (IT) interventions can facilitate the rapid or real-time identification of children in need of vaccination and provide the foundation for vaccine-oriented parental communication or clinical alerts in a flexible and tailored manner. There has been a small but burgeoning field of work integrating IT into vaccination interventions including reminder/recall using non-traditional methods, clinical decision support for providers in the electronic health record, use of technology to affect work-flow and the use of social media. The aim of this review is to introduce and present current data regarding the effectiveness of a range of technology tools to promote vaccination, describe gaps in the literature and offer insights into future directions for research and intervention.
    Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 06/2013; 9(8). DOI:10.4161/hv.25031 · 3.64 Impact Factor
Show more