Influenza Vaccination: Healthcare Workers Attitude in Three Middle East Countries

Dubai Pharmacy College, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
International journal of medical sciences (Impact Factor: 2). 09/2010; 7(5):319-25.
Source: PubMed


Healthcare workers (HCWs) pose a potential risk of transmitting communicable diseases in the hospital settings where they usually work. This study aims to determine the current influenza vaccination rates among HCWs in three Middle East countries namely United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait and Oman, and also to identify the different variables associated with the noncompliance of HCWs to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) set in those countries.
1500 questionnaires were distributed to health care workers in the three countries during the period of July-October 2009.
Among 993 respondents, the vaccination rate was 24.7%, 67.2% and 46.4% in UAE, Kuwait and Oman, respectively. The different motivating factors that influenced the health care workers to take the vaccine was assessed and found that the most common factor that influenced their decision to take the vaccine was for their self protection (59%). On the other hand, the most common reason that discouraged HCWs to take the vaccine was "lack of time" as reported by 31.8% of the respondents. Other reasons for not taking the vaccine were unawareness of vaccine availability (29.4%), unavailability of vaccine (25.4%), doubts about vaccine efficacy (24.9%), lack of information about importance (20.1%) and concerns about its side effects (17.3%).
influenza immunization by healthcare workers in the studied countries was suboptimal which could be improved by setting different interventions and educational programs to increase vaccination acceptance among HCWs.

Download full-text


Available from: Eman Abu-Gharbieh, Oct 07, 2015
23 Reads
  • Source
    • "This review determined influenza vaccination rates among HCWs in three Middle East countries, namely, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Oman, to identify the different variables associated with the noncompliance of HCWs. Influenza immunization of HCWs in these studied countries was suboptimal, which could be improved through various interventions and educational programs to increase vaccination acceptance among HCWs [20]. HCWs can be the vectors of influenza and cause influenza outbreaks. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Because information on biological agents in the workplace is lacking, biological hazard analyses at the workplace to securely recognize the harmful factors with biological basis are desperately needed. This review concentrates on literatures published after 2010 that attempted to detect biological hazards to humans, especially workers, and the efforts to protect them against these factors. It is important to improve the current understanding of the health hazards caused by biological factors at the workplace. In addition, this review briefly describes these factors and provides some examples of their adverse health effects. It also reviews risk assessments, protection with personal protective equipment, prevention with training of workers, regulations, as well as vaccinations.
    Safety and Health at Work 06/2014; 5(2):43-52. DOI:10.1016/
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We undertook this study to review attitudes, beliefs and practices of healthcare workers (HCW) toward pandemic influenza A vaccine (H1N1) 2009 reported in the literature. Relevant papers published from 2009-2011 reporting attitudes, beliefs and practices of HCW towards pandemic influenza vaccine were identified. Variables such as age, gender, profession, work place area, and previous vaccination uptake were analyzed. In this study, 30 articles regarding attitudes and beliefs toward pandemic influenza vaccination, vaccine uptake and intention to accept vaccine were analyzed. Most studies were cross-sectional in design. Vaccination intention and uptake varies among different countries, 13.5-89.0% and 7.5-63.0%, respectively. Most common reasons for rejection were fear of adverse events, doubt regarding efficacy, not feeling as belonging to a high-risk group and believing that influenza is not a serious illness. Physicians show more favorable attitudes compared to nurses. The main predictor of vaccine uptake was having received previous influenza vaccination. Pandemic influenza uptake was low in most countries. The main reason among HCW for rejection was concern regarding side effects. It is necessary to establish educational programs to provided reliable information and raise awareness of HCW about vaccine use so that they can act as vaccine promoters among the general population.
    Archives of medical research 11/2011; 42(8):652-7. DOI:10.1016/j.arcmed.2011.12.006 · 2.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In non-mandatory vaccination policies, individual choice can be a major driver of vaccine uptake. Choice thereby influences whether public health targets can be achieved. Individual vaccinating decisions can be influenced by perceptions of vaccine risks or infection risks. There is also the potential for non-vaccinators to strategically 'free-ride' on herd immunity provided by vaccinators. This strategic interaction between individuals generates a social dilemma--a conflict between self-interest and what is best for the group as a whole. Game theory and related mathematical approaches that couple mechanistic models of vaccinating decisions with mechanistic models of disease spread can capture this social dilemma and address relevant questions. The past decade has seen significant growth in the theoretical literature developing and analyzing such models. Here, we argue that using these models to address specific public health challenges will require more work that integrates information from empirical studies into the development and validation of such models, as well as more collaboration between mathematical modelers, psychologists, economists and public health experts.
    Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 06/2012; 8(6):842-4. DOI:10.4161/hv.19616 · 2.37 Impact Factor
Show more