Healthcare workers as parents: Attitudes toward vaccinating their children against pandemic influenza A/H1N1

Assistt Rehberlik ve Müsteri Hizmetleri A.S., Istanbul, Turkey.
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.26). 10/2010; 10(1):596. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-596
Source: PubMed


Both the health care workers (HCWs) and children are target groups for pandemic influenza vaccination. The coverage of the target populations is an important determinant for impact of mass vaccination. The objective of this study is to determine the attitudes of HCWs as parents, toward vaccinating their children with pandemic influenza A/H1N1 vaccine.
A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted with health care workers (HCWs) in a public hospital during December 2009 in Istanbul. All persons employed in the hospital with or without a health-care occupation are accepted as HCW. The HCWs who are parents of children 6 months to 18 years of age were included in the study. Pearson's chi-square test and logistic regression analysis was applied for the statistical analyses.
A total of 389 HCWs who were parents of children aged 6 months-18 years participated study. Among all participants 27.0% (n = 105) reported that themselves had been vaccinated against pandemic influenza A/H1N1. Two third (66.1%) of the parents answered that they will not vaccinate their children, 21.1% already vaccinated and 12.9% were still undecided. Concern about side effect was most reported reason among who had been not vaccinated their children and among undecided parents. The second reason for refusing the pandemic vaccine was concerns efficacy of the vaccine. Media was the only source of information about pandemic influenza in nearly one third of HCWs. Agreement with vaccine safety, self receipt of pandemic influenza A/H1N1 vaccine, and trust in Ministry of Health were found to be associated with the positive attitude toward vaccinating their children against pandemic influenza A/H1N1.
Persuading parents to accept a new vaccine seems not be easy even if they are HCWs. In order to overcome the barriers among HCWs related to pandemic vaccines, determination of their misinformation, attitudes and behaviors regarding the pandemic influenza vaccination is necessary. Efforts for orienting the HCWs to use evidence based scientific sources, rather than the media for information should be considered by the authorities.

Download full-text


Available from: Fuat Torun, Jan 29, 2014
23 Reads
  • Source
    • "This may be due to the number of cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome occurring among recipients of swine flu vaccination during that time [32]. Other studies [11, 12, 28] also showed fear of side effects having a major role in declining the vaccine during this pandemic. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: UK pandemic influenza strategy focused on vaccination of high risk groups, although evidence shows that school-age children have the highest infection rates. Vaccination of children might be an additional strategy. We undertook a cross-sectional study amongst 149 parents of primary school children aged 4-7 years in Birmingham, UK to quantify intention to accept pandemic influenza vaccine and identify factors affecting uptake. Ninety-one (61.1%, 95% CI 52.8, 68.9) had or would accept vaccine for their child. The most common reasons for declining vaccine were concerns about safety (58.6% reported this), side effects (55.2%), or believing their child had already had swine flu (12.1%). Parents of nonwhite ethnicity (OR 2.4 (1.1, 5.0)) and with asthmatic children (OR 6.6 (1.4, 32.1)) were significantly more likely to accept pandemic vaccine, as were those whose children had ever received seasonal vaccine and those who believed swine flu to be a serious threat (OR 4.2 (1.9, 9.1)). Parents would be more likely to accept vaccination if they received a letter of invite, if the government strongly encouraged them, if it were administered at school, and if it were more thoroughly tested. Accurate media portrayal of safety of the vaccine during future pandemics will be essential.
    10/2012; 2012(rr-8):182565. DOI:10.1155/2012/182565
  • Source
    • "These studies also demonstrated that, like our results, the major reason for refusing the pandemic vaccine was safety concerns, especially when people believed that the vaccine went through an accelerated approval procedure [23,25,26]. Other reasons included concerns about efficacy, and the belief "that H1N1 is a mild disease" [25,26]. These studies also suggested that the willingness to accept the pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine might be improved by promotion of vaccination for seasonal influenza, and recognition of the role of HCWs in the transmission of influenza to patients and even family members [26]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe the knowledge and attitudes of critical care clinicians during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. A survey conducted in 21 intensive care units in 17 provinces in China. Out of 733 questionnaires distributed, 695 were completed. Three hundred and fifty-six respondents (51.2%) reported their experience of caring for H1N1 patients. Despite the fact that 88.5% of all respondents ultimately finished an H1N1 training program, only 41.9% admitted that they had the knowledge of 2009 H1N1 influenza. A total of 572 respondents (82.3%) expressed willingness to care for H1N1 patients. Independent variables associated with increasing likelihood to care for patients in the logistic regression analysis were physicians or nurses rather than other professionals (odds ratio 4.056 and 3.235, p = 0.002 and 0.007, respectively), knowledge training prior to patient care (odds ratio 1.531, p = 0.044), and the confidence to know how to protect themselves and their patients (odds ratio 2.109, p = 0.001). Critical care clinicians reported poor knowledge of H1N1 influenza, even though most finished a relevant knowledge training program. Implementation of appropriate education program might improve compliance to infection control measures, and willingness to work in a pandemic.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 01/2011; 11(1):24. DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-11-24 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to investigate the parents' attitudes towards and identify the possible factors associated with pandemic H1N1 vaccine uptake that was recommended to children between 6 months and 5 years of age. A questionnaire exploring the attitudes of parents to H1N1 vaccine was given to parents of children 6 through 60 months of age attending to Akdeniz and Gazi University Hospitals' well-child departments between 15 November 2009 and 15 January 2010. The questionnaire included questions on demographic characteristics, parental perception of the severity of the pandemic, the presence of anyone in their environment who suffered from pandemic influenza, their decision on whether or not to vaccinate their child, the factors that influenced them during decision-making process and possible factors that might have influenced the opponents of their decision. Those who accepted to get their children vaccinated got it immediately, free of charge. Out of 611 parents who responded the questionnaire 226 (36.7%) had their children vaccinated. Parental education period of less than 12 years, not being a close relative of a health care worker, not having a relative who suffered from the disease, having a child younger than 36 months, being influenced by the relatives' opinions or from the politicians or from the media all decreased vaccine acceptance. Factors that were most significantly associated with vaccine refusal were thinking that the pandemic was exaggerated (OR 9.44, 95% CI 4.28-20.82) and believing that other preventive measures were more effective than H1N1 vaccine (OR 15.61, 95% CI 7.37-33.08). Lessons learned from influenza H1N1/2009 pandemic may help national authorities, health care providers and media on how to keep the public well informed and find ways of better risk-benefit communication with the parents on vaccines.
    European Journal of Pediatrics 02/2011; 170(9):1165-72. DOI:10.1007/s00431-011-1425-6 · 1.89 Impact Factor
Show more