Workplace efforts to promote influenza vaccination among healthcare personnel and their association with uptake during the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1).
ABSTRACT Survey data suggest that, in a typical year, less than half U.S. healthcare personnel (HCP) are vaccinated for influenza. We measured workplace efforts to promote influenza vaccination among HCP in the U.S. and their association with seasonal and pandemic vaccination during the 2009-10 influenza season.
Self-reported survey data collected in June 2010 from eligible HCP (n=1714) participating in a nationally representative, online research panel. HCP eligible for participation in the survey were those reporting as patient care providers and/or working in a healthcare setting. The survey measured workplace exposure to vaccination recommendations, vaccination requirements, on-site vaccination, reminders, and/or rewards, and being vaccinated for seasonal or H1N1 influenza.
At least two-thirds of HCP were offered worksite influenza vaccination; about one half received reminders; and 10% were required to be vaccinated. Compared to HCP in other work settings, hospital employees were most (p<0.001) likely to be the subject to efforts to promote vaccination. Vaccination requirements were associated with increases in seasonal and pandemic vaccination rates of between 31 and 49% points (p<0.005). On-site vaccination was associated with increases in seasonal and pandemic vaccination of between 13 and 29% points (p<0.05). Reminders and incentives were not associated with vaccination.
Our findings provide empirical support for vaccination requirements as a strategy for increasing influenza vaccination among HCP. Our findings also suggest that making influenza vaccination available to HCP at work could increase uptake and highlight the need to reach beyond hospitals in promoting vaccination among HCP.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The ethical debate over mandatory healthcare worker (HCW) influenza vaccination is a heated one. Our study hospital instituted a mandatory employee influenza vaccination policy for the 2009-2010 influenza season during the highly publicized pandemic of the H1N1 "Swine Flu." Under this mandate there was no informed declination option, and termination of employment was the consequence for noncompliance. Our objective was to examine HCW perceptions of the H1N1 influenza virus, the vaccine, and the strict mandated vaccination policy. A survey was designed, distributed, and anonymously collected. In total, 202 completed questionnaires were obtained via accidental sampling by the investigators achieving a 100% response rate. Data analysis showed that 31.7% of surveyed HCWs felt the mandate was an infringement on their rights and 3.5% of HCWs would electively seek employment elsewhere. Significantly more nurses and clerks/technicians were opposed to the mandate compared to other types of employees. 96% felt that the mandating hospital should be liable should a significant adverse effect occur from receiving the vaccine. While the mandate helped to increase HCW influenza vaccination rates dramatically, the strict consequence of employment termination created negative feelings of coercion. Adopting a policy that includes a declination option with mandatory masking during influenza season might be a more widely acceptable and still adequate approach.Vaccine 07/2014; 32(37). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.06.001 · 3.49 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all health care personnel (HCP). In August 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a final rule requiring acute care hospitals that participate in its Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program to report HCP influenza vaccination data through the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) beginning January 1, 2013. Data reported by 4,254 acute care hospitals, covering the period October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014, were analyzed to collect estimates of the proportion of HCP vaccinated nationally and by state for three groups: 1) employees, 2) licensed independent practitioners (LIPs), and 3) adult students/trainees and volunteers. Overall in the United States, 81.8% of hospital-based HCP were reported vaccinated, with the highest proportion (86.1%) among employees and the lowest (61.9%) among LIPs. The proportion reported vaccinated varied widely by state, with ranges of 69.0%-97.6% for employees, 33.8%-93.6% for LIPs, and 50.3%-96.3% for adult students/trainees and volunteers. Public reporting of vaccination data has been shown to increase HCP influenza vaccination coverage. These new NHSN data provide a baseline for measuring changes in future hospital-based reporting of HCP influenza vaccination.
Technical Report: STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING VACCINE HESITANCY – A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the systematic review of strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy is to identify strategies that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts in an effort to respond to, and manage, issues of vaccine hesitancy. This is to fulfil the requirements of the SAGE working group (WG) dealing with vaccine hesitancy in respect to: a) identifying existing and new activities and strategies relating to vaccines or from other areas that could successfully address vaccine hesitancy; b) identifying strategies that do not work well, and; c) prioritising activities and strategies based on an assessment of their potential impact. These requirements were translated into the following specific objectives: 1. Identify published strategies related to vaccine hesitancy and hesitancy of other health technologies (reproductive health technologies (RHT) were chosen as the additional focus) and provide a descriptive analysis of the findings; 2. Map all evaluated strategies to the SAGE WG “Model of determinants of Vaccine Hesitancy” (Appendix 1) and identify key characteristics; 3. Evaluate relevant evaluated strategies relating to vaccine hesitancy using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation); relevance was informed by the PICO questions defined a priori by the WG, and; 4. Synthesise findings in a manner which aids the design of future interventions and further research.