Parental Perspectives on Influenza Immunization of Children Aged 6 to 23 Months
Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(Impact Factor: 4.53).
10/2005; 29(3):210-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.05.010
For the first time, in 2002, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices encouraged the vaccination of healthy children 6 to 23 months against influenza, whenever feasible. Participating inner-city health centers designed interventions to introduce influenza vaccination among this group of children. The study was designed to assess parents' attitudes toward the vaccine.
Following the 2002-2003 influenza vaccination season, parents were surveyed to identify barriers to and facilitators of influenza vaccination. A low-literacy level, 19-question survey was mailed to parents in three waves, 4 weeks apart. A subset of children had medical record data available to confirm vaccination status. Measures of validity were calculated. This paper focused only on the children whose parent-reported vaccination status was concordant with that reported in medical records (n = 193). Associations of responses to vaccination status were calculated in 2004, using chi-square and logistic regression procedures.
Sensitivity was 85.7% and specificity was 66% (kappa = 0.50), assessing the ability of parents to recall receipt or nonreceipt of influenza vaccine. The most important factors related to immunization of healthy infants were perceived doctor's recommendation (odds ratio [OR] = 5.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4-12.3; p < 0.001) and belief that getting an influenza shot is a smart idea (OR = 3.5; 95% CI = 1.3-8.9; p < 0.01) for those with medical record-confirmed vaccination status.
A clear message that the doctor recommends influenza vaccination for a child is an important factor for ensuring vaccination, and may foster the idea that vaccination is "smart."
Available from: Donald Jiang
- "In studies that used quantitative methods, one applied the theory of reasoned action (Lin et al., 2006; Nowalk et al., 2005), one applied the HBM (Gnanasekaran et al., 2006; Tuma et al., 2002), and two studies applied neither (Esposito et al., 2006; Humiston et al., 2005). Of the reasoned action studies, one only focused on the influence of vaccines and did not consider caregiver perceptions of susceptibility of influenza (Lin et al., 2006), and one did not consider caregiver perceptions of the severity of influenza (Nowalk et al., 2005). Of the studies that have applied HBM, one did not test the components of cues to action and perceived benefits (Gnanasekaran, 2006); another did not characterize the caregivers and their children and did not evaluate possible confounding factors in the results of the study (Tuma et al., 2002). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study applied the Health Belief Model to investigate factors in the decision by caregivers to vaccinate their children for influenza.
Cross-sectional study. SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENTS: Purposive sampling obtained 2,778 useable responses to surveys of 33 public health centers and 40 medical institutions participating in vaccination programs in southern Taiwan. Data were collected using the Caregiver Demographics and Children's Health History Questionnaire, Children's Influenza Vaccination History Questionnaire, and a Health Belief Model Questionnaire. Multiple logistic regression was used to analyze predictors of influenza vaccinations in children.
Predictors of vaccination revealed by logistic regression analysis included age, current employment, and residence of the caregiver as well as chronic disease, hospitalization, and influenza histories of the child. Other predictors revealed by the Health Belief Model were perceived susceptibility of the children to influenza, perceived benefits of vaccinations to children, perceived barriers to vaccinations, and cues to action. Eleven items in the model were also significant predictors of vaccination.
The survey results can be used to develop strategies for increasing influenza vaccination rates.
Journal of Community Health Nursing 01/2011; 28(1):29-40. DOI:10.1080/07370016.2011.539087 · 0.48 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this paper, we study the space-time block coding (STBC) in the downlink WCDMA with linear receivers at the terminal; including conventional Rake receivers and well known linear channel equalizers. The BER performance is analyzed for these linear receivers and the numerical results show that better performance is achieved when the linear channel equalization is employed at the terminal's receiver.
Electrical and Computer Engineering, 2004. Canadian Conference on; 06/2004
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This report updates the 2004 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2004;53[No. RR-6]:1-40). The 2005 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) vaccination of persons with conditions leading to compromise of the respiratory system; 2) vaccination of health-care workers; 3) clarification of the role of live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in vaccine shortage situations; 4) the 2005-06 trivalent vaccine virus strains: A/California/7/2004 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like, and B/Shanghai/361/2002-like antigens (for the A/California/7/2004 [H3N2]-like antigen, manufacturers may use the antigenically equivalent A/New York/55/2004 virus, and for the B/Shanghai/361/2002-like antigen, manufacturers may use the antigenically equivalent B/Jilin/20/2003 virus or B/Jiangsu/10/2003 virus); and 5) the assessment of vaccine supply, timing of influenza vaccination, and prioritization of inactivated vaccine in shortage situations. A link to this report and other information can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/flu.
MMWR. Recommendations and reports: Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports / Centers for Disease Control 08/2005; 54(RR-8):1-40.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.