Motivating factors for high rates of influenza vaccination among healthcare workers

ArticleinVaccine 29(35):5963-9 · June 2011with25 Reads
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.06.041 · Source: PubMed
Abstract
Recent guidance from related regulatory agencies and medical societies supports mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers (HCW) against influenza. At St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, a pediatric oncology referral center, more than 90% of HCWs receive vaccine each year without a policy mandating immunization. Factors associated with HCW uptake of influenza vaccines have not previously been evaluated in a high compliance rate setting. A structured, anonymous, electronic questionnaire was distributed in August 2010 to employees (HCW and non-HCW). Demographics, prior receipt of influenza vaccines, reasons for acceptance or refusal of seasonal and 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccine, and attitudes on mandatory vaccination were assessed. 95.0% of 925 HCWs and 63.1% of all 3227 qualifying employees responded to the survey. 93.8% and 75.2% of HCW reported receiving seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, respectively, in the 2009-2010 season. Benefits to self and/or patients were cited as the most frequent reasons for accepting seasonal (83.5% and 78.3%, respectively) and 2009 H1N1 (85.9% and 81.1%, respectively) vaccination. 36.6% of HCWs opposed mandating influenza vaccination; 88.2% and 59.9% of whom reported receiving the seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, respectively. Violation of freedom of choice and personal autonomy were the most frequently reported reasons for opposition. In this cohort of HCWs with a high influenza vaccination rate, realistic assessments of the potential benefits of vaccination appear to have driven the choice to accept immunization. Despite this, mandating vaccination was viewed unfavorably by a significant minority of vaccinated individuals. Employee concerns over autonomy should be addressed as institutions transition to mandatory vaccination policies.
    • "This is consistent with other studies of the acceptance of pertussis cocooning vaccination , which report the importance of healthcare providers' recommendations as an influential factor[20,22,26,29,31,33,[36][37][38]40,41]. Furthermore, some studies have reported the influence of perceived autonomy in the healthcare workers' decisions about accepting vaccination for pertussis and for influenza [21,29,[52][53][54]. Parents' 'right to choose yourself' has previously been described in studies of the acceptance of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine[55]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Context Several countries have reported a resurgence of pertussis in the last decades. This puts infants (especially <6 months) at risk of severe complications, because they are too young to be fully protected by vaccination. The global pertussis initiative has proposed pertussis vaccination of young infants’ close contacts, in order to reduce pertussis transmission and the burden of the disease on infants. Our aim is to explore the perceived determinants (barriers and facilitators) of intention to accept vaccination among the possible target groups of pertussis vaccination for cocooning. Consideration of these determinants is necessary to optimise the uptake of the vaccination. Methods We conducted 13 focus groups and six individual semi-structured interviews with members of possible target groups for pertussis cocooning (i.e. parents, maternity assistants, midwives, and paediatric nurses) in the Netherlands. Here, both maternal pertussis vaccination as well as pertussis cocooning has not been implemented. The topic list was based on a literature review and a barrier framework. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and two researchers performed thematic content analysis. Findings The participants’ risk perception, outcome expectations, general vaccination beliefs, moral norms, opinion of others, perceived autonomy, anticipated regret, decisional uncertainty, and perceived organisational barriers were all factors that influenced the intention to accept pertussis vaccination for cocooning. Discussion This study has identified nine perceived determinants that influence the intention to accept pertussis cocooning vaccination. We add the following determinants to the literature: perceived cost-effectiveness (as a concept of outcome expectations), justice (as a concept of moral norms), anticipated regret, and decisional uncertainty. We recommend considering these determinants in vaccination programmes for pertussis cocooning vaccination. Experience, information and trust emerged as predominant themes within these determinants. These themes require particular attention in future research on vaccination acceptance, especially with regard to their role in use and implementation in policy and practice.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2016
    • "The HCWs viewed their own receipt of A/H1N1 vaccination as a choice informed by perceptions of vaccine safety and personal health history, while in relation to patients, as a choice made in light of informed consent and official guidelines. This finding ties in with past research which has revealed that HCWs opposed mandatory seasonal influenza vaccination by invoking personal autonomy and freedom of choice [20,21]. In our study, the non-vaccinating HCWs invoked a number of personal reasons as to why they had refused, e.g. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are encouraged to get vaccinated during influenza pandemics to reduce their own, and patients', risk of infection, and to encourage their patients to get immunised. Despite extensive research on HCWs' receipt of vaccination, little is known about how HCWs articulate pandemic influenza vaccination advice to patients.
    Full-text · Article · May 2015 · Vaccine
    • "The HCWs viewed their own receipt of A/H1N1 vaccination as a choice informed by perceptions of vaccine safety and personal health history, while in relation to patients, as a choice made in light of informed consent and official guidelines. This finding ties in with past research which has revealed that HCWs opposed mandatory seasonal influenza vaccination by invoking personal autonomy and freedom of choice [20,21]. In our study, the non-vaccinating HCWs invoked a number of personal reasons as to why they had refused, e.g. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are encouraged to get vaccinated during influenza pandemics to reduce their own, and patients', risk of infection, and to encourage their patients to get immunised. Despite extensive research on HCWs' receipt of vaccination, little is known about how HCWs articulate pandemic influenza vaccination advice to patients. To explore HCWs' uptake of the A/H1N1 vaccine during the pandemic of 2009-2010, their recommendations to patients at the time, and their anticipated choices around influenza vaccination under different pandemic scenarios. We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with eight vaccinated and seventeen non-vaccinated HCWs from primary care practices in England. The data was analysed using thematic analysis. The HCWs constructed their receipt of vaccination as a personal choice informed by personal health history and perceptions of vaccine safety, while they viewed patients' vaccination as choices made following informed consent and medical guidelines. Some HCWs received the A/H1N1 vaccine under the influence of their local practice organizational norms and values. While non-vaccinated HCWs regarded patients' vaccination as patients' choice, some vaccinated HCWs saw it also as a public health issue. The non-vaccinated HCWs emphasised that they would not allow their personal choices to influence the advice they gave to patients, whereas some vaccinated HCWs believed that by getting vaccinated themselves they could provide a reassuring example to patients, particularly those who have concerns about influenza vaccination. All HCWs indicated they would accept vaccination under a severe pandemic scenario. However, most non-vaccinated HCWs expressed reticence to vaccinate under the mild pandemic scenario. Providing evidence-based arguments about the safety of new vaccines and the priority of public health over personal choice, and creating strong social norms for influenza vaccination as part of the organizational culture, should increase uptake of influenza vaccination among primary care HCWs and their patients. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2015
Show more