Behavioral change with influenza vaccination: Factors influencing increased uptake of the pandemic H1N1 versus seasonal influenza vaccine in health care personnel
Highlights
► We compared attitudes to influenza vaccination among two groups of health care personnel (HCP) who received the pH1N1 vaccine: those who did (RV) or did not (NRV) routinely get the seasonal vaccine. ► For the NRV group the major influence in their decision to get the pH1N1 vaccine appeared to be that their perception of risk outweighed their concerns about the vaccine. ► The NRV group was much less concerned about seasonal influenza than pH1N1 influenza.
Introduction
Influenza causes annual outbreaks of disease, with the highest rates of serious illness and death among adults aged ≥65 years, children under 2 years old, and those with particular medical conditions that place them at increased risk for complications [1]. Influenza vaccination has been recommended for health care personnel (HCP) by public health authorities to limit influenza transmission to susceptible patient populations [1], [2]. Despite this, uptake of vaccination by HCP has remained low in many jurisdictions [1], [2], with rates commonly reported to be under 50% [3]. Mandatory vaccination has been recommended as a way to increase HCP vaccination rates [4]. Although this approach has been successful in some United States health care facilities [5], [6], it has often been met with substantial resistance and court challenges [5]. In Canada, a successful legal challenge resulted in the abandonment of a mandatory vaccination program for paramedics in one province [7]. Some jurisdictions may be reluctant to pursue mandatory campaigns due to potential conflicts between administration and HCP [8], and questions about the efficacy of vaccination programs in limiting influenza transmission from HCP to patients [9]. Nevertheless, HCP continue to be identified as an important focus for vaccination campaigns in order to decrease the risk for vulnerable patients, and efforts to improve uptake through a voluntary process remain of interest.
HCP who choose to get influenza vaccines often do so to protect their own health [10], [11]. Barriers to uptake include misconceptions or lack of knowledge about influenza infection, and also a lack of convenient access to the vaccine [10], [12]. Those vaccination campaigns which have been more successful usually build on HCP education, availability, measurement, facility policies, and role modeling [3].
In the wake of the H1N1 pandemic in 2009–2010, there were a number of studies investigating uptake of the pH1N1 vaccine amongst HCP [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. An important factor associated with uptake of pH1N1 vaccine was having previously received the seasonal vaccine [11], [13], [16], [17], [18], [19], with other relevant factors including occupation [13], [16], [18], [19], perceptions of vaccine safety [18], older age [13], [16], and a sense of professional responsibility [18]. However, little information is available on what may have influenced a HCP subgroup of particular interest: those who have not typically had the seasonal vaccination in the past, but chose to be vaccinated with the pH1N1 influenza vaccine.
The Health Sciences Center (HSC) is the largest tertiary care hospital in Manitoba, a province in central Canada. The hospital offers free, convenient, on-site influenza vaccination for hospital staff. Seasonal staff influenza vaccination rates typically approximate 25%. In 2009, the pH1N1 vaccine had a significantly higher uptake, with approximately 46% or almost 3000 of the staff within the institution being vaccinated. While there has been much speculation about the reasons for the higher rates, including fear of the disease and a high profile in the media, there has been little systematic investigation. This change in behavior provided a unique opportunity to more closely examine the factors that may have been influential in opting to get the vaccination, in order to provide guidance for future voluntary vaccination approaches.
The main purpose of this study was to explore the reasons for pH1N1 vaccination among HCP, comparing those who routinely obtain the seasonal influenza vaccine and those who do not, in order to identify personal, social, and environment influences on the decision-making. This information could then be utilized to guide more effective strategies to facilitate acceptance of the seasonal influenza vaccine among HCP.
Section snippets
Material and methods
The Occupational and Environmental Safety & Health Unit (OESH) at the HSC maintains employee records of vaccinations, including influenza vaccination. Those HCP who received the pH1N1 vaccine on-site during the 2009–2010 influenza season, and who were employed at the center for at least 2 years prior (to allow for an opportunity to be routinely offered seasonal influenza vaccine in the hospital), were eligible to take part (n = 2376) in the study. All those who had electronic addresses on file
Results
A total of 700 individuals responded to the survey, with 684 (29% of employees) providing usable questionnaires. The average age of respondents was 48.1 ± 9 years; 83% were female. Thirty-three percent of the respondents were nurses, 36% had other types of clinical positions such as physiotherapist, dietician, or health care aid and 31% worked in non-clinical fields such as housekeeping, maintenance, and administrative support. These proportions were reasonably comparable to the proportions of
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to identify reasons that a group of HCP who routinely do not get the seasonal influenza vaccine chose to get the pH1N1 vaccine. The study identified a number of factors which appeared to be relevant for this group in making a pro-vaccine decision, and provided some insight into their considerations for typically declining the vaccine. These HCP appeared to have quite different attitudes toward the two strains of influenza. They had markedly lower levels of concern
Conflict of interest statement
No author reports any potential conflict of interest regarding the information contained in this publication.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by a grant from Manitoba Health. The data collection, analysis and interpretation as well as the preparation of the manuscript were done independently of the funding body. The results and conclusions presented are those of the authors. No official endorsement by Manitoba Health is intended or should be inferred.
Author contributions: AK, LG, DM contributed to the conception and design of the study, acquisition of data. AK performed the analysis, AK, LG, DM
References (28)
- et al.
Influenza vaccination of health care workers in hospitals––a review of studies on attitudes and predictors
Vaccine
(2009) - et al.
Understanding influenza vaccination attitudes at a Canadian cancer center
Am J Infect Control
(2005) The 2009–2010 influenza pandemic: effects on pandemic and seasonal vaccine uptake and lessons learned for seasonal vaccination campaigns
Vaccine
(2010)- et al.
Acceptance of the 2009 A (H1N1) influenza vaccine among hospital workers in two French cancer centers
Vaccine
(2010) - et al.
Determinants of intention to get vaccinated against novel (pandemic) influenza A H1N1 among health-care workers in a nationwide survey
J Infect
(2010) - et al.
Positive attitudes of French general practitioners towards A/(H1N1) influenza-pandemic vaccination: a missed opportunity to increase vaccination uptakes in the general public?
Vaccine
(2010) - et al.
Vaccination against pandemic influenza A/(H1N1) among healthcare workers and reasons for refusing vaccination in Istanbul in last pandemic alert phase
Vaccine
(2010 Aug 9) - et al.
Seasonal and Pandemic A (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccination coverage and attitudes among health-care workers in a Spanish University Hospital
Vaccine
(2010) - et al.
Influenza vaccination among primary healthcare workers
Vaccine
(2008) - et al.
Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010
MMWR Recomm Rep
(2010)
Seasonal influenza vaccination campaigns for health care personnel: systematic review
CMAJ
Revised SHEA position paper: influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
Mandatory influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: a 5-year study
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
Cited by (51)
Pharmacists’ attitudes toward influenza vaccination: does the COVID-19 pandemic make a difference?
2023, Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social PharmacyAdherence of nurses to annual seasonal influenza vaccination over a 5-year period
2021, Journal of Hospital InfectionConfidence in social institutions, perceived vulnerability and the adoption of recommended protective behaviors in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic
2020, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :People are likely to engage in disease prevention behaviors if they perceive that the pandemic's social risk is translated in a perception that they are highly susceptible to the disease and that the disease has severe consequences (Glanz et al. 2002). In addition, studies have found that perceptions of the risk of personal and family infection are associated with the willingness to engage in preventive behaviors including vaccination (Kraut et al. 2011; Kumar et al., 2012). In recent years, an affective dimension (e.g., fear, apprehension, worry, anxiety) has been added to the model and has proven to be a strong predictor of health behavior (Leppin and Aro, 2009).
Spatial and temporal risk as drivers for adoption of foot and mouth disease vaccination
2018, VaccineCitation Excerpt :Use of government veterinarians and educational attainment were uncorrelated across income levels and villages. In agreement with the human health literature, individual risk perceptions affect the valuation of vaccination [28,29]. Households place a higher value on vaccines when the threat of disease is perceived as immediate.