Related Articles

Background

Healthcare workers in many countries are recommended to receive influenza vaccine to protect themselves as well as patients. A monovalent H1N1 vaccine became available in Hong Kong in December 2009 and around 10% of local healthcare workers had received the vaccine by February 2010.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study of the prevalence of antibody to pandemic (H1N1) 2009 among HCWs in Hong Kong in February–March 2010 following the first pandemic wave and the pH1N1 vaccination campaign. In this study we focus on the subset of healthcare workers who reported receipt of non-adjuvanted monovalent 2009 H1N1 vaccine (Panenza, Sanofi Pasteur). Sera collected from HCWs were tested for antibody against the pH1N1 virus by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and viral neutralization (VN) assays.

Results

We enrolled 703 HCWs. Among 104 HCWs who reported receipt of pH1N1 vaccine, 54% (95% confidence interval (CI): 44%–63%) had antibody titer ≥1∶40 by HI and 42% (95% CI: 33%–52%) had antibody titer ≥1∶40 by VN. The proportion of HCWs with antibody titer ≥1∶40 by HI and VN significantly decreased with age, and the proportion with antibody titer ≥1∶40 by VN was marginally significantly lower among HCWs who reported prior receipt of 2007–08 seasonal influenza vaccine (odds ratio: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.19–1.00). After adjustment for age, the effect of prior seasonal vaccine receipt was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that monovalent H1N1 vaccine may have had suboptimal immunogenicity in HCWs in Hong Kong. Larger studies are required to confirm whether influenza vaccine maintains high efficacy and effectiveness in HCWs.

Background and Objectives

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has identified health care workers (HCWs) as a priority group to receive influenza vaccine. Although the importance of HCW to the health care system is well understood, the potential role of HCW in transmission during an epidemic has not been clearly established.

Methods

Using a standard SIR (Susceptible–Infected–Recovered) framework similar to previously developed pandemic models, we developed an agent-based model (ABM) of Allegheny County, PA, that incorporates the key health care system features to simulate the spread of an influenza epidemic and its effect on hospital-based HCWs.

Findings

Our simulation runs found the secondary attack rate among unprotected HCWs to be approximately 60% higher (54·3%) as that of all adults (34·1%), which would result in substantial absenteeism and additional risk to HCW families. Understanding how a pandemic may affect HCWs, who must be available to treat infected patients as well as patients with other medical conditions, is crucial to policy makers’ and hospital administrators’ preparedness planning.

Background

Annual influenza vaccination of institutional health care workers (HCWs) is advised in most Western countries, but adherence to this recommendation is generally low. Although protective effects of this intervention for nursing home patients have been demonstrated in some clinical trials, the exact relationship between increased vaccine uptake among HCWs and protection of patients remains unknown owing to variations between study designs, settings, intensity of influenza seasons, and failure to control all effect modifiers. Therefore, we use a mathematical model to estimate the effects of HCW vaccination in different scenarios and to identify a herd immunity threshold in a nursing home department.

Methods and Findings

We use a stochastic individual-based model with discrete time intervals to simulate influenza virus transmission in a 30-bed long-term care nursing home department. We simulate different levels of HCW vaccine uptake and study the effect on influenza virus attack rates among patients for different institutional and seasonal scenarios. Our model reveals a robust linear relationship between the number of HCWs vaccinated and the expected number of influenza virus infections among patients. In a realistic scenario, approximately 60% of influenza virus infections among patients can be prevented when the HCW vaccination rate increases from 0 to 1. A threshold for herd immunity is not detected. Due to stochastic variations, the differences in patient attack rates between departments are high and large outbreaks can occur for every level of HCW vaccine uptake.

Conclusions

The absence of herd immunity in nursing homes implies that vaccination of every additional HCW protects an additional fraction of patients. Because of large stochastic variations, results of small-sized clinical trials on the effects of HCW vaccination should be interpreted with great care. Moreover, the large variations in attack rates should be taken into account when designing future studies.

Using a mathematical model to simulate influenza transmission in nursing homes, Carline van den Dool and colleagues find that each additional staff member vaccinated further reduces the risk to patients.

Editors' Summary

Background.

Every winter, millions of people catch influenza, a contagious viral disease of the nose, throat, and airways. Most people recover completely from influenza within a week or two but some develop life-threatening complications such as bacterial pneumonia. As a result, influenza outbreaks kill about half a million people—mainly infants, elderly people, and chronically ill individuals—each year. To minimize influenza-related deaths, the World Health Organization recommends that vulnerable people be vaccinated against influenza every autumn. Annual vaccination is necessary because flu viruses continually make small changes to the viral proteins (antigens) that the immune system recognizes. This means that an immune response produced one year provides only partial protection against influenza the next year. To provide maximum protection against influenza, each year's vaccine contains disabled versions of the major circulating strains of influenza viruses.

Why Was This Study Done?

Most Western countries also recommend annual flu vaccination for health care workers (HCWs) in hospitals and other institutions to reduce the transmission of influenza to vulnerable patients. However, many HCWs don't get a regular flu shot, so should efforts be made to increase their rate of vaccine uptake? To answer this question, public-health experts need to know more about the relationship between vaccine uptake among HCWs and patient protection. In particular, they need to know whether a high rate of vaccine uptake by HCWs will provide “herd immunity.” Herd immunity occurs because, when a sufficient fraction of a population is immune to a disease that passes from person to person, infected people rarely come into contact with susceptible people, which means that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are protected from the disease. In this study, the researchers develop a mathematical model to investigate the relationship between vaccine uptake among HCWs and patient protection in a nursing home department.

What Did the Researchers Do and Find?

To predict influenza virus attack rates (the number of patient infections divided by the number of patients in a nursing home department during an influenza season) at different levels of HCW vaccine uptake, the researchers develop a stochastic transmission model to simulate epidemics on a computer. This model predicts that as the HCW vaccination rate increases from 0 (no HCWs vaccinated) to 1 (all the HCWs vaccinated), the expected average influenza virus attack rate decreases at a constant rate. In the researchers' baseline scenario—a nursing home department with 30 beds where patients come into contact with other patients, HCWs, and visitors—the model predicts that about 60% of the patients who would have been infected if no HCWs had been vaccinated are protected when all the HCWs are vaccinated, and that seven HCWs would have to be vaccinated to protect one patient. This last figure does not change with increasing vaccine uptake, which indicates that there is no level of HCW vaccination that completely stops the spread of influenza among the patients; that is, there is no herd immunity. Finally, the researchers show that large influenza outbreaks can happen by chance at every level of HCW vaccine uptake.

What Do These Findings Mean?

As with all mathematical models, the accuracy of these predictions may depend on the specific assumptions built into the model. Therefore the researchers verified that their findings hold for a wide range of plausible assumptions. These findings have two important practical implications. First, the direct relationship between HCW vaccination and patient protection and the lack of any herd immunity suggest that any increase in HCW vaccine uptake will be beneficial to patients in nursing homes. That is, increasing the HCW vaccination rate from 80% to 90% is likely to be as important as increasing it from 10% to 20%. Second, even 100% HCW vaccination cannot guarantee that influenza outbreaks will not occasionally occur in nursing homes. Because of the large variation in attack rates, the results of small clinical trials on the effects of HCW vaccination may be inaccurate and future studies will need to be very large if they are to provide reliable estimates of the amount of protection that HCW vaccination provides to vulnerable patients.

Additional Information.

Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050200.

Read the related PLoSMedicine Perspective by Cécile Viboud and Mark Miller

A related PLoSMedicine Research Article by Jeffrey Kwong and colleagues is also available

The World Health Organization provides information on influenza and on influenza vaccines (in several languages)

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide information for patients and professionals on all aspects of influenza (in English and Spanish)

The UK Health Protection Agency also provides information on influenza

MedlinePlus provides a list of links to other information about influenza (in English and Spanish)

The UK National Health Service provides information about herd immunity, including a simple explanatory animation

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control provides an overview on the types of influenza

Background

Apart from direct protection and reduced productivity loss during epidemics, the main reason to immunize healthcare workers (HCWs) against influenza is to provide indirect protection of frail patients through reduced transmission in healthcare settings. Because the vaccine uptake among HCWs remains far below the health objectives, systematic programs are needed to take full advantage of such vaccination. In an earlier report, we showed a mean 9% increase of vaccine uptake among HCWs in nursing homes that implemented a systematic program compared with control homes, with higher rates in those homes that implemented more program elements. Here, we report in detail the process of the development of the implementation program to enable researchers and practitioners to develop intervention programs tailored to their setting.

Methods

We applied the intervention mapping (IM) method to develop a theory- and evidence-based intervention program to change vaccination behaviour among HCWs in nursing homes.

Results

After a comprehensive needs assessment, we were able to specify proximal program objectives and selected methods and strategies for inducing behavioural change. By consensus, we decided on planning of three main program components, i.e., an outreach visit to all nursing homes, plenary information meetings, and the appointment of a program coordinator -- preferably a physician -- in each home. Finally, we planned program adoption, implementation, and evaluation.

Conclusion

The IM methodology resulted in a systematic, comprehensive, and transparent procedure of program development. A potentially effective intervention program to change influenza vaccination behaviour among HCWs was developed, and its impact was assessed in a clustered randomised controlled trial.

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) will play a key role in any response to pandemic influenza, and the UK healthcare system's ability to cope during an influenza pandemic will depend, to a large extent, on the number of HCWs who are able and willing to work through the crisis. UK emergency planning will be improved if planners have a better understanding of the reasons UK HCWs may have for their absenteeism, and what might motivate them to work during an influenza pandemic.

This paper reports the results of a qualitative study that explored UK HCWs' views (n = 64) about working during an influenza pandemic, in order to identify factors that might influence their willingness and ability to work and to identify potential sources of any perceived duty on HCWs to work.

Methods

A qualitative study, using focus groups (n = 9) and interviews (n = 5).

Results

HCWs across a range of roles and grades tended to feel motivated by a sense of obligation to work through an influenza pandemic. A number of significant barriers that may prevent them from doing so were also identified. Perceived barriers to the ability to work included being ill oneself, transport difficulties, and childcare responsibilities. Perceived barriers to the willingness to work included: prioritising the wellbeing of family members; a lack of trust in, and goodwill towards, the NHS; a lack of information about the risks and what is expected of them during the crisis; fear of litigation; and the feeling that employers do not take the needs of staff seriously. Barriers to ability and barriers to willingness, however, are difficult to separate out.

Conclusion

Although our participants tended to feel a general obligation to work during an influenza pandemic, there are barriers to working, which, if generalisable, may significantly reduce the NHS workforce during a pandemic. The barriers identified are both barriers to willingness and to ability. This suggests that pandemic planning needs to take into account the possibility that staff may be absent for reasons beyond those currently anticipated in UK planning documents. In particular, staff who are physically able to attend work may nonetheless be unwilling to do so. Although there are some barriers that cannot be mitigated by employers (such as illness, transport infrastructure etc.), there are a number of remedial steps that can be taken to lesson the impact of others (providing accommodation, building reciprocity, provision of information and guidance etc). We suggest that barriers to working lie along an ability/willingness continuum, and that absenteeism may be reduced by taking steps to prevent barriers to willingness becoming perceived barriers to ability.

In a pandemic, many current national stockpiles of PPE and antiviral medications are likely inadequate.

For pandemic influenza planning, realistic estimates of personal protective equipment (PPE) and antiviral medication required for hospital healthcare workers (HCWs) are vital. In this simulation study, a patient with suspected avian or pandemic influenza (API) sought treatment at 9 Australian hospital emergency departments where patient–staff interactions during the first 6 hours of hospitalization were observed. Based on World Health Organization definitions and guidelines, the mean number of “close contacts” of the API patient was 12.3 (range 6–17; 85% HCWs); mean “exposures” were 19.3 (range 15–26). Overall, 20–25 PPE sets were required per patient, with variable HCW compliance for wearing these items (93% N95 masks, 77% gowns, 83% gloves, and 73% eye protection). Up to 41% of HCW close contacts would have qualified for postexposure antiviral prophylaxis. These data indicate that many current national stockpiles of PPE and antiviral medication are likely inadequate for a pandemic.

An influenza A outbreak involving 17 health care workers (HCWs) and 16 chronic geriatric patients on a ward in a tertiary care hospital was reviewed. Thirty-seven per cent of all HCWs and 47% of patients on the affected wards became ill with influenza. Three patients died during the outbreak. The majority of health care workers became ill prior to detecting the first patient case of influenza, suggesting that nosocomial spread from HCWs to patients may have occurred. Only 13.7% of the staff and 5.9% of the patients had been vaccinated prior to the outbreak. Lost time due to HCW absenteeism, outbreak-related medication costs and additional staff time involved in outbreak control resulted in considerable cost to the hospital. It is suggested that much of this cost, as well as morbidity and possibly mortality, could have been avoided by increased immunization of HCWs and patients.

Background

This study aimed to analyze the factors associated with knowledge and attitudes about influenza A (H1N1) and vaccination, and possible relations of these factors with anxiety among healthcare workers (HCW).

Methods

The study used a cross-sectional descriptive design, and it was carried out between 23 November and 4 December 2009. A total of 300 HCW from two hospitals completed a questionnaire. Data collection tools comprised a questionnaire and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).

Results

Vaccination rate for 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) among HCW was low (12.7%). Most of the respondents believed the vaccine was not safe and protective. Vaccination refusal was mostly related to the vaccine's side effects, disbelief to vaccine's protectiveness, negative news about the vaccine and the perceived negative attitude of the Prime Minister to the vaccine. State anxiety was found to be high in respondents who felt the vaccine was unsafe.

Conclusions

HCW considered the seriousness of the outbreak, their vaccination rate was low. In vaccination campaigns, governments have to aim at providing trust, and media campaigns should be used to reinforce this trust as well. Accurate reporting by the media of the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccines and the importance of vaccines for the public health would likely have a positive influence on vaccine uptake. Uncertain or negative reporting about the vaccine is detrimental to vaccination efforts.

Background and Aims

Further cases of novel influenza A (H1N1) outbreak are expected in the coming months. Vaccination has been proven to be essential to control a pandemic of influenza; therefore, considerable efforts and resources have been devoted to develop a vaccine against the influenza A (H1N1) virus. With the current availability of the vaccine, it will be important to immunize as many people as possible. However, previous data with seasonal influenza vaccines have shown that there are multiple barriers related to perceptions and attitudes of the population that influence vaccine use. The aim of the study was to evaluate the acceptance of a newly developed vaccine against pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza A among healthcare workers (HCW) in Mexico.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study among HCW in three hospitals in the two largest cities in Mexico—Mexico City and Guadalajara—between June and September 2009.

Results

A total of 1097 HCW participated in the survey. Overall, 80% (n = 880) intended to accept the H1N1 pandemic vaccine and 71.6% (n = 786) reported they would recommend the vaccine to their patients. Doctors were more likely to accept and recommend the vaccine than nurses. HCWs who intend to be immunized will be more likely to do so if they know that the vaccine is safe and effective.

Conclusions

Knowledge of the willingness to accept the vaccine can be used to plan strategies that will effectively respond to the needs of the population studied, reducing the health and economic impact of novel influenza A (H1N1) virus.

Background

Concerns have been raised about how the transmission of emerging infectious diseases from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs) and vice versa could be recognized and prevented in a timely manner. An effective strategy to block transmission of pandemic H1N1 (2009) influenza in HCWs is important.

Methodology/Principal Findings

An infection control program was implemented to survey and prevent nosocomial outbreaks of H1N1 (2009) influenza at a 2,600-bed, tertiary-care academic hospital. In total, 4,963 employees at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital recorded their temperature and received online education on control practices for influenza infections. Administration records provided vaccination records and occupational characteristics of all HCWs. Early recognition of a pandemic H1N1 (2009) influenza case was followed by a semi-structured questionnaire to analyze possible routes of patient contact, household contact, or unspecified contact. Surveillance spanned August 1, 2009 to January 31, 2010; 51 HCWs were confirmed to have novel H1N1 (2009) influenza by quantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Prevalence of patient contact, household contact, or unspecified contact infection was 13.7% (7/51), 13.7% (7/51), and 72.5% (37/51), respectively. The prevalence of the novel H1N1 infection was significantly lower among vaccinated HCWs than among unvaccinated HCWs (p<0.001). Higher viral loads in throat swabs were found in HCWs with patient and household contact infection than in those with unspecified contact infection (4.15 vs. 3.53 copies/mL, log10, p = 0.035).

Conclusion

A surveillance system with daily temperature recordings and online education for HCWs is important for a low attack rate of H1N1 (2009) influenza transmission before H1N1 (2009) influenza vaccination is available, and the attack rate is further decreased after mass vaccination. Unspecified contact infection rates were significantly higher than that of patient contact and household contact infection, highlighting the need for public education of influenza transmission in addition to hospital infection control.

Background

Critically ill patients with 2009 H1N1 influenza are often treated in intensive care units (ICUs), representing significant risk of nosocomial transmission to critical care clinicians and other patients. Despite a large body of literature and guidelines recommending infection control practices, numerous barriers have been identified in ICUs, leading to poor compliance to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The use of PPE among critical care clinicians has not been extensively evaluated, especially during the pandemic influenza. This study examined the knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behaviors, and barriers to compliance with the use of PPE among ICU healthcare workers (HCWs) during the pandemic influenza.

Methodology/Principal Findings

A survey instrument consisting of 36 questions was developed and mailed to all HCWs in 21 ICUs in 17 provinces in China. A total of 733 physicians, nurses, and other professionals were surveyed, and 650 (88.7%) were included in the analysis. Fifty-six percent of respondents reported having received training program of pandemic influenza before they cared for H1N1 patients, while 77% reported to have adequate knowledge of self and patient protection. Only 18% of respondents were able to correctly identify all components of PPE, and 55% reported high compliance (>80%) with PPE use during patient care. In multivariate analysis, vaccination for 2009 H1N1 influenza, positive attitudes towards PPE use, organizational factors such as availability of PPE in ICU, and patient information of influenza precautions, as well as reprimand for noncompliance by the supervisors were associated with high compliance, whereas negative attitudes towards PPE use and violation of PPE use were independent predictors of low compliance.

Conclusion/Significance

Knowledge and self-reported compliance to recommended PPE use among Chinese critical care clinicians is suboptimal. The perceived barriers should be addressed in order to close the significant gap between perception and knowledge or behavior.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) pose a potential risk of transmitting communicable diseases in the hospital settings where they usually work. This study aims to determine the current influenza vaccination rates among HCWs in three Middle East countries namely United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait and Oman, and also to identify the different variables associated with the noncompliance of HCWs to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) set in those countries. Methods: 1500 questionnaires were distributed to health care workers in the three countries during the period of July-October 2009. Results: Among 993 respondents, the vaccination rate was 24.7%, 67.2% and 46.4% in UAE, Kuwait and Oman, respectively. The different motivating factors that influenced the health care workers to take the vaccine was assessed and found that the most common factor that influenced their decision to take the vaccine was for their self protection (59%). On the other hand, the most common reason that discouraged HCWs to take the vaccine was “lack of time” as reported by 31.8% of the respondents. Other reasons for not taking the vaccine were unawareness of vaccine availability (29.4%), unavailability of vaccine (25.4%), doubts about vaccine efficacy (24.9%), lack of information about importance (20.1%) and concerns about its side effects (17.3%). Conclusions: influenza immunization by healthcare workers in the studied countries was suboptimal which could be improved by setting different interventions and educational programs to increase vaccination acceptance among HCWs.

Background

Nursing home residents bear a substantial burden of influenza morbidity and mortality. Vaccination of residents and healthcare workers (HCWs) is the main strategy for prevention. Despite recommendations, influenza vaccination coverage among HCWs remains generally low.

Methods

During the 2007-2008 influenza season, we conducted a nationwide survey to estimate influenza vaccination coverage of HCWs and residents in nursing homes for elderly people in France and to identify determinants of vaccination rates. Multivariate analysis were performed with a negative binomial regression.

Results

Influenza vaccination coverage rates were 33.6% (95% CI: 31.9-35.4) for HCWs and 91% (95% CI: 90-92) for residents. Influenza vaccination uptake of HCWs varied by occupational category. Higher vaccination coverage was found in private elderly care residences, when free vaccination was offered (RR: 1.89, 1.35-2.64), in small nursing homes (RR: 1.54, 1.31-1.81) and when training sessions and staff meetings on influenza were organized (RR: 1.20, 1.11-1.29). The analysis by occupational category showed that some determinants were shared by all categories of professionals (type of nursing homes, organization of training and staff meetings on influenza). Higher influenza vaccination coverage was found when free vaccination was offered to recreational, cleaning, administrative staff, nurses and nurse assistants, but not for physicians.

Conclusions

This nationwide study assessed for the first time the rate of influenza vaccination among residents and HCWs in nursing homes for elderly in France. Better communication on the current recommendations regarding influenza vaccination is needed to increase compliance of HCWs. Vaccination programmes should include free vaccination and education campaigns targeting in priority nurses and nurse assistants.

Background and Methods. Vaccination of all healthcare workers is widely recommended by health authorities and medical institutions and support for mandatory vaccination is increasing. This paper presents the relevant literature and examines the evidence for patient benefit from healthcare worker vaccination. Articles identified by Medline searches and citation lists were inspected for internal and external validity. Emphasis was put on RCTs. The literature on self-protection from vaccination is also presented. Results. Published research shows that personal benefit from vaccinating healthy nonelderly adults is small and there is no evidence that it is any different for HCWs. The studies aiming to prove the widespread belief that healthcare worker vaccination decreases patient morbidity and mortality are heavily flawed and the recommendations for vaccination biased. No reliable published evidence shows that healthcare workers' vaccination has substantial benefit for their patients—not in reducing patient morbidity or mortality and not even in increasing patient vaccination rates. Conclusion. The arguments for uniform healthcare worker influenza vaccination are not supported by existing literature. The decision whether to get vaccinated should, except possibly in extreme situations, be that of the individual healthcare worker, without legal, institutional, or peer coercion.

Background

Influenza-vaccination rates among healthcare workers (HCW) remain low worldwide, even during the 2009 A(H1N1) pandemic. In France, this vaccination is free but administered on a voluntary basis. We investigated the factors influencing HCW influenza vaccination.

Methods

In June–July 2010, HCW from wards of five French hospitals completed a cross-sectional survey. A multifaceted campaign aimed at improving vaccination coverage in this hospital group was conducted before and during the 2009 pandemic. Using an anonymous self-administered questionnaire, we assessed the relationships between seasonal (SIV) and pandemic (PIV) influenza vaccinations, and sociodemographic and professional characteristics, previous and current vaccination statuses, and 33 statements investigating 10 sociocognitive domains. The sociocognitive domains describing HCWs' SIV and PIV profiles were analyzed using the classification-and-regression–tree method.

Results

Of the HCWs responding to our survey, 1480 were paramedical and 401 were medical with 2009 vaccination rates of 30% and 58% for SIV and 21% and 71% for PIV, respectively (p<0.0001 for both SIV and PIV vaccinations). Older age, prior SIV, working in emergency departments or intensive care units, being a medical HCW and the hospital they worked in were associated with both vaccinations; while work shift was associated only with PIV. Sociocognitive domains associated with both vaccinations were self-perception of benefits and health motivation for all HCW. For medical HCW, being a role model was an additional domain associated with SIV and PIV.

Conclusions

Both vaccination rates remained low. Vaccination mainly depended on self-determined factors and for medical HCW, being a role model.

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Background

In Germany, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for certain target groups (e.g. persons aged ≥60 years, chronically ill persons, healthcare workers (HCW)). In season 2009/10, vaccination against pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, which was controversially discussed in the public, was recommended for the whole population. The objectives of this study were to assess vaccination coverage for seasonal (seasons 2008/09-2010/11) and pandemic influenza (season 2009/10), to identify predictors of and barriers to pandemic vaccine uptake and whether the controversial discussions on pandemic vaccination has had a negative impact on seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in Germany.

Methods

We analysed data from the ‘German Health Update’ (GEDA10) telephone survey (n=22,050) and a smaller GEDA10-follow-up survey (n=2,493), which were both representative of the general population aged ≥18 years living in Germany.

Results

Overall only 8.8% of the adult population in Germany received a vaccination against pandemic influenza. High socioeconomic status, having received a seasonal influenza shot in the previous season, and belonging to a target group for seasonal influenza vaccination were independently associated with the uptake of pandemic vaccines. The main reasons for not receiving a pandemic vaccination were ‘fear of side effects’ and the opinion that ‘vaccination was not necessary’. Seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in the pre-pandemic season 2008/09 was 52.8% among persons aged ≥60 years; 30.5% among HCW, and 43.3% among chronically ill persons. A decrease in vaccination coverage was observed across all target groups in the first post-pandemic season 2010/11 (50.6%, 25.8%, and 41.0% vaccination coverage, respectively).

Conclusions

Seasonal influenza vaccination coverage in Germany remains in all target groups below 75%, which is a declared goal of the European Union. Our results suggest that controversial public discussions about safety and the benefits of pandemic influenza vaccination may have contributed to both a very low uptake of pandemic vaccines and a decreased uptake of seasonal influenza vaccines in the first post-pandemic season. In the upcoming years, the uptake of seasonal influenza vaccines should be carefully monitored in all target groups to identify if this trend continues and to guide public health authorities in developing more effective vaccination and communication strategies for seasonal influenza vaccination.

Background

Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for healthcare workers (HCWs) in order to reduce the morbidity associated with influenza in healthcare settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current vaccination status of the HCWs in one of Italy's largest multidisciplinary University Hospitals.

Methods

Between February 1 and March 31, 2006, we carried out a cross-sectional study of influenza vaccination coverage among HCWs at the University Hospital Fondazione IRCCS "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Mangiagalli e Regina Elena", Milan, Italy. After receiving a brief description of the aim of the study, 2,143 (95%: 1,064 physicians; 855 nurses; 224 paramedics) of 2,240 HCWs self-completed an anonymous questionnaire.

Results

Influenza vaccination coverage was very low in all specialties, varying from 17.6% in the Emergency Department to 24.3% in the Surgery Department, and knowledge of influenza epidemiology and prevention was poor. The factors positively associated with being vaccinated were an age of ≥ 45 years, considering influenza a potentially severe disease, and being aware of the high-risk categories for which influenza vaccination is strongly recommended; those that negatively associated with being vaccinated were being female, working in the Medicine Department, and being a nurse or paramedic.

Conclusion

Despite strong recommendations, influenza vaccination coverage seemed to be very low among HCWs of all specialties, with differences between areas and types of employment. Specific continuous educational and vaccination programs for different targets should be urgently organized to reduce morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients, contain nosocomial outbreaks, and ensure an appropriate socioeconomic impact.

Several models have rationalized the use of antiviral drugs as an early control measure for delaying the progression and limiting the size of outbreaks during an influenza pandemic. However, the strategy for use of these drugs is still under debate. We evaluated the impact of prophylaxis of healthcare workers (HCWs) through a mathematical model that considers attack rates in a range of 25–35% in the general population and 25–50% among HCWs. Simulations and uncertainty analysis using the demographics of the province of Ontario, Canada show that increasing prophylaxis coverage of HCWs has little impact on reducing the reproduction number of disease transmission and may not prevent the occurrence of an outbreak if expected. However, it does enable a high level of treatment, which substantially reduces morbidity and mortality in the population as a whole. Therefore, prophylaxis of HCWs should be considered an important part of public health efforts for minimizing influenza pandemic burden and its socio-economic disruption.

Background

In acute-care hospitals, no evidence of a protective effect of healthcare worker (HCW) vaccination on hospital-acquired influenza (HAI) in patients has been documented. Our study objective was to ascertain the effectiveness of influenza vaccination of HCW on HAI among patients.

Methods

A nested case-control investigation was implemented in a prospective surveillance study of influenza-like illness (ILI) in a tertiary acute-care university hospital. Cases were patients with virologically-confirmed influenza occurring ≥ 72 h after admission, and controls were patients with ILI presenting during hospitalisation with negative influenza results after nasal swab testing. Four controls per case, matched per influenza season (2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07), were randomly selected. Univariate and multivariate conditional logistic regression models were fitted to assess factors associated with HAI among patients.

Results

In total, among 55 patients analysed, 11 (20%) had laboratory-confirmed HAI. The median HCW vaccination rate in the units was 36%. The median proportion of vaccinated HCW in these units was 11.5% for cases vs. 36.1% for the controls (P = 0.11); 2 (20%) cases and 21 (48%) controls were vaccinated against influenza in the current season (P = 0.16). The proportion of ≥ 35% vaccinated HCW in short-stay units appeared to protect against HAI among patients (odds ratio = 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.005-0.98), independently of patient age, influenza season and potential influenza source in the units.

Conclusions

Our observational study indicates a shielding effect of more than 35% of vaccinated HCW on HAI among patients in acute-care units. Investigations, such as controlled clinical trials, are needed to validate the benefits of HCW vaccination on HAI incidence in patients.

Background

Health care workers' (HCWs) influenza vaccination attitude is known to be negative. The H1N1 epidemic had started in mid 2009 and made a peak in October-November in Turkey. A national vaccination campaign began on November 2nd, 2009. Despite the diligent efforts of the Ministry of Health and NGOs, the attitudes of the media and politicians were mostly negative. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether HCWs' vaccination attitudes improved during the pandemic and to assess the related factors.

Methods

This cross-sectional survey was carried out at the largest university hospital of the Aegean Region-Turkey. A self-administered questionnaire with 12 structured questions was applied to 807 HCWs (sample coverage 91.3%) before the onset of the vaccination programme. Their final vaccination status was tracked one week afterwards, using immunization records. Factors influencing vaccination rates were analyzed using ANOVA, t-test, chi-square test and logistic regression.

Results

Among 807 participants, 363 (45.3%) were doctors and 293 (36.6%) nurses. A total of 153 (19.0%) had been vaccinated against seasonal influenza in the 2008-2009 season. Regarding H1N1 vaccination, 143 (17.7%) were willing to be vaccinated vs. 357 (44.2%) unwilling. The number of indecisive HCWs was 307 (38.0%) one week prior to vaccination. Only 53 (11.1%) stated that they would vaccinate their children. Possible side effects (78%, n = 519) and lack of comprehensive field evaluation before marketing (77%, n = 508) were the most common reasons underlying unwillingness or hesitation.

Among the 749 staff whose vaccination status could be tracked, 228 (30.4%) actually received the H1N1 vaccine. Some of the 'decided' staff members had changed their mind one week later. Only 82 (60%) of those willing, 108 (37%) of those indecisive and 38 (12%) of those unwilling were vaccinated.

Indecisive HCWs were significantly younger (p = 0.017). Females, nurses, and HCWs working in surgical departments were more likely to reject vaccination (p < 0.05). Doctors, HCWs working in medical departments, and HCWs previously vaccinated against seasonal influenza were more likely to accept vaccination (p < 0.05). Being younger than 50 and having been vaccinated in the previous season were important predictors of attitude towards pandemic influenza vaccination.

Conclusions

Vaccination rates increased substantially in comparison to the previous influenza season. However, vaccination rates could have been even higher since hesitation to be vaccinated increased dramatically within one week (only 60% of those willing and the minority of those indecisive were finally vaccinated). We speculate that this may be connected with negative media at the time.

Purpose

The use of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine has generated much debate concerning safety issues among the general population and physicians. It was questioned if this is a safe vaccine. Therefore, we investigated the safety of an inactivated monovalent H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine

Methods

We focused on the H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine Pandemrix® and applied a self reporting questionnaire in a population of healthcare workers (HCWs) and medical students at a major university hospital.

Results

In total, 4337 individuals were vaccinated, consisting of 3808 HCWs and 529 medical students. The vaccination rate of the employees was higher than 40%. The majority of individuals were vaccinated in November 2009. In total, 291 of the 4337 vaccinations were reported to lead to one or more adverse reactions (6.7%). Local reactions were reported in 3.8%, myalgia and arthralgia in 3.7%, fatigue in 3.7%, headache in 3.1%.

Conclusions

Our data together with available data from several national and international institutions points to a safe pandemic influenza vaccine.

Objectives

Vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) was made a high priority during the phase six pandemic of the novel influenza A H1N1 (pH1N1) virus. We surveyed adherence to pH1N1 vaccination and the incidence of pH1N1 infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs.

Methods

Employees at the S. João Hospital in Porto, Portugal, were offered pH1N1 vaccinations free of charge. Pandemrix® was the vaccine administered. As part of the pandemic plan, employees with influenza-like symptoms (ILS) were called upon to take an RT-PCR H1N1 test. If the test results were positive, they had to stay off work for at least 7 days. Sociodemographic data, vaccination status, contact with infectious patients, ILS and pH1N1 test results were documented in a standardised manner.

Results

The survey population comprised 5,592 employees. The vaccination rate was 30.8% (n = 1,720) for pH1N1 and 50.4% (n = 2,819) for the 2009/2010 seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV). One mild anaphylactic reaction occurred after pH1N1 vaccination. Minor local side effects occurred more often after pH1N1 vaccination than after 2009/2010 seasonal TIV (38.0% vs. 12.3%). Pandemic H1N1 infection was diagnosed in 97 HCWs (1.7%). Compared to employees with no regular patient contact, nurses (2.8%) had the highest risk of pH1N1 infection (adjusted OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.2–6.8). Vaccination reduced the pH1N1 infection risk (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.05–0.29). Vaccine effectiveness was 90.4% (95% CI 73.5–97.3%).

Conclusion

Vaccination reduced the pH1N1 infection risk considerably. The pandemic plan to contain the pH1N1 infection was successful. Nurses had the highest risk of pH1N1 infection and are therefore a target group for vaccination measures.

Background

To probe seroepidemiology of the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) among health care workers (HCWs) in a children's hospital.

Methods

From August 2009 to March 2010, serum samples were drawn from 150 HCWs in a children's hospital in Taipei before the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, before H1N1 vaccination, and after the pandemic. HCWs who had come into direct contact with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) patients or their clinical respiratory samples during their daily work were designated as a high-risk group. Antibody levels were determined by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay. A four-fold or greater increase in HAI titers between any successive paired sera was defined as seroconversion, and factors associated with seroconversion were analyzed.

Results

Among the 150 HCWs, 18 (12.0%) showed either virological or serological evidence of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) infection. Of the 90 unvaccinated HCWs, baseline and post-pandemic seroprotective rates were 5.6% and 20.0%. Seroconversion rates among unvaccinated HCWs were 14.4% (13/90), 22.5% (9/40), and 8.0% (4/50) for total, high-risk group, and low-risk group, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed being in the high-risk group is an independent risk factor associated with seroconversion.

Conclusion

The infection rate of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in HCWs was moderate and not higher than that for the general population. The majority of unvaccinated HCWs remained susceptible. Direct contact of influenza patients and their respiratory samples increased the risk of infection.

The compliance with influenza vaccination is poor among health care workers (HCWs) due to misconceptions about safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccine. We proposed an educational prospective study to demonstrate to HCWs that influenza vaccine is safe and that other respiratory viruses (RV) are the cause of respiratory symptoms in the months following influenza vaccination. 398 HCWs were surveyed for adverse events (AE) occurring within 48 h of vaccination. AE were reported by 30% of the HCWs. No severe AE was observed. A subset of 337 HCWs was followed up during four months, twice a week, for the detection of respiratory symptoms. RV was diagnosed by direct immunofluorescent assay (DFA) and real time PCR in symptomatic HCWs. Influenza A was detected in five episodes of respiratory symptoms (5.3%) and other RV in 26 (27.9%) episodes. The incidence density of influenza and other RV was 4.3 and 10.8 episodes per 100 HCW-month, respectively. The educational nature of the present study may persuade HCWs to develop a more positive attitude to influenza vaccination.