Search

A COVID-19 vaccine booster dose is intended to boost the immune system for better, long-lasting protection when the primary vaccine response decreases over time. Studies have shown that a booster [...]

Previous research has shown that increasing the size of incentives can increase response rates for probability-based, cross-sectional surveys. However, the effects of incentives on web panels have not been extensively studied. We sought to answer the question: What is the effect of larger, postpaid incentives on (1) response, (2) data quality, and (3) nonresponse bias for individuals in a web panel? We analyzed data from the 2015 and 2016 National Internet Flu Survey, a survey that uses the GfK KnowledgePanel® as its sampling frame. We compare panel members who received a postpaid, standard 1,000-point (the equivalent of US$1) incentive in 2015 to panelists who received a larger, 5,000-point (the equivalent of US$5) incentive in 2016. We found that larger incentives were associated with increased interview completion rates with minimal impact on data quality or bias.

Healthcare personnel are at risk for acquiring and transmitting respiratory infections in the workplace. Paid sick leave benefits allow workers to stay home and visit a healthcare provider when ill. The objectives of this study were to quantify the percentage of healthcare personnel reporting paid sick leave, identify differences across occupations and settings, and determine the factors associated with having paid sick leave. In a national nonprobability Internet panel survey of healthcare personnel in April 2022, respondents were asked, Does your employer offer paid sick leave ? Responses were weighted to the U.S. healthcare personnel population by age, sex, race/ethnicity, work setting, and census region. The weighted percentage of healthcare personnel who reported paid sick leave was calculated by occupation, work setting, and type of employment. Using multivariable logistic regression, the factors associated with having paid sick leave were identified. In April 2022, 73.2% of 2,555 responding healthcare personnel reported having paid sick leave, similar to 2020 and 2021 estimates. The percentage of healthcare personnel reporting paid sick leave varied by occupation, ranging from 63.9% (assistants/aides) to 81.2% (nonclinical personnel). Female healthcare personnel and those working as licensed independent practitioners, in the Midwest, and in the South were less likely to report paid sick leave. Most healthcare personnel from all occupational groups and healthcare settings reported having paid sick leave. However, differences by sex, occupation, type of work arrangement, and Census region exist and highlight disparities. Increasing healthcare personnel's access to paid sick leave may decrease presenteeism and subsequent transmission of infectious diseases in healthcare settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pregnant women* and their infants are at increased risk for serious influenza, pertussis, and COVID-19–related complications, including preterm birth, low-birth weight, and maternal and fetal death. The advisory committee on immunization practices recommends pregnant women receive tetanus-toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy, and influenza and COVID-19 vaccines before or during pregnancy. Vaccination coverage estimates and factors associated with maternal vaccination are measured by various surveillance systems. The objective of this report is to provide a detailed overview of the following surveillance systems that can be used to assess coverage of vaccines recommended for pregnant women: Internet panel survey, National Health Interview Survey, National Immunization Survey—Adult COVID Module, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, Vaccine Safety Datalink, and MarketScan. Influenza, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage estimates vary by data source, and select estimates are presented. Each surveillance system differs in the population of pregnant women, time period, geographic area for which estimates can be obtained, how vaccination status is determined, and data collected regarding vaccine-related knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and barriers. Thus, multiple systems are useful for a more complete understanding of maternal vaccination. Ongoing surveillance from the various systems to obtain vaccination coverage and information regarding disparities and barriers related to vaccination are needed to guide program and policy improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on COVID-19 vaccine booster doses being safe and maintaining protection after receipt of a primary vaccination series. Topics include continued risk for COVID-19–related illness and the benefits and safety of bivalent booster vaccination; and vaccination improving COVID-19 bivalent booster coverage among adolescents and adults.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for all persons ≥18 years of age. We analyzed data from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module collected during February 27-March 26, 2022 to assess COVID-19 booster dose vaccination coverage among adults. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with vaccination. COVID-19 booster dose coverage among fully vaccinated adults increased from 25.7% in November 2021 to 63.4% in March 2022. Coverage was lower among non-Hispanic Black (52.7%), and Hispanic (55.5%) than non-Hispanic White adults (67.7%). Coverage was 67.4% among essential healthcare personnel, 62.2% among adults who had a disability, and 69.9% among adults who had medical conditions. Booster dose coverage was not optimal, and disparities by race/ethnicity and other factors are apparent in coverage uptake. Tailored strategies are needed to educate the public and reduce disparities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: CDC estimates that influenza resulted in 9-41 million illnesses, 140,000-710,000 hospitalizations, and 12,000-52,000 deaths annually during 2010-2020. Persons from some racial and ethnic minority groups have historically experienced higher rates of severe influenza and had lower influenza vaccination coverage compared with non-Hispanic White (White) persons. This report examines influenza hospitalization and vaccination rates by race and ethnicity during a 12-13-year period (through the 2021-22 influenza season).Methods: Data from population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations in selected states participating in the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET) from the 2009-10 through 2021-22 influenza seasons (excluding 2020-21) and influenza vaccination coverage data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from the 2010-11 through 2021-22 influenza seasons were analyzed by race and ethnicity.Results: From 2009-10 through 2021-22, age-adjusted influenza hospitalization rates (hospitalizations per 100,000 population) were higher among non-Hispanic Black (Black) (rate ratio [RR] = 1.8), American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN; RR = 1.3), and Hispanic (RR = 1.2) adults, compared with the rate among White adults. During the 2021-22 season, influenza vaccination coverage was lower among Hispanic (37.9%), AI/AN (40.9%), Black (42.0%), and other/multiple race (42.6%) adults compared with that among White (53.9%) and non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (54.2%) adults; coverage has been consistently higher among White and Asian adults compared with that among Black and Hispanic adults since the 2010-11 season. The disparity in vaccination coverage by race and ethnicity was present among those who reported having medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine medical checkup in the past year.Conclusions and Implications for Public Health Practice: Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza disease severity and influenza vaccination coverage persist. Health care providers should assess patient vaccination status at all medical visits and offer (or provide a referral for) all recommended vaccines. Tailored programmatic efforts to provide influenza vaccination through nontraditional settings, along with national and community-level efforts to improve awareness of the importance of influenza vaccination in preventing illness, hospitalization, and death among racial and ethnic minority communities might help address health care access barriers and improve vaccine confidence, leading to decreases in disparities in influenza vaccination coverage and disease severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and CDC recommend that all health care personnel (HCP) receive annual influenza vaccination to reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality among these personnel and their patients (1). ACIP also recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months, including HCP, be vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines and remain up to date (2,3). During March 29-April 19, 2022, CDC conducted an opt-in Internet panel survey of 3,618 U.S. HCP to estimate influenza vaccination coverage during the 2021-22 influenza season as well as receipt of the primary COVID-19 vaccination series and a booster dose. Influenza vaccination coverage was 79.9% during the 2021-22 season, and 87.3% of HCP reported having completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination series; among these HCP, 67.1% reported receiving a COVID-19 booster dose. Among HCP, influenza, COVID-19 primary series, and COVID-19 booster dose vaccination coverage were lowest among assistants and aides, those working in long-term care (LTC) or home health care settings, and those whose employer neither required nor recommended the vaccines. Overall, employer requirements for influenza and COVID-19 primary series vaccines were reported by 43.9% and 59.9% of HCP, respectively; among HCP who completed the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines, 23.5% reported employer requirements for COVID-19 booster vaccines. Vaccination coverage for all three vaccine measures was higher among HCP who reported employer vaccination requirements and ranged from 95.8% to 97.3% for influenza, 90.2% to 95.1% for COVID-19 primary series, and 76.4% to 87.8% for COVID-19 booster vaccinations among HCP who completed the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines, by work setting. Implementing workplace strategies demonstrated to improve vaccination coverage among HCP, including vaccination requirements or active promotion of vaccination, can increase influenza and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among HCP and reduce influenza and COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality among HCP and their patients (4). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the role of vaccine hesitancy in undervaccination or nonvaccination of childhood vaccines is important for increasing vaccine confidence and uptake. We used data from April to June interviews in the 2018 and 2019 National Immunization Survey–Flu (n  = 78,725, United States), a nationally representative cross-sectional household cellular telephone survey. We determined the adjusted population attributable fraction (PAF) for each recommended childhood vaccine to assess the contribution of vaccine hesitancy to the observed nonvaccination level. Hesitancy is defined as being somewhat or very hesitant toward childhood vaccines. Furthermore, we assessed the PAF of nonvaccination for influenza according to sociodemographic characteristics, Department of Health and Human Services region, and state. The proportion of nonvaccination attributed to parental vaccine hesitancy was lowest for hepatitis B birth dose vaccine (6.5%) and highest for ≥3-dose diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine (31.3%). The PAF of influenza nonvaccination was highest for non-Hispanic Black populations (15.4%), households with high educational (17.7%) and income (16.5%) levels, and urban areas (16.1%). Among states, PAF ranged from 25.4% (New Hampshire) to 7.5% (Louisiana). Implementing strategies to increase vaccination confidence and uptake are important, particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on some racial and ethnic minority groups have experienced disproportionately higher rates of Covid-19–related illness and mortality. It discusses that Vaccination is highly effective in preventing severe Covid-19 illness and death, and equitable vaccination can reduce Covid-19–related disparities; and mentions that the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis procedure was used, with vaccination month as the time-to-event variable.

• Foreign-born persons in the U.S. make up approximately 15% of the population. • People who are foreign-born experience health care disparities. • Foreign-born adults had lower flu vaccine uptake than US-born adults in most seasons. • People interviewed in non-English languages had lower vaccine uptake English-speakers. • Strategies to improve flu vaccination uptake must consider foreign-born adults. Approximately 20,000 people died from influenza in the US in the 2019-2020 season. The best way to prevent influenza is to receive the influenza vaccine. Persons who are foreign-born experience disparities in access to, and utilization of, preventative healthcare, including vaccination. National Health Interview Survey data were analyzed to assess differences in influenza vaccination coverage during the 2012-2013 through 2017-2018 influenza seasons among adults by nativity, citizenship status of foreign-born persons, race/ethnicity, and language of the interview. Influenza vaccination coverage increased significantly during the study period for US-born adults but did not change significantly among foreign-born racial/ethnic groups except for increases among foreign-born Hispanic adults. Coverage for foreign-born adults, those who completed an interview in a non-English language, and non-US citizens, had lower vaccination coverage during most influenza seasons studied, compared with US-born, English-interviewed, and US-citizen adults, respectively. Strategies to improve influenza vaccination uptake must consider foreign-born adults as an underserved population in need of focused, culturally-tailored outreach. Achieving high influenza vaccination coverage among the foreign-born population will help reduce illness among the essential workforce, achieve national vaccination goals, and reduce racial and ethnic disparities in vaccination coverage in the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Parental vaccine hesitancy can be a barrier to routine childhood immunization and contribute to greater risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. This study examines the impact of parental vaccine hesitancy on childhood vaccination rates.Methods: This study assessed the association of parental vaccine hesitancy on child vaccination coverage with ≥4 doses of diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine; ≥1 dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine; up-to-date rotavirus vaccine; and combined 7-vaccine series coverage for a sample of children aged 19-35 months using data from the 2018 and 2019 National Immunization Survey-Child (N=7,645). Adjusted differences in multivariable analyses of vaccination coverage were estimated among vaccine hesitant and nonhesitant parents and population attributable risk fraction of hesitancy on undervaccination, defined as not being up to date for each vaccine.Results: Almost a quarter of parents reported being vaccine hesitant, with the highest proportion of vaccine hesitancy among parents of children who are non-Hispanic Black (37.0%) or Hispanic (30.1%), mothers with a high school education or less (31.9%), and households living below the poverty level (35.6%). Childhood vaccination coverage for all vaccines was lower for children of hesitant than nonhesitant parents, and the population attributable fraction of hesitancy on undervaccination ranged from 15% to 25%, with the highest percentage for ≥1 dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.Conclusions: Parental vaccine hesitancy may contribute up to 25% of undervaccination among children aged 19-35 months. Implementation of strategies to address parental vaccine hesitancy is needed to improve vaccination coverage for children and minimize their risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers strive to design and implement high-quality surveys to maximize the utility of the data collected. The definitions of quality and usefulness, however, vary from survey to survey and depend on the analytic needs. Survey teams must evaluate the trade-offs of various decisions, such as when results are needed and their required level of precision, in addition to practical constraints like budget, before finalizing the design. Characteristics within the concept of fit for purpose (FfP) can provide the framework for considering the trade-offs. Furthermore, this tool can enable an evaluation of quality for the resulting estimates. Implementation of a FfP framework in this context, however, is not straightforward. In this article, we provide the reader with a glimpse of a FfP framework in action for obtaining estimates on early season influenza vaccination coverage estimates and on knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and barriers related to influenza and influenza prevention among civilian noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 years and older in the United States. The result is the National Internet Flu Survey (NIFS), an annual, two-week internet survey sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition to critical design decisions, we use the established NIFS FfP framework to discuss the quality of the NIFS in meeting the intended objectives. We highlight aspects that work well and other survey traits requiring further evaluation. Differences found in comparing the NIFS to the National Flu Survey, the National Health Interview Survey, and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System are discussed via their respective FfP characteristics. The findings presented here highlight the importance of the FfP framework for designing surveys, defining data quality, and providing a set a metrics used to advertise the intended use of the survey data and results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Place of influenza vaccination was stable over the 5 influenza seasons assessed. • Proportion vaccinated in medical setting ranged 49%-53% in 2014-15 to 2018-19 seasons. • Proportion vaccinated in nonmedical setting ranged 47%-51% in 2014-15 to 2018-19 seasons. • Doctor's office was the most common place receiving vaccine in 2018-19 season (34.4%). • In 2018-19 season, 32.2% vaccinated in pharmacies/stores and 15.0% in workplaces. Annual vaccination is the most effective strategy for preventing influenza. We assessed trends and demographic and access-to-care characteristics associated with place of vaccination in recent years. Data from the 2014-2018 National Internet Flu Survey were analyzed to assess trends in place of early-season influenza vaccination during the 2014-15 through 2018-19 seasons. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify factors independently associated with vaccination settings in the 2018-19 season. Among vaccinated adults, the proportion vaccinated in medical (range: 49%-53%) versus nonmedical settings (range: 47%-51%) during the 2014-15 through 2018-19 seasons were similar. Among adults aged ≥18 years vaccinated early in the 2018-19 influenza season, a doctor's office was the most common place (34.4%), followed by pharmacies or stores (32.3%), and workplaces (15.0%). Characteristics significantly associated with an increased likelihood of receipt of vaccination in nonmedical settings among adults included household income ≥$50,000, having no doctor visits since July 1, 2018, or having a doctor visit but not receiving an influenza vaccination recommendation from the medical professional. Place of early-season influenza vaccination among adults who reported receiving influenza vaccination was stable over 5 recent seasons. Both medical and nonmedical settings were important places for influenza vaccination. Increasing access to vaccination services in medical and nonmedical settings should be considered as an important strategy for improving vaccination coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses on February 8, 2021, 59.3 million doses of vaccines to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 has distributed in the United States, and 31.6 million persons has received at least 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Topics include to examine perceptions toward COVID-19 vaccine and intentions to be vaccinated, in September and December 2020; and similar sampling methods and characteristics of respondents, the averages of the estimates from the two December surveys have calculated.

Previous research has shown that increasing the size of incentives can increase response rates for probability-based, cross-sectional surveys. However, the effects of incentives on web panels have not been extensively studied. We sought to answer the question: What is the effect of larger, postpaid incentives on (1) response, (2) data quality, and (3) nonresponse bias for individuals in a web panel? We analyzed data from the 2015 and 2016 National Internet Flu Survey, a survey that uses the GfK KnowledgePanel® as its sampling frame. We compare panel members who received a postpaid, standard 1,000-point (the equivalent of US$1) incentive in 2015 to panelists who received a larger, 5,000-point (the equivalent of US$5) incentive in 2016. We found that larger incentives were associated with increased interview completion rates with minimal impact on data quality or bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Very few studies have explored the associations between self-identified sexual orientation and comprehensive vaccination coverage. Most of the previous studies that reported health disparities among lesbian, gay and bisexual populations were not based on a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Starting in 2013, the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) included questions to ascertain the adult’s self-identified sexual orientation that allowed national level vaccination estimation by sexual orientation. This study examined associations of self-reported vaccination coverage for selected vaccines among U.S. adults by their sexual orientation. Methods: We analyzed combined data from 2013–2015 NHIS, a nationally representative probability-based health survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population ≥18 years. For vaccines other than influenza, weighted proportions were calculated. Influenza coverage was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier procedure. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted prevalence differences for each vaccine overall and stratified by sexual orientation and to identify factors independently associated with vaccination. Results: Significant differences were observed by sexual orientation for self-reported receipt of human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A (HepA), hepatitis B (HepB), and influenza vaccination. Bisexual females (51.6%) had higher HPV coverage than heterosexual females (40.2%). Gay males (40.3% and 53.6%, respectively) had higher HepA and HepB coverage than heterosexual males (25.4% and 32.6%, respectively). Bisexual females (33.9% and 58.5%, respectively) had higher HepA and HepB coverage than heterosexual females (23.5% and 38.4%, respectively) and higher HepB coverage than lesbian females (45.4%). Bisexual adults (34.1%) had lower influenza coverage than gay/lesbian (48.5%) and heterosexual adults (43.8%). Except for the association of having self-identified as gay/lesbian orientation with greater likelihood of HepA, HepB, and influenza vaccination, sexual orientation was not associated with higher or lower likelihood of vaccination. Health status or other behavioral characteristics studied had no consistent relationship with vaccination among all populations. Conclusion: Differences were identified in vaccination coverage among the U.S. adult population by self-reported sexual orientation. This study is the first to assess associations of sexual orientation with a comprehensive list of vaccinations. Findings from this study can serve as a baseline for monitoring changes over time. All populations could benefit from improved vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: English-speaking non-Hispanic Asians (Asians) in the U.S. include populations with multiple geographic origins and ethnicities (e.g., Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese). Health behaviors and outcomes can differ widely among Asian ethnicities, and highlight the importance of subgroup analysis. Aggregating Asians may mask differences in influenza vaccination across various ethnicities.Methods: Combined data from 2013 to 2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a population-based, telephone survey of the non-institutionalized, U.S. population aged ≥18years, were analyzed in 2017 to assess influenza vaccination among Asians. Weighted proportions were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent associations between sociodemographic factors and receipt of influenza vaccination.Results: Influenza vaccination varied widely among Asian ethnicities, both nationally and by state. Overall, 42.1% of Asians reported having received an influenza vaccine, similar to vaccination among whites (42.4%). Coverage ranged from 36.1% among Koreans to 50.9% among Japanese. Factors independently associated with influenza vaccination among some or all Asian ethnicities included age (≥50 years), female, never married, high school or higher education, annual household income ≥$75,000, possession of medical insurance and personal healthcare provider, routine checkup in the previous year, and presence of certain chronic conditions.Conclusions: Though Asians and whites had similar overall influenza vaccination coverage, differences existed between Asian ethnicities, both nationally and by state. This information may help community-based, state-level, and national-level public health agencies to support targeted approaches for outreach to these populations, such as improving cultural and linguistic access to care, to improve influenza vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Providers routinely assess, recommend, administer, and refer adults for vaccination. • Only one third of clinicians and pharmacists routinely document adult vaccinations. • Barriers to assess, recommend, administer, refer, document adult vaccines reported. • Improving interoperability between electronic health records and registries needed. Abstract Background The Standards for Adult Immunization Practice (Standards), revised in 2014, emphasize that adult-care providers assess vaccination status of adult patients at every visit, recommend vaccination, administer needed vaccines or refer to a vaccinating provider, and document vaccinations administered in state/local immunization information systems (IIS). Providers report numerous systems- and provider-level barriers to vaccinating adults, such as billing, payment issues, lower prioritization of vaccines due to competing demands, and lack of information about the use and utility of IIS. Barriers to vaccination result in missed opportunities to vaccinate adults and contribute to low vaccination coverage. Clinicians' (physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) and pharmacists' reported barriers to assessment, recommendation, administration, referral, and documentation, provider vaccination practices, and perceptions regarding their adult patients' attitudes toward vaccines were evaluated. Methods Data from non-probability-based Internet panel surveys of U.S. clinicians (n = 1714) and pharmacists (n = 261) conducted in February-March 2017 were analyzed using SUDAAN. Weighted proportion of reported barriers to assessment, recommendation, administration, referral, and documentation in IIS were calculated. Results High percentages (70.0%−97.4%) of clinicians and pharmacists reported they routinely assessed, recommended, administered, and/or referred adults for vaccination. Among those who administered vaccines, 31.6% clinicians' and 38.4% pharmacists' submitted records to IIS. Reported barriers included: (a) assessment barriers : vaccination of adults is not within their scope of practice, inadequate reimbursement for vaccinations; (b) administration barriers : lack of staff to manage/administer vaccines, absence of necessary vaccine storage and handling equipment and provisions; and (c) documentation barriers : unaware if state/city has IIS that includes adults or not sure how their electronic system would link to IIS. Conclusion Although many clinicians and pharmacists reported implementing most of the individual components of the Standards, with the exception of IIS use, there are discrepancies in providers' reported actual practices and their beliefs/perceptions, and barriers to vaccinating adults remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Influenza vaccination can prevent influenza and potentially serious influenza-related complications. Although the single best way to prevent influenza is annual vaccination, everyday preventive actions, including good hygiene, health, dietary, and social habits, might help, too. Several preventive measures are recommended, including: avoiding close contact with people who are sick; staying home when sick; covering your mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing; washing your hands often; avoiding touching your eyes, nose, and mouth; and practicing other good health habits like cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched surfaces, getting plenty of sleep, and drinking plenty of fluids. Understanding public acceptance and current usage of these preventive behaviors can be useful for planning both seasonal and pandemic influenza prevention campaigns. This study estimated the percentage of adults in the United States who reported practicing preventive behaviors to avoid catching or spreading influenza, and explored associations of reported behaviors with sociodemographic factors. Methods: We analyzed data from 2015 National Internet Flu Survey, a nationally representative probability-based Internet panel survey of the non-institutionalized U.S. population ≥18 years. The self-reported behaviors used to avoid catching or spreading influenza were grouped into four and three non-mutually exclusive subgroups, respectively. Weighted proportions were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted prevalence differences and to determine independent associations between sociodemographic characteristics and preventive behavior subgroups. Results: Common preventive behaviors reported were: 83.2% wash hands often, 80.0% cover coughs and sneezes, 78.2% stay home if sick with a respiratory illness, 64.4% avoid people sick with a respiratory illness, 51.7% use hand sanitizers, 50.2% get treatment as soon as possible, and 49.8% report getting the influenza vaccination. Race/ethnicity, gender, age, education, income, region, receipt of influenza vaccination, and household size were associated with use of preventive behaviors after controlling for other factors. Conclusion: Many adults in the United States reported using preventive behaviors to avoid catching or spreading influenza. Though vaccination is the most important tool available to prevent influenza, the addition of preventive behaviors might play an effective role in reducing or slowing transmission of influenza and complement prevention efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare personnel (HCP) are at risk for pertussis infection exposure or transmitting the disease to patients in their work settings. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination for HCP to minimize these risks. This study assessed Tdap vaccination coverage among U.S. HCP by sociodemographic and occupation-related characteristics.Methods: The 2012, 2013, and 2014 Internet Panel Surveys were analyzed in 2015 to assess HCP Tdap vaccination. Effective sample sizes for 2012, 2013, and 2014 survey years were 2,038, 1613, and 1633, respectively. Missing values were assigned using multiple imputation. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors independently associated with HCP Tdap vaccination. Statistical measures were calculated with an assumption of random sampling.Results: Overall, Tdap vaccination coverage among HCP was 34.8% (95% CI=30.6%, 39.0%); 40.2% (95% CI=36.1%, 44.4%); and 42.4% (95% CI=38.7%, 46.0%) in 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. Nurse practitioners/physician's assistants, physicians, nurses, and HCP working in hospitals and ambulatory care settings had higher Tdap coverage. Having contact with an infant aged ≤6 months and influenza vaccination receipt were associated with increased Tdap vaccination. Non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, having an associate/bachelor's degree, being below poverty, non-clinical personnel status, and working in a long-term care setting were associated with decreased Tdap vaccination.Conclusions: HCP Tdap vaccination coverage increased during 2012-2014; however, coverage remains low. Vaccination coverage varied widely by healthcare occupation, occupational setting, and sociodemographic characteristics. Evidence-based employer strategies used to increase HCP influenza vaccination, if applied to Tdap, may increase Tdap coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the findings of an online survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to determine influenza vaccination coverage among health-care personnel (HCP) during the 2012-2013 season. Overall, 72% of HCP reported having vaccination for the said season, an increase during the 2011-2012 season. By occupation, coverage was 92.3% among physicians, 89.1% among pharmacists, 88.5% among nurse practitioners/physician assistants and 84.8% among nurses.

Objective--To compare associations between vaccine types and other injectable drugs with development of injection-site sarcomas in cats. Design--Case-control study. Animals--181 cats with soft tissue sarcomas (cases), 96 cats with tumors at non-vaccine regions (control group I), and 159 cats with basal cell tumors (control group II). Procedures--Subjects were prospectively obtained from a large pathology database. De-mographic, sarcoma location, basal cell tumor, and vaccine and other injectable history data were documented by use of a questionnaire and used to define case, control, and exposure status. Three control groups were included: cats with sarcomas at non-vaccine sites, cats with basal cell tumors, and a combined group of cats with sarcomas at non-vaccine sites and cats with basal cell tumors. x2 tests, marginal homogeneity tests, and exact logistic regression were performed. Results--In the broad interscapular region, the frequency of administration of long-acting corticosteroid injections (dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, and triamcinolone) was sig-nificantly higher in cases than in controls. In the broad rear limb region, case cats were significantly less likely to have received recombinant vaccines than inactivated vaccines; ORs from logistic regression analyses equaled 0.1, with 95% confidence intervals ranging from 0 to 0.4 and 0 to 0.7, depending on control group and time period of exposure used. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance--This case-control study measuring temporal and spatial exposures efficiently detected associations between administrations of various types of vaccines (recombinant vs inactivated rabies) and other injectable products (ie, long-acting corticosteroids) with sarcoma development without the need to directly mea-sure incidence. These findings nevertheless also indicated that no vaccines were risk free. The study is informative in allowing practitioners to weigh the relative merits and risks of commonly used pharmaceutical products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare personnel are at increased risk for COVID-19 from workplace exposure. National estimates on COVID-19 vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel are limited.Methods: Data from an opt-in Internet panel survey of 2,434 healthcare personnel, conducted on March 30, 2021-April 15, 2021, were analyzed to assess the receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and vaccination intent. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination and intent for vaccination.Results: Overall, 68.2% of healthcare personnel reported a receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% would probably/definitely get vaccinated, 7.1% were unsure, and 14.9% would probably/definitely not get vaccinated. COVID-19 vaccination coverage was highest among physicians (89.0%), healthcare personnel working in hospitals (75.0%), and healthcare personnel of non-Hispanic White or other race (75.7%-77.4%). Healthcare personnel who received influenza vaccine in 2020-2021 (adjusted prevalence ratio=1.92) and those aged ≥60 years (adjusted prevalence ratio=1.37) were more likely to report a receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Non-Hispanic Black healthcare personnel (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.74), nurse practitioners/physician assistants (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.55), assistants/aides (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.73), and nonclinical healthcare personnel (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.79) were less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccine. The common reasons for vaccination included protecting self (88.1%), family and friends (86.3%), and patients (69.2%) from COVID-19. The most common reason for nonvaccination was concern about side effects and safety of COVID-19 vaccine (59.7%).Conclusions: Understanding vaccination status and intent among healthcare personnel is important for addressing barriers to vaccination. Addressing concerns on side effects, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as well as their fast development and approval may help improve vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Hepatitis B vaccination is routinely recommended for adults with diabetes mellitus aged <60 years and for those aged ≥60 years at the discretion of their healthcare provider. The purpose of this study is to assess hepatitis B vaccination coverage among adults with and without diabetes mellitus.Methods: Data from the 2014-2018 National Health Interview Survey were analyzed in 2020 to determine hepatitis B vaccination series completion (≥3 doses) among adults aged 18-59 and ≥60 years with diabetes mellitus. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the factors independently associated with hepatitis B vaccination among adults aged 18-59 and ≥60 years with diabetes mellitus.Results: In 2018, among adults aged 18-59 years with diabetes mellitus, 33.2% had received hepatitis B vaccination (≥3 doses), an increase of 9.7 percentage points from 2014 (p<0.05). Among adults aged ≥60 years with diabetes mellitus, coverage was 15.3% in 2018 and did not increase during 2014-2018. Coverage was not significantly different among adults with diabetes mellitus compared with those without diabetes mellitus, even after controlling for the assessed factors. Among adults with diabetes mellitus aged 18-59 and ≥60 years, younger age, having some college or college education, having been tested for HIV, being healthcare personnel, or having traveled to hepatitis B virus-endemic areas were independently associated with an increased likelihood of vaccination.Conclusions: Self-reported hepatitis B vaccination coverage among adults with diabetes mellitus remains suboptimal. Healthcare providers should assess patients' diabetes status, recommend and offer needed vaccinations to patients, or refer them to alternate sites for vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Influenza vaccination coverage among adults with diabetes has not changed over the 11 influenza seasons. • Coverage among adults with diabetes ranged from 62.6% to 64.8% in the 2007–08 to 2017–18 seasons. • Coverage was higher among people with diabetes compared with those without diabetes. • Coverage varied by demographic and access-to-care characteristics. Diabetes is associated with higher risk of hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality from influenza. We assessed influenza vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥ 18 years with diabetes during the 2007–08 through 2017–18 influenza seasons and identified factors independently associated with vaccination during the 2017–18 season. We analyzed data from the 2007–2018 National Health Interview Surveys, using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to estimate season-specific influenza vaccination coverage. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to examine whether diabetes was independently associated with self-reported influenza vaccination in the past 12 months and identify factors independently associated with vaccination among adults with diabetes using the 2017–18 data. During the 2007–08 through 2017–18 influenza seasons, influenza vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥ 18 years with diabetes ranged from 62.6% to 64.8%. In the 2017–18 influenza season, coverage was significantly higher among adults with diabetes (64.8%) compared with those without diabetes (43.9%). Having diabetes was independently associated with an increased prevalence of vaccination after controlling for other factors. Among adults with diabetes, living at or above poverty level, having more physician contacts, having usual place for health care, and being unemployed were independently associated with increased prevalence of vaccination; being 18–64 years and non-Hispanic black were independently associated with decreased prevalence of vaccination. Despite specific recommendations for influenza vaccination among people with diabetes, more than one-third of adults with diabetes are unvaccinated. Targeted efforts are needed to increase influenza vaccination coverage among adults with diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In 2006, zoster vaccine live was recommended for adults aged ≥60 years. In 2011, zoster vaccine live was approved for use but not recommended for adults aged 50-59 years. This study assessed zoster vaccine live coverage among adults aged 50-59 years and ≥60 years.Methods: Data from the 2013-2017 National Health Interview Surveys were analyzed in 2019 to estimate national zoster vaccine live coverage among adults aged ≥50 years. State-specific zoster vaccine live coverage among adults aged ≥50 years was assessed using 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data.Results: Among adults aged 50-59 years, zoster vaccine live coverage was 5.7% in 2017, ranging from 4% to 6% during 2013-2017 (test for trend, p>0.05). Zoster vaccine live coverage among adults aged 50-59 years ranged from 5.8% in Pennsylvania to 14.7% in South Dakota. By 2017, zoster vaccine live was received by 34.9% of adults aged ≥60 years, a significant increase from 24.2% in 2013. Zoster vaccine live coverage among adults aged ≥60 years in 2017 ranged from 26.0% in Mississippi to 51.8% in Vermont. In 2017, major characteristics significantly associated with increased likelihood of zoster vaccine live vaccination among adults aged 50-59 years and ≥60 years were older age, having 4 to 9 physician contacts in the past 12 months, and having a usual place for health care.Conclusions: This study provides an assessment of zoster vaccine live coverage among adults aged ≥50 years before the newly recommended recombinant zoster vaccine came into widespread use. Providers should routinely assess adults' vaccination status and strongly recommend or offer needed vaccines to their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Individuals with certain medical conditions are at substantially increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. The purpose of this study is to assess COVID-19 vaccination among U.S. adults with reported medical conditions.Methods: Data from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module collected during August 1-September 25, 2021 were analyzed in 2022 to assess COVID-19 vaccination status, intent, vaccine confidence, behavior, and experience among adults with reported medical conditions. Unadjusted and age-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs and APRs) were generated using logistic regression and predictive marginals.Results: Overall, COVID-19 vaccination coverage with ≥1 dose was 81.8% among adults with reported medical conditions, and coverage was significantly higher compared with those without such conditions (70.3%) Among adults aged ≥18 years with medical conditions, COVID-19 vaccination coverage was significantly higher among those with a provider recommendation (86.5%) than those without (76.5%). Among all respondents, 9.2% of unvaccinated adults with medical conditions reported they were willing or open to vaccination. Adults who reported high risk medical conditions were more likely to report receiving a provider recommendation, often or always wearing masks during the last 7 days, concerning about getting COVID-19, thinking the vaccine is safe, and believing a COVID-19 vaccine is important for protection from COVID-19 infection than those without such conditions.Conclusions: Approximately 18.0% of those with reported medical conditions were unvaccinated. Receiving a provider recommendation was significantly associated with vaccination, reinforcing that provider recommendation is an important approach to increase vaccination coverage. Ensuring access to vaccine, addressing vaccination barriers, and increasing vaccine confidence can improve vaccination coverage among unvaccinated adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Approximately 18% of parents reported hesitancy toward vaccines for their adolescents. • Hesitancy is associated with 18% to 23% lower coverage for adolescent HPV vaccination. • The difference in vaccination coverage due to hesitancy is larger for males than for females. • Over 10% of non-vaccination could be attributed to parental vaccine hesitancy. • Strengthening provider recommendation can increase HPV vaccination coverage among adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Rural children had lower influenza vaccination coverage. • Rural disparities in child influenza vaccination coverage were consistent over time. • Rural children had lower influenza vaccination coverage across demographics. • Interaction between rural status and race was significant in adjusted analysis. Influenza vaccination is the primary way to prevent influenza, yet influenza vaccination coverage remains low in the United States. Previous studies have shown that children residing in rural areas have less access to healthcare and lower vaccination coverage for some vaccines. Influenza vaccination coverage among children 6 months–17 years by rural/urban residence during the 2011–12 through 2018–19 influenza seasons was examined using National Immunization Survey-Flu data. The Council of American Survey Research Organizations response rates for National Immunization Survey-Flu ranged from 48% to 65% (2011–12 through the 2017–18 seasons) for the landline sample and 20%–39% (2011–12 through the 2018–19 seasons) for the cellular telephone sample. Children residing in rural areas had influenza vaccination coverage that ranged from 7.9 (2012–13 season) to 12.6 (2016–17 season) percentage points lower than children residing in urban areas, and ranged from 4.5 (2012–13 season) to 7.4 (2016–17 season) percentage points lower than children residing in suburban areas. The differences in influenza vaccination coverage among rural, suburban, and urban children were consistent over the eight seasons studied. Lower influenza vaccination coverage was observed among rural children regardless of child's age, mother's education, household income, or number of children under 18 years of age in the household. Rural versus urban and suburban differences in influenza vaccination coverage remained statistically significant while adjusting for selected sociodemographic characteristics. A better understanding of the reasons for lower childhood influenza vaccination coverage for children in rural and suburban areas is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The revised Standards for Adult Immunization Practice ("Standards"), published in 2014, recommend routine vaccination assessment, strong provider recommendation, vaccine administration or referral, and documentation of vaccines administered into immunization information systems (IIS). We assessed clinician and pharmacist implementation of the Standards in the United States from 2016 to 2018. Participating clinicians (family and internal medicine physicians, obstetricians-gynecologists, specialty physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) and pharmacists responded using an internet panel survey. Weighted proportion of clinicians and pharmacists reporting full implementation of each component of the Standards were calculated. Adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) estimates of practice characteristics associated with self-reported implementation of the Standards are also presented. Across all medical specialties, the percentages of clinicians and pharmacists implementing the vaccine assessment and recommendation components of the Standards were >80.0%. However, due to low IIS documentation, full implementation of the Standards was low overall, ranging from 30.4% for specialty medicine to 45.8% in family medicine clinicians. The presence of an immunization champion (APR, 1.40 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.26 to 1.54]), use of standing orders (APR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.57]), and use of a patient reminder-recall system (APR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.54]) were positively associated with adherence to the Standards by clinicians. Similar results were observed for pharmacists. Nonetheless, vaccination improvement strategies, i.e., having standing orders in place, empowering an immunization champion, and using patient recall-reminder systems were underutilized in clinical settings; full implementation of the Standards was inconsistent across all health care provider practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Influenza is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among adults. The most effective strategy for preventing influenza is annual vaccination. However, vaccination coverage has been suboptimal among adult populations. The purpose of this study is to assess trends in influenza vaccination among adult populations.Methods: Data from the 2010-2016 National Health Interview Survey were analyzed in 2018 to estimate vaccination coverage during the 2010-2011 through 2015-2016 seasons. Trends of vaccination in recent years were assessed. Vaccination coverage by race/ethnicity within each group was examined. Multivariable logistic regression and predictive marginal models were conducted to identify factors associated with vaccination, and interactions between race/ethnicity and other demographic and access-to-care characteristics were assessed.Results: Vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥18 years increased from 38.3% in the 2010-2011 season to 43.4% in the 2015-2016 season, with an average increase of 1.3 percentage points annually. From the 2010-2011 through 2015-2016 seasons, coverage was stable for adults aged ≥65 years and changed by -0.1 to 9.9 percentage points for all other examined subgroups. Coverage in 2015-2016 was 70.4% for adults aged ≥65 years, 46.4% for those aged 50-64 years, and 32.3% for those aged 18-49 years; 47.9% for people aged 18-64 years with high-risk conditions; 64.8% for healthcare personnel; and 50.3% for pregnant women. Among adults aged ≥18 years for the 2015-2016 season, coverage was significantly lower among non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic whites.Conclusions: Overall, influenza vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥18 years increased during 2010-2016, but it remained below the national target of 70%. Vaccination coverage varied by age, risk status, race/ethnicity, healthcare personnel, and pregnancy status. Targeted efforts are needed to improve coverage and reduce disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends all persons aged ≥6 months get vaccinated for influenza annually, placing particular emphasis on persons who are at increased risk for influenza-related complications and persons living with or caring for them. Methods Data from the 2016 National Internet Flu Survey (NIFS), a nationally representative, probability-based Internet panel survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population aged ≥18 years, was used to compare influenza vaccination coverage among adults who live with household members at high-risk for complications from influenza with those who do not. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the difference in the adjusted vaccination coverage prevalence between persons living with and without high-risk household members. Results From the 2016 NIFS (n = 4,113), we estimated that 29.2% of noninstitutionalized U.S. adults had at least one household member at increased risk for influenza-related complications. Unadjusted influenza vaccination coverage was significantly higher for adults with a high-risk household member compared with those without (46.7% vs 38.6%, respectively). After adjustment for demographic and access-to-care factors, adults with high-risk household members were more likely to be vaccinated than those without (adjusted prevalence difference = 5.3 [0.3, 10.3]). Among vaccinated respondents with high-risk household members, 88.7% reported that protection of their family and close contacts was one of the reasons they were vaccinated. Conclusion Approximately half of adults living with someone at increased risk of complications from influenza did not report receiving an influenza vaccination. Vaccination reminder/recall for persons at increased risk should include reminders for their household contacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite the proven effectiveness of immunization in preventing morbidity and mortality, adult vaccines remain underutilized. The objective of this study was to describe clinicians' and pharmacists' self-reported implementation of the Standards for Adult Immunization Practice ("the Standards"; i.e., routine assessment, recommendation, and administration/referral for needed vaccines, and documentation of administered vaccines, including in immunization information systems).Methods: Two Internet panel surveys (one among clinicians and one among pharmacists) were conducted during February-March 2017 and asked respondents about their practice's implementation of the Standards. T-tests assessed associations between clinician medical specialty, vaccine type, and each component of the Standards (March-August 2017).Results: Implementation of the Standards varied substantially by vaccine and provider type. For example, >80.0% of providers, including obstetrician/gynecologists and subspecialists, assessed for and recommended influenza vaccine. However, 24.3% of obstetrician/gynecologists and 48.9% of subspecialists did not stock influenza vaccine for administration. Although zoster vaccine was recommended by >89.0% of primary care providers, <58.0% stocked the vaccine; by contrast, 91.6% of pharmacists stocked zoster vaccine. Vaccine needs assessments, recommendations, and stocking/referrals also varied by provider type for pneumococcal; tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis; tetanus diphtheria; human papillomavirus; and hepatitis B vaccines.Conclusions: This report highlights gaps in access to vaccines recommended for adults across the spectrum of provider specialties. Greater implementation of the Standards by all providers could improve adult vaccination rates in the U.S. by reducing missed opportunities to recommend vaccinations and either vaccinate or refer patients to vaccine providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Depending upon influenza vaccination history, children aged 6 months-8 years need one or two doses of influenza vaccine to be considered fully vaccinated. The objectives of this study were to quantify the percentage of children aged 6 months-8 years who were fully vaccinated against influenza based on parental report, overall, by state, and by sociodemographic characteristics, and to examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with being fully vaccinated.Methods: Data from the National Immunization Survey-Flu for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 influenza seasons were analyzed in 2015 using the Kaplan-Meier method to produce vaccination coverage estimates. Wald chi-square tests were used to test for bivariate associations, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to test for demographic characteristics independently associated with the child being fully vaccinated.Results: The percentages of children aged 6 months-8 years who were fully vaccinated during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 influenza seasons were 41.0% and 45.2%, respectively. Full vaccination varied widely by state and was more likely for children requiring only one dose. Based on the statistical models, children likely to be fully vaccinated were older, non-black, had a mother with an education >12 years, or lived in a high-income household.Conclusions: Most children in the U.S. are not fully vaccinated against influenza. Reminder systems and interventions that reduce or remove barriers to children receiving their second doses of influenza vaccine may improve full influenza vaccination coverage among all children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]