Search

Background: Influenza is a major public health issue, with the primary preventive measure being an annual influenza vaccination. Nevertheless, vaccination coverage among the at-risk population is low. Our understanding of the behaviour of the influenza virus during the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic is limited, meaning influenza vaccination is still recommended for individuals at risk for severe complications due to influenza infection. The aim of the study is to determine the intention to vaccinate against seasonal influenza among the at-risk population in the 2020-21 campaign during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to analyse the factors which influence such intention. Methods: Cross-sectional telephone survey of adults (aged over 18) with risk factors in central Catalonia where the need for the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (SIV) was recommended. Results: A total of 434 participants responded to the survey, 43.3% of whom intended to be vaccinated against influenza for the 2020-2021 influenza season, 40.8% had no intention to be vaccinated and 15.9% were uncertain or did not express their opinion. The intention to get vaccinated against influenza is associated with having dependents, the individual's perception of the risk of being infected with influenza and the perceived risk of transmission to dependents. It is also associated with age, whether the individual had received influenza vaccine the previous season or any other season before. The best predictors of the intention to vaccinate are the individual's perception of the risk of catching influenza and whether the individual had been vaccinated in the previous season. Conclusions: Intention to vaccinate can be a good predictor of individual behaviour in relation to vaccination. During the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic many individuals are hesitant to influenza vaccination. In order to improve influenza vaccination coverage in people included in risk groups, it is necessary to promote educational actions, especially among those who express doubts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Influenza vaccination is the main measure of prevention against epidemic flu. Although recommended, vaccination coverage remains low. The lack of knowledge about the evolution of influenza in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic led to the recommendation of influenza vaccination to people at risk and professionals to avoid a greater burden than the one already posed by SARS-CoV-2. The aim of the study is to determine health professionals' intention to vaccinate against seasonal flu in the 2020-2021 campaign, in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and to analyse the factors that influence it. Cross-sectional study through a structured survey aimed at Primary Care professionals in Central Catalonia. A total of 610 participants responded to the survey, 65.7% of whom intended to get vaccinated against influenza in this campaign, and 11.1% did not know or did not answer. The intention to get vaccinated is associated with the professional category and the number of years of professional practice. The profile of the professionals who intend to get vaccinated against flu includes professionals with a history of vaccination, who participate in on-call duties and perceive that their dependents were at risk of becoming ill. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, although almost two-thirds of the respondents showed a clear intention to get vaccinated against influenza, 11% were doubtful. To improve influenza vaccination uptake among health professionals, strategies need to be devised to target those professionals who are hesitant or reluctant to vaccinate.

Objective: Healthcare professionals is one of the risk groups to which influenza vaccination is recommended. The main objective was to know the attitudes of healthcare professionals about influenza vaccination in the Principality of Asturias' reference centre during the campaign 2017-2018., Methods: We carried out a cross-sectional study between September 2017 and May 2018, using a questionnaire. Sociodemographic variables and reasons for accepting or refuse the influenza vaccination were studied. For descriptive analysis we used the mean, mode, standard deviation, range, frequencies and percentages. The comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated was made by the Chi square test, Saphiro-Wilk test and U Mann-Whitney test., Results: The sample was formed by 518 participants, finally resulted a 29.53% vaccination rate. The principal reason for accepting the vaccine was its efficacy (average on the Likert scale of 4.11 out of 5), while the main reason for not vaccination was the lack of interest (mean=3.41 out of 5). It confirmed relationship between the type of contract and the professional category, the lower vaccination was in the temporary staff (p=0.003) and the nursing profession (p<0.001). We also found association between professionals that used to receive the vaccine in all the campaigns (p<0.001) and those who received the immunization in their workplace (p=0.002). Finally, the profession (p=0.014) and the family (p<0.001) also were influential in the decision of the immunized., Conclusions: The vaccination rate of the professionals who work in the Asturias´ reference hospital is similar to that of other health centres in Spain, but it is below the objective set by the World Health Organization. The previous contact with the influenza immunization, a positive working environment respecting the vaccine and the promotion of information, could be favourable factors in the vaccinal decision of the health workers., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Objective: The use of mobile immunization teams has been proposed as a strategy to increase influenza vaccination (IV) coverage among healthcare workers (HCW), but has not been evaluated in Primary Healthcare (PHC). The objective of this work was to determine if the use of mobile immunization teams increases IV coverage among HCW of a basic health area in the Valencian Community., Methods: Community intervention trial that included all HCWs from a basic health area in the Valencian Community. The assignment was by conglomerates in one stage, with the HCWs of a health center as an intervention group and that of the rest of the centers as a control group. The intervention group was visited by a team consisting of a doctor and a nurse who offered on-site IV, while the control group did not receive such a visit. The independent variable was the visit of the mobile immunization team and the dependent variable was IV in the study season (2015-2016). Data analysis was done both for the total IV coverage and separately for sex, age, professional category and history of IV in the previous seasons. A McNemar test was used to compare frequency distributions of paired data., Results: The control group went from 14 (31.8%) vaccinated in the 2014-2015 season to 19 (45.2%) in the 2015-2016 season, while the intervention group went from 19 (30.6%) to 34 (54.8%). Among the total of the WHCs it went from 33 (31.3%) vaccinated to 53 (50.0%). This increase was significant. By groups, the increase was significant among those who received the visit of the mobile team (p = 0.0003), but not in the control group (p = 0.18)., Conclusions: The visit of a mobile immunization team is a significant factor favorable to IV among HCW in our setting., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Introduction: The objective of this study is to determine the reasons for refusing the flu vaccination in the Primary Care Health Centre of Vilanova de Arousa, Spain, as well as to evaluate the flu vaccination coverage after an educational intervention., Material and Methods: A quasi-experimental before and after study was conducted after an educational intervention on a total of 73 people that included those Primary Care Health Centre patients from Vilanova de Arousa who had refused the flu vaccination in 2014, and who did not meet the exclusion criteria (death during 2014 and 2015 campaigns, non-acceptance of participation, vaccine registration mistakes, contraindication or no indication for the vaccine, inability to contact). After a brief educational intervention, vaccination data from those patients in the 2015 and 2016 campaigns were checked. A descriptive analysis of the variables under study was then carried out. Of the 73 patients initially included, 72 completed the study., Results: The main reasons for refusing a vaccination were the concerns about the adverse effects and patient perception of good health. Vaccination coverage was 50.7% in 2015, and 48.6% in 2016., Conclusions: The reasons for refusing vaccination are approachable with a brief intervention since the refusal decreases by half in the long-term., (Copyright © 2018 Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN). Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)