Dataset Information

Self-rated health and reasons for non-vaccination against seasonal influenza in Canadian adults with asthma.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

While seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for individuals with asthma, uptake in this population is low. We examined how self-rated health impacts reasons for not being immunized against influenza in Canadian adults with asthma, focusing on those who have never been immunized.

Methods

We pooled four cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (cycles 3.1(2005), 2007/08, 2009/10 and 2011/12), grouping individuals by whether their reasons for not having been vaccinated were perceptual or technical. We used a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusted for confounders, to quantify the relationship between self-rated health and their reported reasons for not vaccinating.

Results

Among the 9,836 respondents, 84.4% cited perceptual barriers as a reason for not being vaccinated. After adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and province of residence, we determined that reporting perceptual barriers was associated with self-rated health status, with the adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.42 (95%CI: 0.97, 2.09) to 2.64 (95%CI: 1.74, 3.99) for fair and excellent health versus poor health, respectively. Each increase in self-rated health category was associated with greater odds of citing a perceptual rather than technical barrier as a reason for non-vaccination.

Discussion

Self-reported health influences people's perception of the need for influenza vaccination. Viewing the results through the lens of the precaution adoption process model suggests that personalizing communication around both the risk of influenza and the effectiveness of the vaccine may improve uptake amongst adults with asthma.

SUBMITTER: Guthrie JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5312957 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In advance of a large influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) cohort study among older adults in Thailand, we conducted a population-based, cross-sectional survey to measure vaccine coverage and identify factors associated with influenza vaccination among older Thai adults that could bias measures of vaccine effectiveness.We selected adults ?65 years using a two-stage, stratified, cluster sampling design. Functional status was assessed using the 10-point Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES); scores ?3 indicated vulnerability. Questions about attitudes towards vaccination were based on the Health Belief Model. The distance between participants' households and the nearest vaccination clinic was calculated. Vaccination status was determined using national influenza vaccination registry. Prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using log-binomial multivariable models accounting for the sampling design.We enrolled 581 participants, of whom 60% were female, median age was 72 years, 41% had at least one chronic underlying illness, 24% met the criteria for vulnerable, and 23% did not leave the house on a daily basis. Influenza vaccination rate was 34%. In multivariable models, no variable related to functional status was associated with vaccination. The strongest predictors of vaccination were distance to the nearest vaccination center (PR 3.0, 95% CI 1.7-5.1 for participants in the closest quartile compared to the furthest), and high levels of a perception of benefits of influenza vaccination (PR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4-5.6) and cues to action (PR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5-5.1).Distance to vaccination clinics should be considered in analyses of influenza VE studies in Thailand. Strategies that emphasize benefits of vaccination and encourage physicians to recommend annual influenza vaccination could improve influenza vaccine uptake among older Thai adults. Outreach to more distant and less mobile older adults may also be required to improve influenza vaccination coverage.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Understanding reasons for and against vaccination from the parental perspective is critical for designing vaccination campaigns and informing other interventions to increase vaccination uptake in Canada. The objective of this study was to understand maternal vaccination decision making for children. METHODS:Mothers participating in a longitudinal community-based pregnancy cohort, the All Our Babies study in Calgary, Alberta, completed open-ended survey questions providing explanations for the vaccination status of their child by 24?months postpartum. Qualitative responses were linked to administrative vaccination records to examine survey responses and recorded child vaccination status. RESULTS:There were 1560 open-ended responses available; 89% (n?=?1391) provided explanations for vaccinating their children, 5% (n?=?79) provided explanations for not vaccinating/delaying, and 6% (n?=?90) provided explanations for both. Themes were similar for those vaccinating and not vaccinating/delaying; however, interpretations were different. Two broad themes were identified: Sources of influence and Deliberative Processes. Sources of influence on decision making included personal, family, and external experiences. Deliberative Processes included risk, research, effectiveness, and balancing risks/benefits. Under Deliberative Processes, responsibility was a category for those vaccinating; while choice, instrumental/practical, and health issues were categories for those not vaccinating/delaying. Mothers' levels of conviction and motivation provided a Context for understanding their decision making perspectives. CONCLUSIONS:Vaccination decision making is complex and impacted by many factors that are similar but contribute to different decisions depending on mothers' perspectives. The results of this study indicate the need to examine new intervention approaches to increase uptake that recognize and address feelings of pressure and parental commitment to choice.