Dataset Information

Influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: A comprehensive critical appraisal of the literature.

ABSTRACT: Influenza imposes a significant burden worldwide from the healthcare and socio-economic standpoints. This is also due to suboptimal vaccination coverage among the target population, even though immunization is recommended since many years and still remains the fundamental tool for its prevention. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of exposure to respiratory pathogens compared with the general population, including flu, with potential threat for their health and for patients' safety. Nevertheless, despite recommendation for immunization of this work-category in most of Western Countries, inadequate flu vaccine uptake is reported during the last decade in the European area. According to recent systematic reviews on this topic, the main determinants of vaccine acceptance among HCWs have been largely investigated and include desire for self-protection and to protect family rather than absolute disease risk or desire to protect patients, among the main drivers. On the other hand, concerns regarding safety of the vaccines resulted in decreased vaccine uptake. Moreover, influenza vaccine hesitancy among HCWs was also associated with several issues such as low risk perception, denial of the social benefit of influenza vaccination, low social pressure, lack of perceived behavioral control, negative attitude toward vaccines, not having been previously vaccinated against influenza, not having previously had influenza, lack of adequate influenza-specific knowledge, lack of access to vaccination facilities, and socio-demographic variables. The topic of influenza vaccination among HCWs is challenging, full of ethical issues. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of interventions for improving vaccine uptake among HCWs found that combined strategies were more effective than isolate approaches. Mandatory policies are currently under debate in several countries. High quality studies would help policy-makers and stake-holders to shape evidence-based initiatives and programs to improve the control of influenza.

SUBMITTER: Dini G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5861785 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: A comprehensive critical appraisal of the literature.

Dini Guglielmo G Toletone Alessandra A Sticchi Laura L Orsi Andrea A Bragazzi Nicola Luigi NL Durando Paolo P

Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics 20171020 3

Influenza imposes a significant burden worldwide from the healthcare and socio-economic standpoints. This is also due to suboptimal vaccination coverage among the target population, even though immunization is recommended since many years and still remains the fundamental tool for its prevention. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of exposure to respiratory pathogens compared with the general population, including flu, with potential threat for their health and for patients' safety. ...[more]

PMID: 28787234

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFour cluster randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) conducted in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have reported reductions in patient risk through increased healthcare worker (HCW) influenza vaccination. This evidence has led to expansive policies of enforcement that include all staff of acute care hospitals and other healthcare settings beyond LTCFs. We critique and quantify the cRCT evidence for indirect patient benefit underpinning policies of mandatory HCW influenza vaccination.MethodsPlausibility of the four cRCT findings attributing indirect patient benefits to HCW influenza vaccination was assessed by comparing percentage reductions in patient risk reported by the cRCTs to predicted values. Plausibly predicted values were derived according to the basic mathematical principle of dilution, taking into account HCW influenza vaccine coverage and the specificity of patient outcomes for influenza. Accordingly, predicted values were calculated as a function of relevant compound probabilities including vaccine efficacy (ranging 40-60% in HCWs and favourably assuming the same indirect protection conferred through them to patients) × change in proportionate HCW influenza vaccine coverage (as reported by each cRCT) × percentage of a given patient outcome (e.g. influenza-like illness (ILI) or all-cause mortality) plausibly due to influenza virus. The number needed to vaccinate (NNV) for HCWs to indirectly prevent patient death was recalibrated based on real patient data of hospital-acquired influenza, with adjustment for potential under-detection (5.2-fold), and using favourable assumptions of HCW-attributable risk (ranging 60-80%).ResultsIn attributing patient benefit to increased HCW influenza vaccine coverage, each cRCT was found to violate the basic mathematical principle of dilution by reporting greater percentage reductions with less influenza-specific patient outcomes (i.e., all-cause mortality > ILI > laboratory-confirmed influenza) and/or patient mortality reductions exceeding even favourably-derived predicted values by at least 6- to 15-fold. If extrapolated to all LTCF and hospital staff in the United States, the prior cRCT-claimed NNV of 8 would implausibly mean >200,000 and >675,000 patient deaths, respectively, could be prevented annually by HCW influenza vaccination, inconceivably exceeding total US population mortality estimates due to seasonal influenza each year, or during the 1918 pandemic, respectively. More realistic recalibration based on actual patient data instead shows that at least 6000 to 32,000 hospital workers would need to be vaccinated before a single patient death could potentially be averted.ConclusionsThe four cRCTs underpinning policies of enforced HCW influenza vaccination attribute implausibly large reductions in patient risk to HCW vaccination, casting serious doubts on their validity. The impression that unvaccinated HCWs place their patients at great influenza peril is exaggerated. Instead, the HCW-attributable risk and vaccine-preventable fraction both remain unknown and the NNV to achieve patient benefit still requires better understanding. Although current scientific data are inadequate to support the ethical implementation of enforced HCW influenza vaccination, they do not refute approaches to support voluntary vaccination or other more broadly protective practices, such as staying home or masking when acutely ill.

Project description:BackgroundSeasonal influenza is a highly contagious vaccine-preventable disease that may cause high morbidity and mortality in susceptible populations. Healthcare workers are a priority group for seasonal influenza vaccination to protect them from contracting influenza and prevent nosocomial transmission to patients. This study aimed to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of seasonal influenza vaccination among healthcare workers in Honduras.MethodFrom August 24 to October 21, 2018, we conducted a cross-sectional KAP survey regarding seasonal influenza vaccination to a random sample of healthcare workers who attended patients in hospitals of the Ministry of Health of Honduras (SESAL) and Honduran Social Security Institute (IHSS). We reported frequency distributions of demographics, vaccination KAP, sources of information, and reasons for non-vaccination. We used principal components factor analysis to create knowledge and attitude scores. We used linear regression to analyze associations between demographics and sources of information about the influenza vaccine, and knowledge and attitude scores. We used logistic regression to analyze associations between demographics, sources of information, knowledge scores, and attitude scores, and influenza vaccination.ResultWe surveyed 947 healthcare workers who attended patients in 13 SESAL hospitals and two IHSS hospitals. Only 4.6% of participants knew the seasonal influenza vaccine was composed of inactivated viruses, 94.7% believed vaccination causes flu-like symptoms, and 52.0% were vaccinated for influenza in 2018. Knowledge scores were lower for nursing assistants and other healthcare professionals compared to doctors, and higher for healthcare workers who attended a healthcare facility training (P-values≤0.030). Attitude scores were higher for healthcare workers who attended ≥11 patients per day having ≤10 patients per day as reference, self-reported influenza vaccination in previous year, and cited trainings and informal information at the healthcare facility as sources of information for influenza vaccination (P-values≤0.030). Factors associated with self-reported vaccination were self-reported influenza vaccination in previous year (aOR: 7.61; 95% CI: 5.24-11.04), attitude score (aOR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.07-1.21), and worked in a SESAL hospital (aOR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.12-2.68) having IHSS as reference.ConclusionAlthough influenza vaccination is required by law in Honduras and available for free in public health centers, coverage of healthcare workers in 2018 was half that reported in 2017. Lower coverage may be attributed to misconceptions of vaccination side effects.

Dataset Information

Influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: A comprehensive critical appraisal of the literature.

Publications

Influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: A comprehensive critical appraisal of the literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets