Dataset Information

Equine influenza vaccination in the UK: Current practices may leave horses with suboptimal immunity.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vaccination is integral to preventive healthcare. Despite numerous guidelines on equine vaccination, evidence of current vaccination practices is lacking.

Objectives

To describe current vaccination practices advised by vets treating horses in the United Kingdom (UK) and compare practices with manufacturer datasheets and current guidelines.

Study design

Cross-sectional survey.

Methods

An online questionnaire was distributed using email addresses acquired through professional registration listings and social media, targeting vets who treat horses in the UK. The questionnaire collected demographic data and information regarding vaccination practices and vaccine hesitancy. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

Results

Questionnaires were completed by 304 UK vets working with horses used for leisure (97.4%, n = 296/304), competition (86.2%, n = 262/304), stud-work (47.7%, n = 145/304) and racing (40.5%, n = 123/304). Variation was identified in vaccine protocols for competition and noncompetition horses. Fifty-seven per cent (n = 170/298) of respondents reported variation in advised 'booster' frequency; most commonly (n = 118) advising a 6-monthly vaccination in competition horses and annual vaccination in noncompetition horses. Most common vaccination guidelines volunteered were British Horseracing Authority (68.8%, n = 172/250) and Federation Equestre Internationale (66.4%, n = 166/250). Most vaccination practices were not consistent with datasheet guidance. Only 7.7% (n = 23/300) of respondents complied with datasheet timeframes between the second and third vaccination. Adverse events following vaccination in the previous year were encountered by 66% (n = 199/304) of respondents, representing 2760 adverse events; but only 526 (19.1%) cases were reported to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Most common reactions were transient, including stiffness (931), localised swelling (835), lethargy (559) and pyrexia (355). 86.4% respondents reported vaccine hesitancy from horse owners, most commonly due to perception of over-vaccination, cost and concern regarding adverse events.

Main limitations

Potential selection, respondent and recall bias. The recent Equine Influenza (EI) and Equine Herpes Virus (EHV) outbreaks in the UK may have altered responses.

Conclusions

Current equine vaccination practices, although complying with competition rules, are mostly noncompliant with datasheet guidelines, potentially risking suboptimal immunity.

SUBMITTER: Wilson A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8451788 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Although annual influenza vaccination is recommended for healthcare providers (HCPs), vaccination rate among HCPs in India is generally low. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to evaluate physicians' awareness, attitude, and current practices toward influenza vaccination in high-risk groups in India. Methods: The survey was performed in June-July 2020, wherein consulting physicians, pulmonologists, diabetologists, obstetricians/gynecologists, or cardiologists across 14 cities completed a 39-item questionnaire consisting of 3 sections, one each on awareness, attitude, and practice patterns. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the study results. Statistical analysis was performed for comparison of subgroups by physician specialty, city of practice (metro/non-metro), and zone of practice (north/south/east/west). Level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: In all, 780 physicians completed the survey. Of these, 3.97, 53.08, and 42.95% had high, medium, and low level of awareness about influenza/influenza vaccination, respectively. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) between-group differences were found by physician specialty and zone of practice. In terms of attitude toward vaccination of high-risk group subjects, only 0.9% physicians were "extremely concerned," while the majority (92.56%) were "quite concerned" and 6.54% were a "little concerned," with no reported significant differences between different subgroups. With regard to practice patterns, 82.82% of physicians offered influenza vaccines to their patients, 32.69% vaccinated 10-25% of patients per month, and 38.85% required and offered the vaccine to their office staff. Physicians' reasons for not prescribing influenza vaccines to patients included fear of side effects (16.54%), cost (15.64%), lack of awareness about availability (15.38%), absence of belief that it is beneficial (14.36%), history of side effects (13.46%), and patients' fear of needles (11.28%). Conclusion: These findings suggest the need to implement educational strategies among physicians to enhance their awareness about influenza vaccination and improve their attitudes and current practices toward influenza vaccination especially in high-risk groups in India.