Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T02:22:35.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitude of Healthcare Personnel Regarding Influenza Immunization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Chatrchai Watanakunakorn ,
George Ellis  and
David Gemmel
Chatrchai Watanakunakorn*
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Section, St. Elizabeth Hospital Medical Center, Youngstown, Ohio Department of Internal Medicine, St. Elizabeth Hospital Medical Center, Youngstown, Ohio Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio
George Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, St. Elizabeth Hospital Medical Center, Youngstown, Ohio
David Gemmel
Affiliation:
Division of Research, St. Elizabeth Hospital Medical Center, Youngstown, Ohio
*
St. Elizabeth Hospital Medical Center, P.O. Box 1790, Youngstown, Ohio 44501-l 790
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To survey the attitudes of healthcare personnel regarding influenza immunization.

Design:

A questionnaire was given to all hospital employees.

Setting:

A 650-bed community teaching hospital.

Intervention:

Employees were offered an in-service regarding influenza immunization in October 1991. Influenza immunization was given free of charge by Employee Health Services from October to December 1991. One thousand fifty-six employees (30.2%) received influenza vaccines. Survey forms were distributed with paychecks to all employees during the second half of January 1992. Completed survey forms were returned during the next 2 weeks.

Results:

One thousand two hundred three of the 3,501 (34.3%) questionnaires were returned. Some of the survey forms were not completely filled out. A total of 28.1% of male employees (202/717) and 35.4% of female employees (987/2783) (p<.01) responded. Mean years employed were 11.35 ± 7.57 for respondents and 9.30 ± 7.39 for all employees (p<.001). Four hundred sixty-one respondents (38.4%) received the influenza vaccine and 734 (6 1.4%) did not. Among the respondents, employees who were older or working full time were more likely to receive the vaccine. Proportionally, more respondents who received the vaccine attended the in-service, although only 8.7% of those immunized attributed their receiving influenza vaccine to the in-service. More physician respondents were vaccinated. Tbe respondents who received influenza vaccine were more likely to have received the vaccine during the past 2 years (p<.001). The major reasons given for not receiving the vaccine were “bad side effects” and “do not like shots.” The major side effect of influenza immunization was a “sore arm.” Multivariate analysis suggested that the in-service was not associated with obtaining the vaccine.

Conclusions:

The in-service regarding influenza immunization seemed to have a negligible influence. Most employees who received the vaccine had previous influenza immunization. There were no major side effects of influenza immunization. “Bad side effects” and “do not like shots” were major reasons given for not receiving influenza vaccine.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 17 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1993 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Centers for Disease Control. Recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP). Prevention and control of influenza. MMWR. 1991;40:1–15.Google Scholar
2. Van Voris, LP, Belshe, RB, Shaffer, JL. Nosocomial influenza B virus infection in the elderly. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96:153–158.10.7326/0003-4819-96-2-153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Weingarten, S, Friedlander, M, Rascon, D, Auk, M, Morgan, M, Meyer, RD. Influenza surveillance in a acute-care hospital. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:113–116.10.1001/archinte.1988.00380010117011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Pachucki, CT, Pappas, SAW, Fuller, GF, Krause, SL, Lentino, JR Schaaff, DM. Influenza A among hospital personnel and patients. Implication for recognition, prevention, and control. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:77–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Pachucki, CT, Lentino, , Jackson, GG. Attitude and behavior of health care personnel regarding the use and efficacy of influenza vaccine. J Infect Dis. 1985;151:1170–1171.10.1093/infdis/151.6.1170CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Ganguly, R, Russell, DW, Yangco, BV, Chmel, H, Cameron, DJ, Sinnott, J. Intluenza vaccination status among health care professional for prevention of nosocomial infection to hospitalized elderly patients. Serodiug Zmmunotherlnfect Dis. 1990;4:309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Margolis, KL, Poland, GA, Nichol, KL, et al. Frequency of adverse reactions after influenza vaccination, Am J Med. 1990;88:27–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed