Uptake of influenza immunization is low. Attitudes to one's health and to the value of influenza immunization affect the uptake as does the delivery of the immunization programme.

Aim: To explore attitudes to influenza immunisation and rates of uptake among staff working in acute hospitals in the UK. Method: A cross-sectional survey of 11 670 healthcare workers in six UK hospitals was carried out using a postal questionnaire. Results: Among 6302 responders (54% of those mailed), 19% had taken up influenza immunisation during winter 2002/3. Vaccination was well tolerated, with a low prevalence of side effects (13%) and associated time off work (2%). The majority of subjects who accepted vaccination (66%) were most strongly influenced by the personal benefits of protection against influenza. Prevention of sickness absence and protection of patients were the prime motivation for only 10% and 7% of subjects, respectively. Among 3967 who declined vaccination, the most common primary demotivators were concern about safety (31%) and efficacy (29%). 22% were most strongly deterred by lack of time to attend for vaccination. Free text answers indicated that 37% declined because of a perceived low ratio of personal benefits to adverse effects. Subjects said they would be persuaded to take up vaccination in future by easier access (36%), more information about personal benefit and risk (34%) and more information about effects on staff absence (24%). Conclusions: These findings indicate that the uptake of influenza immunisation among UK healthcare workers remains low. There is some scope for increasing uptake by improving accessibility and encouragement from professional peers. However, the results suggest that perception of small personal benefit in relation to risk mitigates, importantly, against higher uptake of routine annual influenza vaccination. Thus, resource might better be allocated to ensuring efficient management in epidemic years. The effect of publicity about pandemic influenza on risk perception and vaccine uptake among healthcare workers during winter 2005/6 warrants further study.

The effect of mild hypoglycemia on psychomotor performance and counterregulatory responses was studied among 12 healthy volunteers. Each volunteer received two modified hyperinsulinemic glucose clamps. One morning, plasma glucose was held constant at euglycemic levels (4.9 mM) for 95 min, and another morning, it was lowered over 35 min and then held constant at hypoglycemic levels (3.4 mM) for 60 min. A battery of psychomotor tests and a questionnaire assessing hypoglycemic symptoms were administered before and repeated during the last 30 min of each clamp. The questionnaire and three selected psychomotor tests were also administered repetitively during the 1st h of each clamp. During the hypoglycemic studies, a rise was seen in plasma epinephrine and pancreatic polypeptide at 45 min. An increase in symptom scores was first recorded at 50 min during the hypoglycemic studies [median 4 (range 0-13) vs. 2 (5-6), P less than .05]. Performance was impaired on two psychomotor tests included in the battery. One was the trail making test on fine motor performance (-19.3 +/- 4.2 targets/min, mean +/- SE vs. 1.2 +/- 4.8 targets/min, P less than .05), and the other was the digit-symbol substitution (DSS) test on information processing and memory (18 +/- 3 vs. 29 +/- 4 symbols/min, P less than .03). Of the tests administered during the 1st h, performance was impaired on the DSS. This impairment became significant at 45 min (14 +/- 4 vs. 22 +/- 4 symbols/min, P less than .005). In conclusion, mild hypoglycemia selectively impairs psychomotor performance in healthy volunteers but not before the onset of glucose counterregulation and warning symptoms.

In addition to its recognized health effects, influenza has socio-economic consequences, most notably sickness absence and associated work disruption. It may account for 10-12% of all sickness absence from work. Data on the impact of influenza on work are limited. Most research has assessed the impact of an intervention, usually influenza immunization. Within the available literature, there are five randomized controlled trials in the workplace that have assessed the effectiveness of influenza immunization as an intervention: two in the general working population and three in the health sector. If the benefit desired is a reduction in sickness absence as a cost-effective measure, the likely outcome is a modest gain in years when incidence of influenza is increased in the community. There are some distinctive factors in the health care industry: health care workers may exhibit different absence behaviour, they may be more exposed to infection at work and they may pose a risk as a source of nosocomial infection. From the occupational health perspective, how do we best inform employers currently? The cost-effectiveness case has not been absolutely proven. More research appears necessary, including assessment of those factors that influence uptake of influenza immunization. In the interim, a targeted approach to certain job categories may be the way forward.

Infection with Heptatis C virus (HCV) is estimated to affect 3% of the world's population and is an important cause of liver disease. It is most commonly transmitted by percutaneous exposure. Although current evidence does not suggest an increased prevalence of HCV infection among healthcare workers, transmission of infection following occupational exposure has been demonstrated. An average transmission rate of 1.8%, following percutaneous injury, has been reported. The risk of transmission is higher from patients with viraemia, as measured by a positive polymerase chain reaction for HCV RNA. After exposure to HCV, healthcare workers should be actively followed up, initially using a test to detect viral RNA. This may faciliate earlier diagnosis and treatment. Recent reports in the UK, of transmission of infection to patients from HCV infected healthcare workers, have prompted a review of the appropriateness of HCV infected individuals undertaking exposure prone procedures.